at he cared about. >> let's jump back to the hill and fast-forward through the august recess the government funding deadline. every going to have another fight to get that down for last-minute? a government shutdown? can you sign an agreement that is palatable? >> i think the question is will the democrats in the senate try to shortchange the minimum and in the military by trying to derail the defense appropriations bill? they tried to play politics. i think there will be a very bad thing to the detriment of our military. if they succeed in filibustering than that

moment will come. and if that moment that comes we will assess at the time how you address it. the deal we did a couple years ago was gun. we are back to the's being where they are. are. have a solution for military.

>> the administration is obviously less going to accept friendly cuts. and it limit crisis. crisis. you guys both the economy again. clicks give me a break. >> i don't mean you guys. >> am talking about general disdain for congress. >> i am i am just sort of used to it. [laughter] clicks when i say you guys gen. reference. clicks when i say you say un the media, general reference. clicks i i now we have a few things in front of us highways tax extenders that must be dealt with.

so it is just way too early to speculate what the debt limit agreement looks like. i don't even want to go there. >> i'm going to take a couple of 20 questions. one of them is what specific regulations would you modify >> your bias is showing again. >> i am. >> specifically and channeling the financial reform. >> i would send them to bankruptcy. an uber regulator. de-escalate the too big to

fail doctrine. the most offensive provision and agency zero accountability that gets the money from the federal reserve committee was my fear and concern. talk to any community bank or any part of america that serves small town wrote communities. what they see coming is there standardizing credit. since these two big to fail firms get systemically risky to my liking it deeper money. the big banks no offense nothing personal but the big

banks can go out there and take over the business can make it cheaper money and offer better products. a small banks can't. more cronyism, too big to fail. big thanks getting bigger and small things getting fewer. free enterprise. especially people who don't have good credit or try to have type -- starting to try a business. i think.frank was a was a huge wet rag on the economy. do we want accountability transparency, people make bad bets and lose their money. a few things. i think we need to go back.

>> repeal of.frank. >> of .-dot frank. >> and let me tell you something. i would not repeal it and just do nothing. i will. and do better policy. clicks another twitter question. thoughts on the recent paperwork dealing with private change? >> i read a i read a lot of it. the summaries and passages. it is important, number one. the word of the pope. with the pope is trying to to do is start a debate cannot settle one number

two, especially with this pope, i find that how he has reinterpreted through the filters every of the interpreters versus what he actually writes number three, i think that it is important to recognize the totality of what this is. i talked is. i talked about more than just a global warming or climate change. i talked about a hack a lot more. the poor, affordability, life, the need to protect all life, not just the environment. it is important that people understand the totality and that this is not settling debate that simply trying to start the debate. >> i want to talk a little bit about your characterization by some democrats on the left and went to say paul ryan is -- likes to beat up on the poor likes to take money away from welfare programs all the terrible things he

doesn't's budget to fund these government programs. what doesn't sit well with you obviously know when when you see those kind of characterizations, your response when democrats look at your budget and say it's a punitive budget it would hurt. >> are used to it and i'm doing it somewhere. honestly. absolutely unsustainable. i think i have heard some describe and we have the poverty industrial complex more focused on status quo than actually thinking about reassessing our approach. that is what we are trying to do. again, trigger a debate debate to reassess. my whole argument is let's put money aside. put that aside. spend the same a lot of money. look at what we do as a government in a government in a society to fight poverty. it is not working. and so i think 50 years of this war on poverty having a

slick. let's look at the metrics and look at how we define success. will you right now to find success based on effort and put calamity programs we have created, the funding level? that is how success is defined. we still defined. we still have among the highest poverty rates in the generation. so maybe we should do something different. and so let's change the measurement of success to be outcomes results. how many people he actually getting out of poverty? what works? and that is why patty murray and i have a bill which are moving through. we're going to pass this this year. figure out how to measure this and how to go from an input measurement system to an outcome based measurement system. this is not ideological or partisan command if we can get to measuring success based upon outcomes, improving people's lives, and the and the

federal government has a role to play. communities, subsidiaries. there is a lot that we can learn from people who are successfully fighting poverty every day. we should be behind them, not in front of them and support them not displace them. look at our comeback miniseries that shows you what is amazing that is happening out there. go back to the bill, let's have a debate about what works and what does not work which is, to me the better debate which will produce progress. if progress. if we just have this republican democrat liberal conservative this cap this was been moron that we will just have more of the same. if we try and fix this problem by having an outcome based results-based approach on it we will be a lot better off. i think there are a lot of things out there, there, proven successes that we can get behind to actually truly help. our safety net our safety

net, i know. i safety net is designed to get people flowing in the poverty. we need a safety that is designed to get people out of poverty clicks let's go back for a minute. you mentioned tax expenditures and said before that the role of the possible on tax reforms of the international is there anything else you can get done? what are the prospects of doing those who things. what can you produce? >> number one, the last thing thing we want is a number to have another december 11 experience. adjusted retroactively which means of december 31 they go away. that is not good for the economy. i cannot tell you how many farmers say you were giving me two weeks to decide whether i could buy my combine. this does not work. i would love love nothing more than the come back from august

recess with a plan in place to enact in september. in the house a feeling we could do that. >> the senate moves more slowly than the house. get people predictable. and why we want to make these things permanent. section 179 small businesses. write it off. pretty simple: make sense. we do it every year not controversial, everyone controversial, everyone agrees with it but we do it on an annual basis and you cannot plan for it and everyone agrees to do it a year at a time meaning that raising taxes on the people. people. so why don't we just make this permanent? makes perfect sense. we're not getting economic value. let's just get it done. we disagree with the notion

that you need to raise taxes >> if we get a republican president and you are still in this position give me your top three things that a comprehensive tax reform package would look like including personal income rights and corporate rates. >> not unlike what we were hoping to do in the first hundred days. the budget and tax bill going to be big meaning we have a health care crisis coming. affordable care made worse not better. we have to fix that. number two we need to reform our taxes. we are having our hats handed to us in a global international scale, not getting the kind of growth we ought to be aspiring to. our international average

tax rate is 25%. to me that is a starting point. and that means. and that means all rates should be knocked down a 25 percent let's not lose sight that 80 percent of american businesses are corporations. the top effective is 44.6 crushing competitiveness. where i come from overseas ms. lake superior. the canadians are north of us. wisconsin taxes businesses at 15 percent. england just announced that 20% is too high so they are dropping it to 18 percent ireland 12 and a half, china 25. >> and it continues. >> we're losing our tax base how competitiveness. he have got got to get rates across the board down clicks interrupt you on that dog that we are about to run out of time. i can't i can't believe i'm asking about this but i have to. all over the news. i know i used to be on

twitter. the question is is he damaging immigration, and should you be in the republican debate? >> he does not speak for the republican party command i think his comments were extremely disrespectful clicks should see? >> i will leave that. clicks and your future presidential plans college you like to run for president one day? 2020 or 2024. >> me my announcement now for 2020. >> i don't know the answer to the question. i really don't. do i feel like i can give the job i would not have joined the ticket if i did not think i could. who. who knows. i just don't know. >> very good. thank you thank you for a great conversation and for all of you for coming out.

[applauding] [inaudible conversations] >> coming up tonight the epa administrator gina mccarthy talks about the regulatory agenda. than remarks by members of congress on the confederate flag. that is followed by governor nikki haley. >> friday, a hearing on the operational challenges for the international space station. witnesses include former astronauts and representatives from nasa and boeing. starting at 9:00 a.m. eastern on c-span two. later, the congressional internet caucus examines internet defamation lawsuits and whether they challenge the freedom of speech that's --.

that's noon eastern on c-span two. >> kirsten anderson on technology and the millennial generation. >> when you take a look at where people's eyeballs are going these days come ages to be on television. political advertising became barry heavuy on ads. but now, they are looking at their phones. so folks in the political world who want to reach the next generation or just reach into the future understand what the future political advertising is going to look like. candy crusher whatever the latest game is -- kenny chris may be fading, but there's always something you can't --

kandi crash may be fading, but there's always something coming up. >> last month, the supreme court ruled 5-4 against the environmental protection agency citing increased utility costs for consumers. thursday, gina mccarthy testified about the agency regulatory agenda and answered questions about the status of subpoenaed documents and transparency issues. this is three hours.

>> over the last year, the environmental protection agency has released some of the most expensive and expensive regulations in its history. these rules will cause of billions of dollars, burden american families, and diminish the competitiveness of american industry around the world. today's hearing will examine this unprecedented regulatory agenda in a manner that epa has used secret signs -- secret science and -- this plan is nothing more than a power grab to give the government more control over americans' daily lives. these relations stifle economic growth, destroy american jobs and destroy energy prices.

that means everything will cost more from electricity to gasoline to food, which disproportionately hurts low-income americans. even epa data shows this regulation would reduce sea level rise by only one 100th of an inch, the thickness of three in -- three sheets of paper. this will incur a massive cost without significant benefits. it is all pain and no gain. epa also seeks to impose stricter ozone standards. once again, this comes with few benefits. since 1980, ozone levels have decreased by 33%. today's air quality will continue to improve with the expected development of practical new technologies. last week, the supreme court issued a ruling that is unimportant step in reining in

the extreme actions by the epa. it must consider the costs of its decisions and weigh them against any potential benefits. for two years, the committee requested the voluntary production of the data epa used to justify clean air regulations. the epa refusal to provide that led the science community -- science committee to issue its first subpoena and 23 years. it was forced to require second subpoena earlier this year. the administration claims that all but one was personal. most recently, the committee requested information and documents related to the epa development of the waters of the u.s. role and the inappropriate lobbying of outside

organizations to generate grassroots support. the committee was forced to issue a subpoena for the information. epa has begun to produce a limited number of documents to the committee. however, producing documents in bits and pieces, after months or years of delay, are not the actions of an open and transparent administration. they are the actions of an agency and administration that has something to hide. earlier this year, the house passed legislation that requires the epa to base its regulations on publicly available data. why would the epa want to hide this information from the american people? the epa has a responsibility to be open and transparent with the people it serves and whose money it spends. i hope the administrator will tell us today she will produce the data and other information the committee has requested. then she will help the president

to keep his pledge to maintain an open and transparent administration. that concludes my opening statement. representative johnson: i want to thank you for being here today. and please take back to the employees the epa my gratitude for their hard work and dedication. epa's job is as hard as it is important. for two generations, we relied on epa to be the one federal agency to protect the public and the environment from the pollution that comes with being an industrial society. standard against you are corporations who have built their profits on a business models that delivers lakes

oceans, and the sky as their dumping grounds. we can clean up the environment and grow our economy. if we were to rely just on the majority of assertions, we would think everything epa does is wrong. for example, the chairman has on a number of occasions cast the epa as a secretive organization setting out in aggressive regulatory agenda that ignores public comments and throttles the american economy. in fact, the reality of the situation is far different than the caricature. the reality is that the obama administration has done far more than the previous one to make sure that the water we drink and the air we breathe are clean. the administration is pursuing a pro health oriented agenda that includes reduce carbon emissions and slowing the path of global warming. these two actions are immensely

popular with the vast majority of americans. know what else is popular? the economic results that the obama administration has delivered. as of january, the economy had gained almost five times more jobs under obama than it did under the presidency of george w. bush. corporate profits are nearly doubled. stock prices have grown proportionately. this may come as news to my friends on the other side of the aisle, but we have seen epa actually enforce the law something that the prior administration was reluctant to do while also producing jobs and profits. it turns out that these are not mutually exclusive outcomes. now the chairman is try to picture of epa being engaged in secret dealings with the environmental community. he has made much of the administrative deleting text messages, the use of private e-mail by epa employees, and the

use of social media. the truth is that no other agency in our jurisdiction has had to develop a more public and public with its gust agenda than epa. -- and publicly discussed agenda than epa. it takes years and years of effort, the epa to move a regulation from a proposal to a final rule. you have to ignore all the public comment to believe there is something secretive about epa rulemaking. finally, the use of social media to communicate with the american public is nothing more than a

recognition of how our society communicates these days. engage in the public and providing opportunities to shape regulation appears to be a positive step toward a more democratic government. in the past few years, i've heard many members of the majority complain that epa needs to listen more to the public as they move proposals forward. however, the public consists of more than high-priced lobbyists. let me close by encouraging you to not let the investigative fear of this hearing to get to

you. there are some in think tanks and industry lobby shops and perhaps even on this committee whose mission seems to be to attack the reputation of the agency as a way to slow down your work. however, it is vitally important that epa keep working to protect public health and improve our environment. the agency has been doing a remarkable job on that score. and i hope and trust that you will not lose sight of the importance of the great public task. thank you and i yield back. chairman smith: our guest today's gina mccarthy of the environmental protection agency. she was the assistant administrator for the p office of air administration. she previously served the connecticut department of environment protection.

she has worked at both the state and local levels on environmental issues and help coordinate policies on energy, transportation, and the environment. and a masters of science in health and engineering and planning. administrative mccarthy, we welcome you and if you would begin. admin mccarthy: thank you chairman smith for inviting me here to testify on it the environmental regulatory efforts. the mission of epa is protection of public health and the environment and regulatory efforts in furtherance of those goals. we are guided in science and of the law which serve as the backbone of each of the agencies ' actions. i will focus and provide more details on three wheels which will hopefully provide tremendous benefit not only to

share this information about tremendous benefit to the public health. approximately 170 million americans which is one and 3 million people get their joint water from streams without clear protection -- one in three americans get their drinking water from streams without clear protection. the clean water rulelp to protect the waters vital to our health and economy. the clean water bill protects water and provide clarity on which waters are covered by the clean water act so they can be protected from pollution. the rule provides a clearer definition to establish which waters or jurisdictional and which are not and places boundaries for the first time it has limits case specific analysis. it makes clear it only applies when someone intends pollute or destroy a water because only

then it does the need for a federal permit a arise. it is not only maintains statutory exemptions from normal agricultural but expands regulatory exclusions to make it clear the rule does not add any additional permitting. and developing a rule, we held more than 400 meetings and reviewed over one million of public comments and listened carefully to perspectives from all sides. in addition, the agency is in the process of completing two significant rules. because the air we breathe is so important to our overall health the clean air act will review the ambient standards every five years to make sure they continue to protect public health with an adequate margin of safety. based on the law, acer review

and recommendations independent science and the assessment of epa scientists and technical experts, we issued a proposed rule last year taking comment on strengthening 75 pavilion. so with the adequately protect american' health and welfare. we invited comments, including an alternative level as low as 60 parts per billion and interest among some stakeholders in comments of the existing standards. we are currently reviewing the comments and will issue a final rule by october 1 of this year. our clean power plant. this summer, epa will finalize the clean power at which will cut carbon cut with that carbon pollution which is the largest stationary of co2 emissions in the country.

epa sought to provide a range of flexibility that will cut carbon pollution while maintaining affordable and safe guiding system liability. climate change is affecting communities all across the united states and impacts will increase in the future, burdening our children grandchildren with health and economic chef -- challenges. the efforts and fell 4.3 million comments we received has provided a tremendous amount of information. we expect to make changes to address many of the issues that have been right. a key consideration reinforced by many stakeholders before the proposal and during the comments is a need to design the role in a way we expect the urgency of climate change as well as the time it takes to plan and invest and the electricity sector in ways that ensure reliability and affordability.

and to use the best available science to implement our nation's environmental laws so we can adequately and effectively protect health. i will forward to taking your questions. chairman smith: thank you. let me say because of the interest today and the time limitations and expected votes and how many members are present, i will need to strictly enforce the five-minute rule even on my cell. when you will not start until i asked my questions. administrative mccarthy, my first question goes to the secret science reform act i introduce that passed the house and the relevant committee in the senate. president obama's science advisor testified before the committee and said the data on

which regulatory decisions and other decisions based should be made available to the committee and made public. why don't you agree with the size advisor and agree this data you used to justify should be made public? if you know it does not take a position and not making a judgment call and saying to the american people and other scientists desert to see it, i hope you have changed your mind. if so, we welcome that. admin mccarthy: let me first say epa totally supports transparency as well as a strong peer-reviewed independent science process. the bill, i am afraid, will not get us there. we have had conversations before. the way in which our science works for signed it -- chairman smith: why not make it public? admin mccarthy: the information you are asking us to reveal is

-- chairman smith: we have talked about it many times. it could be redacted. why can't you release the information? admin mccarthy: the fundamental difference of opinion is i do not need the rod data to develop some -- raw data. chairman smith: why can't you get at the data? surely you have it. admin mccarthy: epa has it the authority and need to get information we have provided to you. chairman smith: you are saying you cannot give it a because it is personal and now you say you do not have a print which is it? admin mccarthy: when we receive it, we cannot release it and much we do not have the authority -- chairman smith: the president's size advisor saying you should make a public and we will be happy to redacted. no reason why other scientists cannot review it and why the

american people should not see it. admin mccarthy: we are in line with the science advisor. he is not indicating every study that epa looks at to determine to of a body of -- chairman smith: i am saying the studies you relied upon to justify -- admin mccarthy: the body of data we do not generate, generating and science. chairman smith: i wish the epa you have nothing to hide and it looks like you're hiding a lot from the american people. admin mccarthy: just protecting peoples' privacy. chairman smith: their own ways to do and every body does except for the epa. i think the epa needs to look at it. the clean power plant a secretary said it will reduce global temperature by only 0.01 of a degrees celsius and

increase electricity and hurt the lowest income americans. how do you justify such an expensive, burdensome rule that will not do much good? isn't this all pain and no gain? admin mccarthy: i do not agree. if you look at the ira we did it is enormously beneficial. the value of this -- admin mccarthy: do you -- chairman smith: do you think .01 of a degree celsius is beneficial? admin mccarthy: it can trigger global action -- chairman smith: do you disagree with my figure? admin mccarthy: i am not disagreeing that it will not make all of the difference. what i am saying is if we do not take action domestically -- chairman smith: looking at the results, the results can not justify -- admin mccarthy: cost beneficial

-- chairman smith: we will disagree on that. the production of documents and i appreciate you have been more forthcoming. when can we expect to have all of the documents we have either requested or subpoenaed? admin mccarthy: epa is committed to transparency and compliance -- chairman smith: can you give me a date when you will produce the documents? admin mccarthy: there are a number and so we're still discussing -- chairman smith: any kind the date? admin mccarthy: i am happy to continue those discussions. chairman smith: they have not led to the production. if you are not willing to give me a date in way you will try to give us the documents, i cannot believe the epa is acting in good faith. when is it? admin mccarthy: you have a number of requests and i want to make sure i do not give a date i

cannot achieve. chairman smith: any target date? admin mccarthy: i cannot. the staff begins to discuss -- chairman smith: thomae, it continues a pattern of obstruction we have been seeing a it would be easy for you to say i will get my best in the next 30 days. the fact you are not willing is disappointing. we are talking about largely with of these regulations is all pain and no gain -- admin mccarthy: we will do it as quickly as we possibly can and make every effort. i am trying to avoid give you a date that anticipates -- chairman smith: i just want a target date, a good faith a day. i am not hearing that. ? your testimony today. go to the ranking member. -- thank you for your testimony today. rep. johnson: i want to remind you you went one minute over.

[laughter] chairman smith: the ranking member is correct. she gets an additional minute. she is the last person who needs an additional minute. rep. johnson: mrs. maccarthy, the house is in the process of passing an appropriations bill that cuts your agency's budget by more than $750 million. it includes an amendment by the chairman to cut your office and funded by the office of ledges and of affairs based on a continuing pattern of obstruction and delays of committee''s request. i believe the chairman has signed or cosigned 11 document request letters in the first 26 weeks of this congress. basically a letter every other week. each of these letters have either a new request or an

expansion of the previous request. i have three questions and i will ask at one time. what is your account all the letters from this committee and congress as a whole? how many documents have you provided to the committee to date, pages or document, however you keep track? can you describe the impact of the cuts and the policy writers in the house appropriation bill would have your agency? admin mccarthy: since january 1 of this year, we have received 10 letters and was subpoena from this committee which is generated responses in over 15,000 pages of documents of the request and we are continuing to make production of documents to the committee. with held approximately 10 conference call and communicated by e-mail or phone with

committee staff on over 35 occasions. we try to be as responsive as we can recognizing our commitment to transparency and important work of this committee. in terms of the budget cuts, the budget cuts proposed in the appropriations bill and variety of amendments that have been added would seriously threaten of the ability of epa to do is core work. i understand if there are disagreements and moving forward with symbols like our clean power plant or our new ozone but this goes well beyond that to impact our ability to deliver clean water, clean air, healthy land and work with states. this would be a devastating proposal in terms of disallowing us to move forward with the real problems we are facing today in what would be a series problem in terms of rolling back all of the work we would be able to

accomplish the because no boots on the ground anymore. rep. johnson: i have seen documents rolled in here from your agency on research as agile's not done by the federal government on -- that was not done by the federal government on research done 25 years ago on tobacco and lung disease. are you still being badgered for information you do not have? admin mccarthy: part of the challenge with the secret science bill is a asked love to gather information we have -- if it asks us to gather information we have no right to gather. in order to release it that publicly. frankly the way in which science works in this country is we do not look -- as a scientist do not exchange all of the raw data. they do not have to in order to do science and peer-reviewed

which is how the core the country has done science forever. rep. johnson: is a true the american cancer society did research independently of the federal government? admin mccarthy: the two issues that started secret science was the development of studies that was developed by the american cancer society. well thought of -- entities and if they had information that we saw that we were given the information and the authorities to gather and offered opportunities for the data to be reviewed by researchers. they are a cohort studies. they are followed for many years. great studies and we rely on it. they are so filled with personal information it would be

impossible to redact that. we are doing the best we can together the information out to people allowed to release but in no way does the allow -- the access of raw data allowing gus to rely on studies. rep. johnson: thank you very much. do i get the next minute? -- an extra minute? what do you think this committee will do when they get it? we are now researchers. we have -- we have not done anything with a yet. getting more and more, what is your opinion? is it a value to us? admin mccarthy: one of the reasons why we rely on peer-reviewed science is to allow raw data and science to be done by the scientists.

my job is to rely on their judgment and make sure i follow all of the practice that congress has laid out to rely on peer-reviewed science. i do not know of what value raw data is to the general public. i certainly will provide any information i have the authority to provide and i will do it in a way that still protects people's interest. rep. johnson: thank you. chairman smith: the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. lucas. rep. lucs: the comments that stated the data used to justify regulations should be made public and available and the data to make conclusions as scientific studies should be made available and it is worth remembering the science advisory's testimony their regulatory decisions and others are based and should be available to the committee and

made public. we should remember that. having said that administrative the epa's use of data consistent with the agency's scientific integrity policy? are you doing things consistent with your own integrity? admin mccarthy: yes, we are. rep. lucas: i will be honest with you, administrator. i'm a little sensitive about the waters. can you guarantee me the all data supporting the final lotus role will be 100% public we available? admin mccarthy: it was published in the federal register a short time ago. all of the data into our conductivity study is already publicly available and the technical documents provided -- rep. lucas: in a particular area, have you may public how the epa develops 4000 feet of

high tide line for ordinary high water mark in the final rule but was not the proposed rule? 1500 feet within 100 and the final rule? all of the waters within 100 feet of a ordinary high water mark, has that information is made available? admin mccarthy: it is available in the docket. the good news about attracting a million comments is allows us to make changes between proposal and finals raised on better signs a better understanding of how the agency's has been managing it for years. the knowledge and expertise of our staff, the information we receive from the public comments on the science available to us. rep. lucas: i hope the information you say available is available and will be added to. i was simply observe and satellite many members and the

public the chairman and the president's science advisor make a good point. i was told there is a fine line between doing things for people and doing things to people. you are the agency may believe you are doing things for people but there is a perception out to their were the construction or variety of places, and all of these rules in you are not doing things for people. you are inevitably doing things to people. that is unfortunate set of circumstances. we in congress serve an important role. going all the way back to our predecessors on the other side of the ocean. our responsibility to protect the citizens from the king and his government. you are the president's administrator and our responsibility to make sure our constituents' interests are taking care of erie and the king, using an old term,

remembers the public. that said, mr. chairman, i love forward to this information promised to us. i know with had substantial amount in recent days and maybe we need to have more hearings. [indiscernible] [no audio] >> with held joint hearings for the senate and the same issues and data committee and administrators and the administrator is here and i feel in some ways with a asked so many of these questions though many times. frankly with the clean water rule since the majority is

already voted to gut it, it seems unclear why we are considering get today. nonetheless, later in the day we are going to vote on the interior environment appropriations bill for fiscal year 2016 which includes the prevention of the epa proposing a standard lower than 75 parts per billion. during the debate i offered an amendment to strike that because of the testimony we have heard before this committee which told us the current standard is not aligned with the current science. in testimony we receive from dr. mary rise in march on the health impacts of ozone, she indicated the research has grown stronger since the last time epa considered revising standards. one area was new evidence but with higher ozone levels and increase mortality.

in mr. mccarthy, can you describe how the epa incorporates his changes into the rulemaking process? some of my colleagues claim the science epa uses for is ozone regulation is somehow secret. can you respond to those claims in your own words? what policies or processes does the epa have in place on the science that epa is considering? you could have a balance of my three minutes to do that. admin mccarthy: does science behind ozone is one of the most robust bodies of science that we have available to us. there are thousands of studies that have been done for decades that underpinned two ozone standards, sorry to read the agency has put out. and will underpin our next review. this is developed using our office a research and development and office of air

and radiation or work together to present information that can they call an independent science assessment. they bring to a clean air -- i am sorry, a case act committee which is a faca. directed, by congress to us to do. they are independent and a peer-reviewed the science. a public process, public comments hearings, telephone calls. and then case asked provides advice to us as we take a look at it that and the staff also integrate what are regulatory standards are that are the basis of judgment of what that science means. they propose to the administrator usually a range of standards that i might consider that as a with thing would be appropriate on the basis of the science, recognizes i have to look at what is -- with a margin

of safety. i have to look at adding to what they give to add my policy judgment. the process is a lengthy one and takes years to develop. the body of signs is robust and looked at with public comment by independent peer-reviewed scientists. the case of the ozone standard, they articulated they think the current staggers of 75 was not a way to protect public welfare and said i should be thinking about a range of 60-70 ppb as the most appropriate ace on the science available. database of the science available which is well understood and has been commented on. they went on to say that i recognize i have a policy judgment to make as well on this issue of using a margin of safety to make sure is adequately protected. on the basis of that, i

developed a rulemaking which is also public which we proposed last year late last year and we will finalize on october 1 or before of this year. in that, a look at the standard between 65 and 70 taking comment down to 60 and recognize people will want to talk about 75 again. very clear to me on the base of case act and open and credible process. rep. edwards: thank you very much. mr. chairman, with the unanimous consent i would ask ivy be allowed to enter letters into the record from my constituents including a girl scout troop saying we need to get on with this. chairman smith: without objection, thank you. mr. sensenbrenner's recognize. rep. sensenbrenner: i would like to ask a few questions about the

climate change talks in paris the president is committed to reaching a deal. do you support national negotiations on greenhouse gas emissions? admin mccarthy: i support efforts to develop a global plan to move forward. rep. sensenbrenner: global plan ends resulting in increases in the price of carbon, are you concerned about the fact that would disproportionately hurt poor and middle income people rather than people were in the upper 1%? admin mccarthy: i believe that the actions we take on a green will protect all of us of a more importantly those most vulnerable to changes in climate. rep. sensenbrenner: i think poor and middle income people will be most concerned about what happens to their expenses it should the price of gas and electricity and natural gas and

anything else carbon related go up if you guys go along with the increase in carbon. are you concerned about the economic impact on the poor people? admin mccarthy: absolutely. two different ways to reduce the carbon pollution threatening them and do it in a way that allows them to economically grow and become part of the middle class. rep. sensenbrenner: how do you do that by increasing their cost? i have seen economic studies that indicate that the inquiries in -- and cost on a per family would be thousands of dollars and our have a much bigger impact on poor people then the ceo's. admin mccarthy: congress's designed program for a cost-benefit analysis and well done that with the clean power plan. no way to history tells us that the sacrifice people's income

and jobs to continue to make improvements environmentally and carbon is no exception. you do exactly the way we designed the clean power plan to allow tremendous flexibility and time to make reductions in a way that keeps our electricity reliable and affordable and -- rep. sensenbrenner: that is not what i have seen projecting things out. you know, i would ask you to have a preferential option to economically protect poor people that does not result in some goofy politically designed redistribution program or collects the money and then you tax and send it back according to somebody does size good social engineering -- does size good social engineering. will you commit you will do it? yes or no? admin mccarthy: i have not proposed a -- rep. sensenbrenner: i am looking

for -- admin mccarthy: that is not how it works. rep. sensenbrenner: i have a couple of other questions. one of the problems we have had in these climate change negotiations is that china and india and russia do not want to have any reductions in their growth rates. the president kind of went along with reducing our greenhouse gas emissions but letting china do business as usual. would you support an international agreement that less china and russia and india off of the hook and not have the same reductions in greenhouse gases over the same accounting period as united states? admin mccarthy: i am not reading what is having the same way -- rep. sensenbrenner: no, no, would you support a that? admin mccarthy: that is not -- rep. sensenbrenner: please answer the question i ask, would you support it?

the president is supporting something like this in the past and maybe we should stop doing that given china an opportunity not to reduce its greenhouse gases until 2030. we have to reduce hours between 26 percent by 2018 and that does not seem like a good for america. admin mccarthy: i understand -- rep. sensenbrenner: do you think it is good? admin mccarthy: i understand everybody needs to act and china and the u.s. and other large economies it need to move forward to reduce carbon pollution -- rep. sensenbrenner: then i guess the deal the president hatched with the chinese when he was in beijing does not fall within your markers that everybody has to step up to the plate. they are sitting in the dugout or some other place. i yield back. chairman smith: thank you.

the gentlewoman is recognized. >> thank you administrator mccarthy for appearing and the important work to protect the health of oregonians and america. i am optimistic and i'm happy to hear my colleagues are concerned about the needs of low income people. that is good news today. i want to thank you for the epa commitment to the cleanup of the oregon and i look forward to the investigation study and we know it has been a challenge of cost-effective cleanup methods that will allow local parties to stay on track toward the goal of presenting and proposed cleanup plan in 2016. after many years, we are more than ready to resolve the situation of the portland harbor and i look forward.

admin mccarthy: the state has been a wonderful partner and we will get this over the finish line. rep. bonamici: i appreciated that. i got back from oregon and i was there last week when it was close to 100 degrees and high 90's. people are concerned about climate change and warming temperatures particularly with the risk associated, our water temperatures habitats to the extent core populations of some fish could become extinct. where deal of withdrawal, my neighbors to the south more seriously -- we are dealing with the drought, my names to the south more seriously. a situation in oregon. can you mention how the work you are doing will help with some of the issues? admin mccarthy: let me be very quick. the work to implement the president's climate action plan which is domestic that will

reduce carbon pollution but also maintain the growth in our environment we are all looking forward to continuing. and epa in particular is moving forward in ways to take action to reduce carbon pollution. the good news is it was done a strategy to get engagement to happen. it needs a global solution. that is what is happening. rep. bonamici: thank you. i want to point out that there has been a lot of conversation about the cost of regulation. last year, the omb estimated rules promulgated by the epa in that decade created between one of the $65 billion and $180 billion in benefits. that sounds like a good number. i really glad you're working on the clean power plant and reducing toxins in our air and water. so, so witnesses before this

committee have offered the opinion that some of my colleagues they epa regulation should only be environmentally beneficial technology is widely available. other support is a long history of technology but coming available after the epa determined they are feasible. does regulation drive innovation and technology to reduce renewables? emphasizing the epa regulations in absence, not generally an incentive for widespread deployment. we tackled acid rain under the george bush administration. could you comment on the proposed rule to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from new power plants will incentivize new innovation? admin mccarthy: the clean air act was designed and tested tasks sections that were moving

technology forward. technology spurring. the section we are regulating and the power place under the carbon pollution is one of those solutions bring it to does say we need to continue to bring forward under our new standards. what we have done is set a standard it that is 30 years away. we have set a standard that is an investment signal in order to tell states they have every flexibility to get to that standard. also a signal to the market for he it will tell people investment in renewables are not only affordable today but will get more affordable. this is a market-based approach to address a compounding problem in a way that states can drive it and works best for them and develops the business they want and the jobs they want to take advantage of. rep. bonamici: in our state will we passed a tariff for solar.

a lot of potential for innovation. i yield back. chairman smith: the gentleman from california is recognized. >> thank you very much. obviously very articulate and hard-working person and we respect and that even though we may have differences. i just -- do you know in your background of any examples where scientists or people involved in policy were ignoring certain raw data in order to achieve a certain conclusion? have you ever come across that? admin mccarthy: not individuals i have worked with. rep. rorrabacher: do you know examples? you do not know in examples

where people do not fulfill -- admin mccarthy: personally, no. rep. rorrabacher: will -- i would have to suggest that maybe you are a little naive in that area, those who have been around have seen this. several occasions. not knowing any examples, you feel totally secure in telling us we must entrust -- admin mccarthy: no, sir. no, sir. no, sir. i clearly -- i read about instances where science has not -- has been manipulated. that is why we work through an independent peer-reviewed body to be able to provide us advice -- rep. rorrabacher: what about us? we are elected. your peer-reviewed as not elected --

we are elected every excuse me one moment the we are elected by the people to make sure their interest are watched out for pre-you are asking us to trust instead of trying to look at whatever data is used for these decision-making yourself. admin mccarthy: there is no trust me. you have given me a job this government has provided the structure by which i do my job, including -- rep. rorrabacher: the structure was set up was the constitution that left congress primarily responsible to watch out directly for the interest of the american people because they vote for us. you are undermining that basic constitutional privilege when you tell us there's information you will not give us. admin mccarthy: no, sir --

giving you sensitive information. rep. rorrabacher: sensitive information not a given to the people elected by the voters of this country is an insult to the people, our constitution, everything this country is supposed to be about including freedom and openness, etc. what percentage of the atmosphere is co2? admin mccarthy: what percentage of the atmosphere co2? i do not have a calculation for you, sir. rep. rorrabacher: maybe you could tell us your personal guess is a what percentage. admin mccarthy: i do not make those guesses, sir. rep. rorrabacher: you are the head of the epa in you do not know. you have all of these laws, you will get your staffer to tell you now. you did not know what percentage and now you are pacing pop --

policies on the american people and do not know what the content of co2 in the atmosphere was which is not -- which is a justification for the policies you are talking about? admin mccarthy: if you're asking me how much still to is in the atmosphere, not a percentage of but how much, levels of -- rep. rorrabacher: i thought this was clear and it is clear you do not know. co2 from what i understand is only one half of 1/10 of 1% of the atmosphere. and you believe this minimal tiny element and only 10% of that from what i understand is actually man-made and of course, whatever you are suggesting and being suggested as the basis for

creating what we consider draconian rules is 1/10 that is man-made of the one half of what 10th of one half of 1% will have an impact on the weather to the point it will impact people's health. chairman smith: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman ms. clark is recognized. rep. clark: see why. i appreciate you being here and your testimony and i especially appreciate the correct pronunciation of carbon. [laughter] rep. clark: i wanted to ask you another percentage question, what percentage do you think of low income people in fact all people would be affected by

climate change if we do not do something to address it? admin mccarthy: i believe everybody, 100% is affected and will be more severely affected if we do not take action now. rep. clark: willoughby felt first by low income people? admin mccarthy: it usually is pretty it is well known across the world a you are seeing get played out right away. we need to a doubt the changes already happening. people in low come areas -- a low income areas do not have the wherewithal to adapt that many of us actually enjoy. it is up to us to meet our moral responsibility not just to them but our kids' future. rep. clark: with had a lot of discussion today about raw data. could you go into independent peer-reviewed and how we actually review and determine what is valid science to base our regulations on?

i do not have scientific training. i am an attorney. i do not think i am qualified to look their raw data and if we acted to make a mistake to redacted to make of this -- redacted to make an assessment. admin mccarthy: the way it works is we have to have our science independently peer-reviewed. you need to have an open process that is transparent when you pick experts with the knowledge in that field. rep. clark: without releasing every bit of a raw data? admin mccarthy: we do how transparency and picking those experts and in picking the discussion of what they think about of those documents. we have public review and comment on those documents. that is before we can really rely on of them as the basis of regulatory action.

we are was just look at one document. we look at a huge, robust document, series of science. in order to underpin our major rulemaking. the scientist to do not look at the raw data. they can if they want and region agreement with the researcher who on the data and sometimes own some of the modeling. they do not need to. they look within the context of their knowledge of the science and all brought a broad body of knowledge we look at to see if it is being done correctly according to the science and if the factors that should be discussed and within the context and further it can be replicated by others. they do not all sit around and say i will take another four years and give me the raw data. that is not the way science is done.

that is the way science cannot get done. rep. clark: do you see other agencies also looking at science where that is the process, as are going back to the raw data? admin mccarthy: if you name an agency in the united states that is a credible science agency, that is how they do their work. that is what the national academies is. that is how you do it. rep. clark: speaking government analysis, the union all caps are scientists came out the report -- and the union of concerned scientists came out with a report of laws resulted in 31 states making commitments to put them halfway towards their 2020 benchmark's pretty do you think we will be surprised at how easily states are going to be able to meet these benchmarks even if the plan was not there? admin mccarthy: i think the

challenge prize is to make sure that it through our rulemaking, we do what the law is to reduce carbon. the way to do that affordable as to look at how the energy transition is happening. instead of thinking you have to go away in front of it, you go behind and keep pushing. that is how it works. i would not be surprised either the utilities of the states go away further then we require. that is usually what happens. it is called good regulation and rulemaking. it is exactly what we did with the carbon pollution. we give every state the flexibility to design the plan for the house. we are setting the standard. far enough away that the technology will get better if we send the right signals. an opportunity for us to continue that energy transition to clean energy and low carbon. rep. clark: thank you. chairman smith: the gentleman from alabama, mr. brooks.

rep. works -- brooks: the proposed regulations admit the agency's rule cost america at a minimum $3.9 billion per year at 70 parts per billion and $15 billion at 65 parts per billion. in contrast a study by the national economic research associates estimates that an epa ozone limit of 65 parts per billion would cut america's gross domestic product by $74 billion per year in real dollar terms totaling $1.7 trillion in lost between 2017 and 2040. thus denying struggling american families and average of 1.4 million jobs per year through

2040. administrative maccarthy, i hope you will concur the more damage the epa regulations due to the american economy, the poorer the american economy is and the less money america has to pay for and ensure to americans have clean water. anecdotally, you can look at any number of poor, heavily populated areas around the globe that does not have the economic means to pay for pollution resulting in some of the worst polluted areas on the planet. in february, alabama governor sent you a letter emphasizing that the proposed also regulations and do more damage than good. mr. chairman, i would like to submit governor bentley's letter to the pa, more specifically the honorable gina mccarthy for the

record. chairman smith: without objection. rep. brooks: the proposed ozone rule "v administrator knows the determination of what constitutes an adequate margin of safety is expressly left to the judgment of the epa administrator." administrative mccarthy, it appears your quote calculation will determine the epa's ozone parts per billion standard and what kind of damage will be done to the american economy and jobs. is that accurate? the standard is a epa will go by? yes, no, i do not know? admin mccarthy: that is what the statute requires. rep. brooks: since the ozone regulations may be the costliest in apa history which is saying quite a bit america needs and deserves a precise and clear

definition of "adequate margin of safety" means. what is your precise definition of and a specific scientific methodology you intend to use to define adequate margin of safety? admin mccarthy: it is in the statue given as a policy judgment i would've made. rep. brooks: what is your definition as you try to wrestle with what it means? i assume you use scientific methodologies and perhaps sound economic as you try to determine war are rather vague terms. admin mccarthy: you will be able to see in the rules a very good discussion of what my judgment is and the basis. it will not run the basis of cost. it is a health standard to protect public health. cost is not a consideration. rep. brooks: how can you say health is not a consideration of

cost? it is a function of what we can pay for? admin mccarthy:'s a far away what we estimate to be the illustrative cause. in terms of how you determine is not considered until implementation. rep. brooks: are you going to share with us today your definition, your understanding your methodology of what the phrase "adequate margin of safety" means. admin mccarthy: that will be shared when you see the final rules. that is when i explain it in a goes through -- rep. brooks: you have no judgment a you cannot explain it to the committee? admin mccarthy: there is no specific definition i can offer you. a judgment that will be well documented by the lion's. -- the science. rep. brooks: how long has the epa been working on that? admin mccarthy: since we created

-- assist the clean air act. rep. brooks: what year? admin mccarthy: 1990? rep. brooks: decades later you still do not have the definition. admin mccarthy: it is not apply to that away. chairman smith: thank you. the gentleman from virginia. rep. byers: thank you for being so patient and gracious this morning despite rather combative nature of the questioning. our chair, my good friend and distinguished chair claims the epa has severely damage our economy. how do you reconcile that with 64 straight months of job growth and 12.8 million private sector jobs and tripling of the stock market.

if there is -- not perhaps better to look at the infrastructure bills we failed to pass, immigration and inability to do tax reform rather than blaming it on the epa? admin mccarthy: one of the things to recognize when you look directly at epa you look at 70% improvement in air pollution air reduced at 70%. we know how to do the rules in a way that is not just not contrary to the job growth but can fuel it and become part of it. rep. beyer: i know use text messages a great deal most because my children will not return my phone calls. i am not allowed to talk on the phone so mice have texted me back and forth. i read and delete. i cannot imagine doing anything substantive in 140 characters.

also if i do not delete, the chain gets longer and longer with my daughter. really, any reason to think your 6000 text messages were anything but trivial and non-consequential? admin mccarthy: two i saved because they were a record. other than that, the best of my recollection family, friends, i will be late to something. texts does not constitute a substantive conversation but accommodate me keeping in touch with my children. that is a reside started with it. we do not discourage the use of text messaging. when we do use it for government purposes a process and policy in place to make sure those are preserved. that is the policy reflected here. rep. beyer: do you have a rule

to allow children to contact their parents? admin mccarthy: i would. rep. beyer: 70 parts per billion. you are only asking for perhaps a five parts per billion decline. 6.33%. again and again we hear we could cut the budget by 5% or 10% and will not make a difference at all. 70 parts per billion is what a robust science said is needed for our health. why the hysteria about a 6% cut? we heard the conservative think tank project or job loss. can you talk about the economic value and the health benefits and how compares to the potential cost? admin mccarthy: the health benefits are dwarfed -- the economic cost we are projecting. we are talking at a level of 70

-- [no audio] we are talking about significantly more benefits. the most important benefit of this is you are telling the american people what clean air is supposed to be. the benefit immediately is that individuals who have kids that have asthma will know that there and call it to -- let me put another way they could take a look on what to the air quality is today on their weather channel that we helped provide and decide whether the kids should go out and play. the biggest value is individuals can protect themselves, their kids, their elderly parents and make decisions for themselves while we give states lots of time to think about what other cost productive ways to achieve that over many years. some of these states will not

face the challenges for a long time. you do not worry about the implementation. if that means you are not a given up all the information to protect themselves and their kids. that is what this is all about. rep. beyer: thank you. i yield back. chairman smith: the gentleman from illinois. >> first yield to the chairman. chairman smith: i want to make two points. text messages to staff is official text messages and the administrator to say all the one or two out of 6000 were personal is simply laughable. as well as statistics i wish the gentleman had mentioned in his list is we had the lowest labor participation today in america in 38 years. i t y the gentleman from illinois for yielding that. >> i do appreciate you being here and the job your agency

we have already been able to do. then decreased 60% saturated his implementation of the clean air act. we consume more energy and travel more miles. we are doing well. that is why i have concerns about an agency that many of my constituents see as continually moving the goalposts as an activist and other regulator. we agree we need smart and reasonable science-based regulation. with the botched mercury rule we saw on display two weeks ago i'm not sure that is been the case with your agency. i also expect your agency to work with our states and counties as a partner not a help a teen. is there to the epa's efforts to work with outer federal agencies to be a sham.

does not appear that our collaboration has been any better. i'd like to enter into record a letter from the national league of cities and the nationalist regional councils. they call on the eva to retain the existing ozone standards set in 2008 which is still not been fully of lamented. -- implemented. the sender for regulatory solutions released a study today that showed how epa's proposed ozone regulations the most expensive regulations of history will cause significant burden to the chicago area economy. as you can see from the slides above, from 21 counties, i am worried about the overall impact. if you change the second slide you will see how bad this is for

the counties i represent. we are putting 73% of the state already fragile gdp at risk. lester illinois enrolled twice as many new recipients than a created jobs. just last week the commerce joined by the chamber of commerce and the national black chamber of commerce hosted a symposium unemployment impacts the ozone would have on chicago. it is clear this will evidence but impact on low income communities. and seniors on fixed incomes. do you consider your agencies efforts to collaborate to be better or worse as reference to collaborate without a federal agencies? admin mccarthy: i think we collaborate very well. rep. hultgren: that is not what we are hearing. in some ways it reminds me of when i was in school and wind group roger x there will be 1 --

we had the group projects and that would be one person that did not carry their weight. that is kind of the approach i feel is happening right now. admin mccarthy: the studies you are quoting did not even study this proposal. rep. hultgren: they are talking about the impact, it was just released today, it is dealing with the increase. i will major you have it -- make sure you have it. it is something that if we had gotten sooner we would've got to you sooner. in a letter i submitted the national conference of mayors pointed out that the conformity to ensure federal supported transportation activities are consistent with state air quality implementations.

chicago is the largest rail hub in the country. freight is expected to increase by 80% by 2020. how do they expect them to implement the standards when the agency will not consider the full potential costs of the limitation? admin mccarthy: if i could just point out that the health standards set of the process been state stability plan over time. there is significant time to achieve that standard. rep. hultgren: if you could then be responded writing to me. admin mccarthy: the vast majority of the counties -- that is an important thing to remember. this is not on the backs of the states it is a partnership. chairman smith: gentleman's time is expired. the gentleman from california is recognized. >> the former chairman of this

committee, was partly responsible for the establishment of the epa. my constituents and i have seen firsthand how epa can improve health. a report from the american lung association still has tremendous struggles with ozone. we are situated downwind from my other colic in california. we typically have lower class folks that cannot afford homes along the coast. i'm glad to hear my colleagues also care about four people and middle-class people -- poor people and middle-class people. i am not sure why they don't care about people whose property

will lose value because of global warming. we can improve public health, and i am struck by the comment that health is what we can pay for. i'm also struck by a comment that someone said to me once -- nothing -- you can place a value on your health. a study shows that by 2020 the benefits of nuclear will outweigh the costs. the clean air act has helped cut down on cases of asthma and infant mortality. by 2020 it is expected to prevent 17 million lost workdays. i want to put this in context. i'm afraid my colleagues are exploiting the public's frustration with the economic downturn to bush and anti-environmental war on science. it is particularly offensive to me because the people in my area suffer we were ground zero for the mortgage crisis.

the financial services meltdown which is caused this lack of participation in the economy. not environmental regulations that we impose to solve our regulations. they want to fix the financial problems by deregulating the environment? my area, the people in my area benefit from the epa's regulations. the clean air ozone and particulates we would suffer far greater if we did not have epa improving our air quality over the past 20 years. want asking the question, do you believe that the epa -- what is the balance between listening to elected politicians versus independent scientists? admin mccarthy: when you make a

decision like this you must listen to the independent science and base it on peer-reviewed science. that is with a law requires. it's been what all of us would agree to be the thing to do. rep. takano: let's trust the opinions of independent scientists. they're not subjected to the different kinds of interests. admin mccarthy: this body indicated that is how we should do it. rep. takano: the congress mandated that you rely on that. i understand that the power plants, one of the serious commissions is mercury is a correct? mercury causes neurological damage in children. admin mccarthy: that is correct. rep. takano: who tends to be located and inhabit the areas around these plants tend to be low income people. often people of color. is that true? admin mccarthy: that is true. rep. takano: as much as i'm glad

it's the majority cares about poor people i am wondering whether they care about the health of poor people. it seems to me that it is contradictory to say that we care about poor people being able to buy carbon, but not take into consideration the fact that we have many poor people living around his power plants. i only have 20 seconds, can you maybe comment on the ability of the regulation to generate greater economic activity? admin mccarthy: it is actually a well done rule for the environment. it is extreme is supportive of the foundation. we're talking about premature death. we're talking but asked my tax kids not -- asthma attacks kids

not being able to go to school. i think the data shows that our rules are so cost beneficial because they give so many more public health benefits than they do cost the economy. if you shock to this right, you generate activity in the economy to grow new jobs. i think that is extremely important to remember. chairman smith: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from florida is recognized. rep. posey: due to the relatively large geographic area covered by the gulf area of florida, emissions make up 80%

to 90% imitated on a day. another says the epa also should consider whether natural background concentrations would preclude compliance with the epa's proposed standards in certain geographic areas. for example, epa estimates that 70% of the seasonal ozone levels of florida archer greeted to background contributions. how can they comply with the new requirements if nature gives them 70% to start? admin mccarthy: let the assure you that states are not held responsible for producing emissions that are not in their control. the clean air act is very clear about that. it was a great discussion -- rep. posey: ok.

you say that is a fact i will except that. with regard to the clean power plant, are you at all concerned about the increasing cost of electricity? causing many, including will my colleague mentioned, and also seniors, to make difficult choices as to which necessities they can afford due to the increase in their electric bills. they may possibly be extreme. admin mccarthy: let me be clear -- i'm always concerned about the economic consequences. we see very much to make sure those are as minimal as possible. if you take a look at the carbon pollution plan that is why the minutes of flexible so states can design their own plants. so that electricity will be reliable and affordable. at the time of the final goal in 2030, the final standard, you

were looking at a decrease in the people have to pay a month for the electricity. rep. posey: how much can they expect their rates to go down because of this new rule? admin mccarthy: they can expect their bills to go down by but 8% in 2030 according to our 30 -- projections. as most, the increases is a gall on of milk. three dollars a month. rep. posey: for what? admin mccarthy: electric bills. the bay $100 now could be as much as $103. rep. posey: before my time runs out, did i hear you say that of the 6000 messages you received under government issued blackberry and iphone that only

one or two of those were official business. did i hear that correctly? admin mccarthy: only one or two of those were under the federal records act that you be preserved. there were exchanges about i'm late for this meeting, or that, those are transitory and those are not to be preserved. they are not substantive. two substantive ones i knew about i preserved. rep. posey: out of 6000 you only had two substantive transmissions? admin mccarthy: we highly discourage the use of mobile devices for the very reason that we need to make sure we are preserving records. we highly discourage it. frankly, i do not use, to my recollection, i only started using text because my kids would not answer my phone. rep. posey: did you receive, or send, and the message to any

special interest groups interested in them the environment from your iphone? at a 6000, and five years, you never once sent a substantive message from a special interest group? admin mccarthy: to my recollection the two that needed to be preserved were preserved. rep. posey: you can say yes or no. admin mccarthy: that is my best answer. rep. posey: you cannot tell me that you never received any other substantive message? admin mccarthy: are we talking about text message? e-mails would have come in. those are preserved. chairman smith: the gentleman's time is expired. we would go to legitimate from

california -- the gentleman from california. >> one of them was from a constituency. that is why i preserved it. that is what i was trying to recall. beyond that, i did not know this related to e-mails which is in the system and preserved. rep. swalwell: in california, we don't really have the choice of having ad debate on whether or not we believe climate change is occurring. we live with a climate that is drastically changing. we of the worst drought in our state's history. the good people of my district have put upon themselves drop

restriction and conservation measures up to 30%. so i was hoping you could elaborate on how extreme weather events are impacting the state and the types of challenges local governments will face. admin mccarthy: i am happy to. the changes we're already seeing in extreme weather include heavier downpours, heat waves are becoming more frequent, intense frequency and duration of north atlantic hurricanes, winter storms have increased in frequency and intensity, which talk about floods. there decrease in the southwest but really increased in the north and east. we have droughts we have not seen for the last 800 years. we are seeing already extreme results.

we recently put out a report that i would encourage you to take a look at that show to be don't take a global action what the world will look like in the next 50 years. rep. swalwell: thank you. also, i want to briefly touch upon we noble energy -- we global energy -- renewable energy. they will very shortly receive 30% of their energy from renewable sources. one of those countries that is not close behind is the united states. that is largely, that is not wind and solar. would you agree that the best way to reduce carbon emissions would be to make investments aside from policies, and

renewable sources? admin mccarthy: i think the general public is speaking with their dollars on that. renewal is getting less expensive as time goes on. we see three times as much wind as prior to this administration. 10 times more solar. it is competing. it is a technology of the future, and the present. energy efficiency is also a significant opportunity for investment. rep. swalwell: knowing the scientists that you deal with some of the biggest brands in the world do you believe we are less capable as a country that germany at achieving 30% of our energy from we duels -- renewables? admin mccarthy: that future will be better for us economically. we are growing more jobs in the solar sector in any sector of

the economy. we can do better. the clean power plant hopefully continue to spot that. rep. swalwell: i also want to thank my colleagues from new york. i yield back. chairman smith: we go to the general just gentleman from kentucky. rep. massie: i would like to begin with a discussion we had in 2013. i don't expect you to recall that, i will read see the transcript of our conversation. i asked if you are aware that methane emissions from cattle you are not looking or investigating that. you said i am not looking at that. then i asked nobody in the epa is?

and you said not that i am aware of. we're talking about methane emissions from cattle. that was in november of 2013. in march of 2014, the president issued a climate action plan called strategy to reduce methane emissions. including agriculture, including cattle. then, one month later, april 2014 the epa put out a document talking about the sources of greenhouse gas emissions. there is an entire chapter dedicated to agricultural emissions, particularly cattle. so if i were to ask ask this question again is anybody at the epa looking at methane

emissions from cattle? admin mccarthy: as you teed it up you started by asking you regulating. i believe that was the context of my answer. it remains exactly the same. no. rep. massie: you can give us that assurance. you have no intention of regulating methane emissions? admin mccarthy: no. he just says it is a source of carbon emissions. epa has been engaged in that issue for a very long time. rep. massie: maybe been working with the wood stove industry. admin mccarthy: we have been. i want to ask you -- rep. massie: i want to ask you about that. do you think it is wrong, or does it bother you at all if you promulgated regulation that most americans are against? admin mccarthy: if they get a

chance to see it, it would bother me very much. rep. massie: the irony of your being here today is that we without a vote on the floor in a few hours about your regulation on wood boiling stoves. for your department. i would like a prediction, i will predict that the people's house votes not to fund that regulation. the majority of our constituents don't support it. i will also predict it will be a bipartisan vote. admin mccarthy: i just hope you take a look at it. we work with the industry very well. we give me time to take advantage of new technologies. rep. massie: i'm glad you worked with the industry. do you know what it will cost to update their models? admin mccarthy: all i know is we work on a timeline that was

extensive. rep. massie: somebody knows what it will cost. you published that. admin mccarthy: i don't have it in the fingertips. rep. massie: it is $1 million per model. what we are talking about is a $50 million cost for this industry. are you aware their product is eligible for a renewable energy tax credit? i find this very ironic. they produce a carbon neutral source of heat for middle income and low income americans that the government provides a tax credit for. yet you are adding $50 million of cost just for one type of these heaters. admin mccarthy: sir the emissions of wood stoves is work we have been working with states for a long time. rep. massie: i would argue -- admin mccarthy: they don't need to be admitted -- rep. massie: let me ask you

this, if you work with the states would you recognize each state has unique requirements. admin mccarthy: that is why the industry wanted epa to do a ruling that smoothed those requirements specifically for -- rep. massie: they are not happy but spending millions of dollars to upgrade their product. one-size-fits-all, top-down rule from the epa. chairman smith: thank you, and the gentleman from new york is recognized. rep. tonko: thank you for your leadership. admin mccarthy: oh, there you were. rep. tonko: thank you for your obvious grasp of the issues. the hearing today is again a

revival of hearings we have held before. it protects public health, and claims that meeting the standards will be possibly not achievable. to have a number of questions for you. the clean air science advisory committee was created with the 1977 clean air act amendment. the first report that ozone came out in the 1980's. there been a number of subsequent reviews over the years. they found that ozone is less of a health risk the 1980 science determined was? admin mccarthy: no sir. they found it is increasingly of concern. rep. tonko: does a contribute less to other environmental problems? admin mccarthy: no, we are now realizing just how much damage it actually causes. rep. tonko: if anything, we

search over the years has confirmed that ozone is a health risk, and an environmental problem. is that correct? admin mccarthy: yes. rep. tonko: have passed enders been criticized -- standards been criticized? admin mccarthy: yes. rep. tonko: we have been able to achieve cleaner air and grow the economy, is that correct? admin mccarthy: yes. rep. tonko: any reason we cannot keep it record going? admin mccarthy: none. rep. tonko: how might they meet new standards? admin mccarthy: that is exactly the choice we are giving them. rep. tonko: climate change also has the potential to exacerbate existing health conditions, such as asthma. it can infect vulnerable populations. how -- affect vulnerable populations. admin mccarthy: i ask them to

trust the scientists. it is a majority, an overwhelming majority. we need to take action now. rep. tonko: i hope that a committee would embrace science. what kind of ongoing health risks are expected up we do not act? admin mccarthy: if you look at the report we put out, we're talking about tremendous loss of lives, huge economic consequences environmental damage if we do not take global action. u.s. leadership is essential to allowing the world to be the momentum they need to address this significant problem. rep. tonko: what policies are you seeking to implement to address the public health impacts? admin mccarthy: we are going to be reducing carbon pollution which also brings with it significant benefits. significant opportunities to

reduce traditional pollutants. what thing we keep forgetting is that climate change is actually impacting the economy today. don't tell me it isn't in california don't tell me it wasn't hurricane sandy hit in new york. these are costs to us today that are only getting worse. if you look at action on climate, and to the kind of economic benefits it can provide double not just protect us from escalating carbon, but grow a carbon future. that is the goal post that all of us are looking for. that is why we designed it as effectively as we did. >> i can certainly associate with the comments you just made. i was very much involved with the regional gas initiative. in the state of massachusetts, in the department of environmental protection -- they head they said the

environmental protection can and should go in hand and hand. will you comment on that statement? he said there was a 7% growth in the region, while cutting carbon emissions by 40%. >> the initial greenhouse gas initiative has been successful. they recognize that if they challenge utilities to be more efficient. if they provide opportunities for renewables and energy efficiency to be supported, that it not only gets you the environmental benefits you are looking for, but it really, tremendously sparked the economy. massachusetts, having living there, massachusetts bounced back better from the economic downturn than other states and it was credited by the governor that it was because of the new technology businesses and the way they have embraced the future -- that allow them to