contractors, so to speak, you know. it has been a long time, i'm out every morning, i'm out there trying to reap in the my fits of everything that government told me i should do. i went to high school, took a d, after that, trade, you that my government told me i should do. i went to high school and graduated. after that, i joined the military. i am speaking on the behalf of american citizens. when we are told to do the right day, after 12 grade, college. host: what about your support for donald trump? that is what i am saying. all of those things are included in what i am saying. door to door with my advertising. remember like a carpet salesman. int: let's go to ken germantown, maryland.

caller: hello. host: go ahead. a lawyer by trade. she had 30 years of experience in politics. we need the president in knows business. military, youe a need money. we need someone who knows business. he is not a politician. he speaks his mind. host: you are on next. go ahead. caller: i am voting for donald trump. i am a uaw member involved in nafta where the clintons sold us out and told us they were not going to do it. when you listen, hillary clinton has lied. gotten american people killed. done everything to destroy this country.

her, theyto vote for have to be against the united states of america. shek lives matter, which supports. if i am a white person and i say white people only, that is racist. black people say, black lives only, that is not racist. when they support black lives only it is a racist black hate group trying to destroy america. putting people in office that have been doing everything against us. donald trump will turn this country around for the better for americans. host: let's go to anita in california. caller: hello. host: you are on. caller: i am a lifelong republican. i will be voting for hillary clinton. donald trump is embarrassing. i cannot imagine that family

being in the white house. i've never seen an election where in a primary a candidate talked about the size of his personal private parts. or tweeted a tweet that said people should look at a sex tape . people tolly told beat someone up and he would a their legal bills. he is embarrassing, and it breaks my heart that this country will elect a reality tv person. hillary clinton has flaws, but she knows what she is doing. donald trump is not even a republican. host: columbia, mississippi. a democrat supporting donald trump. caller: good morning. i wanted to say i swapped over from democrat to republican because of hillary clinton.

she is for women and fights for women's rights, but she brings up donald trump's .axes about loopholes and stuff don't nobody bothered to bring defended a rape a 12-year-old girl and bragged in 1980 how she got him off using loopholes. deserve to be't in the white house it is her and bill clinton how they do women and use them for their own personal gain. thank you. democratsissippi, supporting donald trump. if you're interested in watching our coverage of the vice

presidential debate at longwood university in farmville, virginia you can do that at 7:30 you can watch it on the network or on our website are more information. that gives you the ability to watch and other ways. the website is c-span.org. all of the information you need for the debate you can find at c-span.org. the bipartisan policy center in washington dc, discussion about energy issues and clean power set to take place in a few moments, featuring a discussion looking at issues regarding the clean power plant in light of supreme court decisions about the plan. we will take you to that event. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is

>> good morning. welcome to the bipartisan policy center for our 10th and probably not last public forum discussing the clean power plan. the importance and intrigue of the issue has been with us for several years, since the original proposal on some of your summer vacations in 2014, to the final rule that ruined my summer vacation in 2015. this issue has dominated discussion and has been fascinating from the beginning. a number of smart people who i trust said this role was

transformational. said it wasfolks business as usual. from the beginning we had a different imagination about what was happening. that entry cans continued for the last couple of years in the supreme court issued a stay in february, that surprised a number of folks. when the d.c. circuit delay the argument in labor of the bizarre hearing, that was a question that generated interest. when judge nina pohlad u nrecused herself, that sent tremors. , which wasl argument manybly the longest that of these folks have been without a cell phone and there don't lives, a unique experience we will talk about today. in the broadest terms, the

importance of the question is even greater than the question of greenhouse gas emmisions in the power sector. it has become the crucible through which a number of broad social questions are being discovered. not only transformation versus business and usual, it is the role of executive action in a polarized congress. divide.n and rural above and below the ground, to the very geology that animates those economies. it is a response to a changing economy and the dislocation we see in the presidential election . how we see the u.s. role in the world. what is our purpose as we think about not just domestic action, but how that influences collective action. in that broad number of questions we have a talented the legalalk about

questions. some of those ramifications. to run through the group, the chief of the environmental protection division at the mass climateice for their change litigation. the director of the climate and clean energy programs at the national defense council. i can say with friendship he has been here since the carter administration. the former assistant minister environmental protection agency and has the environmental strategies group at grace well. i did not say giuliani. allison wood who represents a number of clients and litigations and presented arguments before the d.c. circuit. our moderator, who was a friend before she had a national circulation. welcome back.

it is a pleasure to begin with a few remarks or may senior fellow are and -- a few remarks from senior fellow here who is well-known. >> thank you very much. long energya project underway at the bipartisan policy center. i and trent lott have cochaired that project. is almost aion perfect example of the work we have done to bring sides together and talk about things from different perspectives. energy is the lifeblood of this country's economy. energy,try runs on energy policy, and climate important.ery i shared a stage with rockefeller in new york some years ago and explained to the

both families came from the petroleum industry. i explained my father ran a gas station, different from the rockefellers. coming attext of these questions, energy and the environment, from different perspectives, one thing to understand is the thing that is constant in energy is change. change is happening at such a rapid pace it is hard to understand it, to keep up with it. there is a revolution going on in our country on how we generate, supply, and use energy. occurring inon is ways that meet multiple challenges, liability, claim change -- climate change, in many ways it is happening in the marketplace, aggressively in the market place, and also in respect to regulations and

mandates. discussion weand will have today is about the clean power plan, one of the large tools this administration is attempting to use to address climate change. the discussion is not about merits or methods. it is more narrow. it is interesting to talk about what happened at the 10th circuit. what is the take away from the 10th circuit and the oral arguments? , the we get from the tone conduct of the judges, the questions? what might we expect from all of that? of what willsue happen will be a conjecture until the 10th circuit reaches a decision. clearly, while much is happening in the private sector, changing power sources from coal to natural gas, dealing with the

economic situation, whatever happens with respect to the clean power plan will be consequential to our energy future. that is why this topic is important. thatve a panel of experts have worked on these issues for a long time from different sides and approaches. we have a moderator who knows everything about everything in energy. let me welcome them and thank them for participating. [applause] >> good morning. thank you senator and jason for the introductions. i want to dive into our discussions. the first questions are for you in the audience. are very easy.t raise your hand if you were at the oral arguments. raise your hand if you have listened to all six hours and 42

minutes of the audio. one person. good job. raise your hand if you have read coverage in "the wall street journal" or elsewhere. i saw some hands go down. you will have to leave. you can be forgiven if you did not sit through all six hours and 42 minutes. well, i thought i might as because i stood in line for four hours. way through, i thought i should get to the end. like a marathon. the judge said it felt like a marathon day. that sets the stage for our discussion. most of us in the audience have not listened to the whole thing. maybe some of the media that you read was not comprehensive. i want to ask you for your two biggest takeaways.

after that, would you thought was the biggest surprise. allison? takeaways,biggest first, how prepared the judges were. clearly this was of great importance and they were ready to engage on the issues at a deep level. was that takeaway sometimes you go to a court and you can tell what way they are leaning. with these 10 judges what was clear was that there was not a necess -- that was not necessarily a consensus on any issue and it might be a multi-part of opinion with differing views on the issues. in terms of what surprised me, it was the fact that they were willing to virtually ignore the clock.

and let the advocates make their arguments and wait until the judges exhausted their questions, which is how we ended up at six hours and 42 minutes. >> what were your two biggest takeaways and one big surprise? perhapsggest take away, indifference with allison, i find it difficult to see how the challengers can get six votes on can get six votes on any issue. they need six to win. the judges seem quite skeptical. some of them asked very tough questions to both sides, which is what they should do. you cannot predict how someone will rule just from their behavior at oral arguments. the other thing that struck me was how much importance judge kavanagh placed on getting out of the chevron deference basket into a special

category. >> can you explain? i argued and lost the chevron case in 1984 6-0. it is probably one of the best things i did. the chevron doctrine has 2 parts. unambiguous and clear they have to follow what it says. when the law has ambiguity the agency has a chance to give the law a reasonable interpretation. the courts will defer to a reasonable choice the agency makes. off-the-wall unreasonable interpretations will fail, but if there are two or three different reasonable interpretations the agency will get to pick one of them. there are a few cases, some of

which are inside chevron, some outside, in which judges assert that there is a tougher task to be met. judge kavanagh was trying very hard to make the case that this was such an instance. i do not think that he had any other people picking up on that with him. judge tate all and a couple of the others, judge griffith, went out of their way to say that they thought this case was an ordinary chevron case. surprise? think, actually, judge griffith's first intervention when he said "what is so special, so transformative, about this?" it is a pleasant surprise that he is asking tough questions of both sides. >> what about you?

>> i echo allison. i may not do that much this morning. definitely, the engaged judges and the insightful questions the judges had for the advocates and the nature of the proceedings. they were uniformly well prepared and well spoken with a tremendous amount to offer the court. a lot to think about for the court. the other thing that i think to take away from it was the importance of the issue of climate change hung in the air throughout the day. there was a sense there was a gravity to the issue, nationally and globally. the judges sure that understanding even if there were disagreements and discussion about the legal issues, there was an older arcing understanding this was one of chingost -- overar

understanding this was one of the most important issues for the country. surprise, the degree to which the judges were prepared and of understanding of the real world of energy. everyone who has been involved in energy discussions can attese real world of there is a certain difference between knowing the different details of the different markets , and having a talking understanding. the judgeske understand how the market is changing. understood how the clean power plan could affect it and read the record. there was a sense in which there was a bout of discretion throughout the day that was really kind of an energy school for many of us in the audience around the country. they really understood how the security constraint dispatch works, for example. the way organized markets work.

that might have been the biggest surprise that there was a higher level of understanding. >> raise your hand in the audience if you are a lawyer. mix.ent we have been told not to get too into the legal needs, but this panel of judges, six are appointed by democratic presidents and 4 or republican presidents. unlike congress, that does not mean they will automatically support the clean power plan if they were supported by a democrat or oppose it if they were appointed by a republican, but it gives you a sense of where they are at when they asked these questions. judge griffith, the first thing he said out of the gate in the entire seven hours was "is this really transformative? the coal industry is already facing woes."

i found that interesting given he was a republican-appointed judge. i listened to the judges appointed -- if it was a democratically appointed judge asking tough questions of epa i noted that and vice versa for the republicans. it is important to understand how the decision evolved. wanted to quickly run through the 5 legal issues. . have question about that there were five main legal questions the court considered. the first was asking whether or not epa went beyond its legal authority with the clean air act by requiring generation shifting of power plants to apply. this is called the beyond the fence argument, beyond the fence line of the power plant. the debate over section 112

a legislativeut discrepancy 30 years ago that suggests to some epa may not have the legal ability to regulate carbon emissions under section 111 because it regulated mercury emissions under 112. there are a lot of ways on that issue i would like to go, we will have some discussion. appointednagh, by republican president, called this a hall of mirrors. it a partater found of the day. section 112, hall of mirrors. the constitutional issues have gotten prominence because of a harvard professor, obama's legal

mentor, has signed on to argue against epa on behalf of peabody energy, a coal producer. did epa in french on state's rights? did epa change the rules too much between the proposal and the final? record-based issues, is the rule feasible and can the states set the goals that epa has set out? i probably simplify that too much or the lawyers in the room. those are the five issues. i want to ask what i call a lightening round. keeping your answers to one word if humanly possible. of those five arguments, which you predict will be the most pivotal to the court's decision? >> argument one. >> argument one. >> argument one.

this,f and i talked about so i will vote by proxy for him. which one of those, another lightening round, which one will carry the smallest weight? >> argument three. >> argument three. >> who says david and i cannot agree? >> that is amazing. >> i will add to argument three. >> we have a unanimous vote. >> i suspect that despite the prominence of the issue we see by larry chide versus obama squabble, i think i would agree, not that i am an expert compared to these three people. let's dig in to argument one. the generation shifting, the statutory questions.

you what yourom found interesting about what the judges said. if you talked to any of the judges, a little about that person. why do you think that will be the most significant argument? did you think it would be before hand? >> yes i did think it would be beforehand, i think there is a reason it is argument one. one of the most interesting things out-of-the-box, and we , theed on this, david did idea if the chevron deference normal test applies or if you have a heightened standard. the heightened standard comes out of utility regulatory group versus epa. if you hear people say ur

versus epa, that is utility air regulations group. if you have a statute that is, a provision of which is being expanded in a transformative way , the court then expects to see explicit authorization from congress to implement in that way. when of the first things of the morning was a whole discussion of what did the supreme court mean when it said something was transformative? there was prodding from judges on both sides, democrats and republicans, as to what the supreme court might have meant. griffith,dge a republican appointee, saying "is this really a big deal?" when epa stood up he prodded on them and even made a joke, something like, this is pretty important. the supreme court stayed it.

we are sitting here, and then he made a joke that i heard on in pr. -- on npr. that was a big issue. you have that as a threshold issue. moving beyond that to something that will have more impact under an clean air act, is this appropriate use of section 111? can you interpret system reduction in the way that epa has to encompass things beyond the fence line, outside the source itself. the source being the power plant. that.scussion on i felt the questions were hard to both sides and from both sides of the aisle. >> appointed by president clinton, he said this hangs on the clarity of the bfer, and i

would expect that will be a big part of the decision. out to you inme terms of the argument and generation shifting? >> let's go back to the case allison mentioned. there were 2 holdings. one with epa taking interpretation of provisions which applied to sources above 250 tons a year. -- applyingbon provisions the carbon dioxide, which comes out of power plants in 1000 times the quantity than any other pollutants. the numbers would have had the effect of sweeping literally millions of additional sources into the program. i won't go into what epa attempted to do to avoid that,

but everyone agreed that is not what congress wanted. this is what was commented on when he said you take a provision of the law and transform it to expand it so it covers millions of smaller sources that were never covered before. that is something we should hear direct about. applyingthe opinion, -- or requiring sources to demonstrate best control technology for carbon dioxide, if they were already in the program, were nothing special. even in the opinion you could principle between things that are out of bounds and nothing special. department attorneys, other attorneys, summing it up very well at one point, making the case that in

thelating, establishing clean power plant, epa is using regular power that it has used many times before. regulating sources that had been regulated many times before. using methods that have been used many times before in market-based trading mechanisms. here is nothing transformative except we're getting to carbon dioxide for the first time. american electric power versus connecticut already decided section 111, the provision used, authorizes the regulation of carbon dioxide. he said, "what is transformative, what is the big deal?" that will be the prevailing outcome of the question of what is the standard of review. it also tells you how key, i

bet, the majority will view the so-called generation shifting issue. it is the application of familiar techniques to sources which have been regulated a past underes in the the authority with which the supreme court already said extends the carbon dioxide. >> we are discussing the significance of argument one, generational shifting and statutory issues. as the former administrator for air under george w. bush, you have worked on both sides of washington's revolving door. what heart of this argument you think will be pivotal to the ultimate decision, and what from the judges comments do you think were shadowed what the decision will be? >> this is the section of the argument i found to be most interesting. >> good, because i voted by proxy for you.

>> this seemed to be the argument that all of the judges were struggling with on both sides. at one point, judge millett asked epa if they had ever before required the owner of the source to subsidize its competitor. this was a question that got to the heart of the question of what epa is doing. said to theefore owner of a regulated facility "we will require you to subsidize another plant that has nothing to do with your own plant." bseris sometimes called a or a beyond the fence line, but it will be one of the most significant things for the epa to deal with. of what is transformational was part of that same argument because the

argument the challenger made was if the epa will do some it has never done before under this section will need a clear congressional statement. sinceoblem the epa has, the days of thomas edison, what the power generating agencies will have honored by congress, then you have the epa saying we will decide to have coal plants shut down and require that wind and solar plants be built. you had all of the judges struggling. transformational? people are building renewable resources anyway, but the .echanism is remarkable the idea that epa is saying we have the authority to remake the grid. we can decide a certain number of coal plants need to shut down here the epa has never done that directly.

david will say in the past other epa regulations have had this effect here at which is true. if you require coa less to put on scrubbers, some of that might be shifted, but that is not mandated that a be shifted from one point to the other. .> i disagree with that the very idea of the clean air act is putting limits on pollution that the marketplace does not deal with. the market price is pushing in the right direction, but the clean power plan is pushing somewhat further. emit a lot of pollution, when they get to use the atmosphere for free, they have a subsidy in the form of our health and climate, which is coming from the public at the disadvantage of the clean air competitors.

one can play the subsidy argument in both directions. the purpose of the clean air act is to internalize pollution the impact ofand making those sources more expensive to run. it makes other sources more attractive to run so a generation shifts. compound a germanic noun generation shifting. happens when one plant is more expensive to operate, and another is less expensive. >> that is not what epa did. that is what they did in the past. never before has epa look at the entire generating sector and said "we think we should take 30% of business from these plants and shift it to these plants. " it is different.

mi to make them more expensive to operate and result in generation shifting, that is different. i think the judges understood that. >> the same kind of analysis has happened across state rule. and the mercury rule. and the difference between carbon, mercury, and irony. this is normal operating procedure. >> a quick comment. >> there is a key difference between those rules where you have trading and a component. the generation shifting happens as a result of the rule. the clean power plan, the actuallyn shifting is the rule itself. is not the consequence, it is the rule. this is a completely different provision of the act then you see with the others. talk about market-taste

mechanisms, like the acid rain program, congress enacted that. that is not what we have here. >> talk about the transformational aspect. i would say it is for some states, not for all. from massachusetts it is business as usual. for west virginia it is more transformational. give us a state perspective. i know that you represent massachusetts and do not want to speak for west virginia, who is leading a lawsuit against epa. how are the states going to handle this in terms of generation shifting? >> sure. i think the court was cognizant of the fact that massachusetts, along with 8 other northeast and mid-atlantic states, are part of a carbon trading program. the greenhouse gas initiative. california is engaged in a similar enterprise with respect to emmisions trading.

the programs are not lost on the court. new england, new york, the mid-atlantic states involved in -- we have seen a massive reduction in carbon emissions from the power sector. we have seen, actually, a net than a fit for electric customers through the program. the costs have been very modest. a lot of the costs have been reinvested into energy-efficient programs. consumers are doing better than they were before. there in an academic discussion about what generation shifting means and are the practical what is happening on the ground in the regions of the country doing this. intoare pricing carbon their operations, power plants , that changes the way the

system is dispatched on a minute i minute races -- minute to minute basis in relatively moderate ways. we are not seeing ruinous host c -- ruinous wholesale electric prices. we have a carbon trading program similar to what epa expects other states to develop and participate in under the clean power plan. there is a reality discussion based on the real world examples the epa used creating the rule and had to look at. .hose things are happening when we talk about a best system, we cannot shut our eyes to the systems in place that power plants are using. throughout the day, the oral arguments, what we saw was to

what extent states are encouraged to comply with the rule. interpret this wrongly, but what i understand they argue the rule is near impossible to meet without states working together, yet the rule does not require states to work together, so how can the rule require something that is near impossible to meet? the epa and others have argued the clean air act has a long history of states working together even without the legal requirement to do so. allison, you talked about how bakedation shifting is into the rule without being for others. is not legally required in the rule, but it would be the most cost-effective way to comply. there is general agreement. allison, can you talk about how

perspective,legal to assume these types of things that will likely happen but are not legally required to have been. how will the judges look at that difference? >> is not only that they are legally required to happen, under the epa fact they cannot require the states to work together. when you look at examples, you can see without working together, you will not be able this rule the limits sets. the big example that was given in the fifth argument of the day i the solicitor general for wisconsin, he talked about, let's look at the state of montana. see what their missions are now. i will just make up numbers, but roughly around 2200.

then -- 2200 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt hours. if we applied building block one, to do measures at the plant itself to minimize the co2 that is emitted, things that make the plant more efficient, 1900. then you apply building block to. -- building block 2 and it stays in 1900 because building block 2 is where you use gas plants more than coal plants. montana does not have any gas plants. same.s why it stays the you put in what you think you can get from renewable energy. around 1900, because the gap was around 600 pounds.

montana is required to meet a 1305 pound megawatt per hour limit. they talk about how we have a 600 pound per hour gap that we cannot make. we shut the plants down to meet it or work with other states around us to be able to get credits from them. ates wille is some st have extra credits and some will and someont 10 will -- will not. montana will not. california will have a lot of credits. they will have a law that requires any state that it does trading with for co2 to be as stringent as it. it requires more than the clean power plan, and this was unfair to montana. that is the argument as it was

presented. >> do you think montana could meet the role if it works with other states? trading, it could get it from others, but it would have to acquiesce to some of the demands of other states. if those states will not trade with it because they view it as a dirty state, for want of a better term, it will have a problem. >> do you want to respond? >> and legal terms, the judges seemed to be looking for assurances that these problems, in terms of the failure of markets to develop, if those problems should crop up would there be a way for the states to get back the epa and ask for

changes, getting back to a court to ask for changes if they did not get them from the epa? i believe they got assurances of that kind from the government's attorneys that there are ways to reopen things if those scenarios unfold. it is important to see how exaggerated that scenario was. california has not issued a final plan and upset any of the concrete.ns in in any case, you would not look to california for the principal source of your renewable energy credits. you would look to the south. montana is a heavy wind state. there is a lot of potential. it was not fully represented in the analysis referred to. the neighboring states of north dakota and others are the saudi arabia of wind.

there's plenty of opportunity to mutual advantage of the companies involved and states involved to work the development of these resources and exchange of credits for them. i thought allison's colleague performed a useful service for our side explaining how the rule were. -- role worked. that there are two options, that is the best system of production omission means. you can control the omissions yourself by making the plant more efficient or by doing things like co-firing with gas or other steps to reduce the omissions. that is option one. option 2 is to obtain an emmisions credit from another source. that is the classic emmisions trading system.

the power industry knows how to use it that her than any other industry and existence. there are more precedents for that state, local, and federal than any other industry. this is easy. >> do you think montana could meet the clean power plan goal without outside help? >> one thing that was pointed out is a power company and montana that invests in wind resources from a neighboring credits. dibs on those those credits count even though the wind is generated in the neighboring state. that does not require a formal trading program or trading agreement between the two states. credits go the wind to the investing company. >> at 1.i remember a justice department lawyer saying that

technically states could meet their goals by cleaning up coal plants inside the fence with technology. carbon capturing and cyclist ration technology. i take that that would be expensive. i think the lawyers from the government conceded that would not be the least expensive, it would be the most expensive. do you agree that states could technically meet the standards inside the fence by reducing individualnside the power plants without generation shifting? >> they could do that with co-firing with gas, may be apply carbon capture and storage. many companies can take advantage of the wind credit i described. these are things that you not require interstate trading agreements. they build up the wind resources

and solar resources in the state of montana, or another individual state. the rule does not drive to the edge of the envelope. there is so much head room built in. the environmentalists might have challenged this rule as being quite moderate. >> the collection of arguments we have been talking about, would you put this under record-based decisions, or statutory? >> argument 5 is a statutory argument. it is based on the record. it assumes by the time you get there that the 4 preceding arguments have not succeeded. win on one of the 4 that preceded it, you do not need to get to it. >> the d.c. circuit is not congress.

their job is to not look at the policy implications and how trading would work. they look at the statute and say, is what epa did consistent with congressional intent and the language of the statute? that is a much more narrow question. clearly, judges talk about a lot hours, manyver 7 questions were asked. at the end of the day they go to their chambers, look at the statute, read the briefs. in order for epa to prevail they have to convince themselves the statutory provision that has been around for 47-years that has always meant one thing now means something different. that is what they do. that is the question. >> it is the other way around. they have to be persuaded by the challengers this provision has been used in a way that is not

consistent with the face of the statute and a reasonable interpretation. >> that goes back to the first question, what is the standard review? we all agree, the question is not amorphous policy, but has congress authorized epa to do this? >> i want to wrap up the conversation about states. massachusetts is different from west virginia, indiana, or fossil fuel-based states. what can they teach other states that are more dependent on coal -fired electricity? what can they teach those states about how they will be impacted by the role, and what can they do to adapt realizing the energy mixes are quite diverse? >> a number of things that states can do under the plan.

a number of things massachusetts has already done and may do in the future. a wide range of things. and california are particular states that have done a lot on energy efficiency, demand reduction, and although that is not part of the legal basis for the rule, it is something states can use to comply. they can submit a plan that includes that to get reductions. consistently, there is a broad consensus that it is one of the cleanest strategies to reduce emmisions. that you reduce carbon emissions from power plants. nasa to service has had -- massachusetts has had a great deal of success with energy efficiency. that is one strategy. we have the carbon trading regime which has been cheaper

and more successful. a state like west virginia, montana, other states concerned about their ability to comply with the rule certainly have a great deal more land-based wind at their disposal to build over the next decade. they have a long time under the rule to get the reductions they need. >> not as long with the state and a couple of years. ofthere is a certain level -- we have been moving in this direction in some states for quite some time. other states have the benefit of neighboring states, and also the benefit of the fact that cross curves are different than they were when a lot of the states were launching down this path. the cost of renewable energy and energy efficiency is not a ruinous scenario to invest in

these resources. ' goalt is massachusetts under the clean power plan? >> the goal, the percentage goal, you are stumping me on the exact percentage. it varies. same goals for each subsector, gas plants and coal plants, that every other state. it is true. >> how many coal plants do you have in massachusetts? very largea coal plant in brighton point that will be retiring. >> that was planned regardless of the clean power plan? >> exactly. it will still go toward your clean power plan goal? >> we will have a more gas-centric mourad.

we -- centric grid. we had a cold-centric grid 10 years ago. we have accomplished that transition. setre you basically already to be in compliance? some are and some have further to go. >> the consensus of the new england states is that we are in a strong position to comply. that is really a function of the work we have been talking about that we have gotten a head start here not that other states cannot do it, is the function of things we have already put into place. >> how can you force states that do not want to do it to do it? is it that in essence what the rule is doing? isn't that transformative and telling states that you will redo your energy grid.

you will not be able to have coal-fired power. you will have renewable energy. it will dispatch first. if you have gas plants, they will run more. >> one response to that. theink the whole idea of clean air act is that we are trying to reduce pollution. that is the fundamental goal of this program. is important when you have a complicated statute that we spent seven hours discussing, it to lookimportant that at this construct of forcing states to do things -- states have lots of options. the epa gave them lots of options. have, thee task we

task the court has, is to understand the purpose of the clean air act. using that as a guide to understanding how the sections of the clean air act should be applied. it is not a vacuum. we have a strong legislative history around the clean air act, including the good neighbor provision. whiche like massachusetts may be more stringent, we cannot have a race to the bottom around the country where some states are not getting the reductions the nation needs to protect health and welfare. i feel like i have gotten hardly any words in here. so again, people make this argument that the clean air act is about cleaning pollution so this rule should be ok. the clean air act is more

complicated. congress created a number of limitations on how this could be done. the question is not, does this reduce pollution, but did the one fact that is instructive, if you look at the state, they are responsible for over 85% of the reductions in co2 emissions. the states that are challenging have it 5%. the 18 state that are supporting, they are responsible for less than 8% of the reductions. it is not surprising that massachusetts and california and other new england state -- it is really set up as a way to toce the rest of the country have a great that looks like massachusetts or california, and

since the industrial revolution, states have been able to choose how they want to produce electricity as long as the plants at the best technology to reduce pollution. the idea this is nothing more than what has always happened is just plain wrong. you have this dynamic where you have these states that benefit because they can sell credits to states who will have to pay for them, and it's a different dynamic than before, certainly under section 111 of the clean air act. >> the cheaper source of credit will be in the states that have the coal plants cause that is where resources are, where a lot of the gas resources are. saying?at what you are if they only knew what was good for them, they would support it. >> also a lot of wind. >> oklahoma, iowa.

oklahoma is the place where the wind comes sweeping out of plains. to think about this as fundamentally regulating state is wrong. this is about regulating power generation sources that in that pollution. the about the way the clean air act. there are some parts of the act that operate directly against pollution from the sources. directly with no state involvement. the acid rain, that hazardous air pollution program is another. there are parts of the act where congress gave state first option to implementation, but if they choose not to implement, they do not get to veto the reductions. stand aside, and epa is responsible for regularly -- forr federally regulating --

federally regulating. the state are bystanders. this is why the constitutional rguments hit with such a thud. there is no substance to the argument that the epa is regulating states. court cases are not decided in a vacuum. we heard a lot of discussion that congress has often not to act, that congress should act. the gop-appointed judge said he thinks climate change is an important issue, that it is real, that humans are contributing, that he can share in the frustration, and can understand the frustration that some may have with congress not acting in his area. judgestically appointed made similar or redox -- remarks.

it was important to remember not only that the judges go back and look at the law itself in a vacuum. past cases have shown that they consider whether or not there should be deference to congress, and importance of policy, rule shouldot the be upheld. i want to ask each of you, and, seth, we will start with you, how important will the discussion of policy and the lack of congressional action so far on this issue weigh in how the judges decide? >> it is really hard to know. there are some people who will ,rgue it is illegitimate that it is not the role for courts. interpret the law for the courts. you make a good point, one of

the reasons why you have seen how epa has argued the policy, because if you took the passion about climate change out of this case and took all the background and gave the statute to a hundred neutral judges, they would say this is illegal, this is not what the clean air act says. what you are seeing is epa's direct appeal to the judges, and they have been very clever about this, in saying judges, you should not do this, this is -- you need to let us have more discretion to do what you should believe is a good policy. i think that is what epa is to some extent counting on, and we will see if that successful or not. congress cannot pass new legislation, but that is totally irrelevant.

the thing that matters is the congress in 1970 past legislation that authorized epa to protect against all forms of dangerous air pollution, including, as the supreme court epa inn massachusetts v. 2007, carving diathesis -- carbon dioxide. and then as i mentioned in american electric power v. connecticut, the supreme court ruled that section 111d authorizes the regulation of co2. what this is about is not the executive branch making something up because congress cannot pass a law in 2010. it is the executive branch faithfully executing a law passed in 1970 by the congress. 1965 president jonathan asked for air and water pollution control legislation, and in his message to congress, he cited

the threat of co2 and global warming as one of the air pollution problems that congress needed to address. in 1970 they did so, and richard nixon signed the law. as promptlyot used as it should have been used, but it is there to be used. epa is carrying out a law that congress duly passed. >> do you have a comment? >> when you think about what this rule does and you step back from it and all the discussion we have had about what plants should run, what plant should not run, what kind of new generation should be built, these are quintessential legislative questions, things that congress should be answereing. i understand the frustration and the judges have expressed, that you talked about about congress not acting, but the fact of the matter is,

congress has not acted, and these are the questions that congress the the answer. -- congress needs to answer. when you step back from it and you take out the fact that finally change is a very important issue, this statute does not authorized epa to do what it is doing. congress needs to make these types of delegates -- delegate balancing decisions about how the energy sector works in the country. >> what the court said in american electric powered -- which said -- >> the question is how -- [indiscernible] i want to turn to you. you have a comment. >> is this unbroken decade of massachusetts in our colleague -- and our colleague states who action onseeking epa carbon dioxide because we believe and have believed that the clean air act authorizes epa

to take action. that decade includes the massachusetts v. epa case where the supreme court -- and this was a shadow over the whole court and the whole argument -- which is that the supreme court looked at the clean air act and said co2 is a pollutant, and not only that, but the clean air act was intended at outset and throughout its amendment process to respond and be capacious enough to address emerging threats. that is really all -- >> 2007. and you read that whole decision -- predecessor in my current job, the chief of the environmental protection division, argued that case before the supreme court, and it

sets the agenda for epa, and the state continued to press. states explored other options. we had an idea that there should be a federal remedy for states who are dealing with plants that were causing carbon pollution, and this is not just academic, this is threatening the coastlines of our states with sealevel rise and storms, as was referenced in the introduction. unbrokencacy, that legal framework, really, to me, answers this case, and provide the section 111 is a tool that epa can use, and if epa is going to reduce pollution, through this section, there is no point in doing it if it is not meaningful reductions. epa set a pollution standard in this rule, which it determines

that states and power plants can meet. >> david, a quick question, to move on to a related issue. one thing i found interesting on the justice department lawyer side, i have been covering the clean power plants for years, before it was even ever proposed, and have covered throughout its issuance. other president obama is talking to the u.n. or the epa administrator talking to leaders around the world about how important this is to the paris climate deal, which i think is interesting,tion, because as reported, i think the administration putting this clean power plant really up on a pedestal, as a very important policy. they have backtracked a little bit since the supreme court state, but it is clearly an important part of their pledge to the u.n. deal and paris. and yet the justice department

lawyer arguing for the judges likeweek, he used words incremental and moderate degree of carbon reduction. that is a big difference from what president obama and gina mccarthy has sent over the last years. david, i would ask you first, how can you square that? i understand why. it seems like the doj lawyer is doing that so it does not seem too transformative, but can you speak how their words can be squared? how can this be the most important climate policy the government has ever issued and also at the same time be incremental in terms of its impact? thet is the centerpiece, climate action plan that the president issued in 2013, and clean power plant in the broader climate action plan were absolutely critical to convincing other countries, starting with china, that for

years we were in a vicious circle with china, especially under the previous administration. i will not because you will not, and they would point thinkers to each other. when the administration was able to do with these initiatives cyclet to a virtuous that i will if you will. the chinese have their own concerns about climate change and their concerns that they need collective action are all countries -- >> how can you square that with what the justice department lawyer said? >> this is important to show that the united states is moving. what is happening is the marketplace is moving behind the fasterower plant even than anticipated. if you were to look at the clean afreshlants' goals fresh, you might conclude one could go farther, certainly at

reasonable cost, because the marketplace is moving so fast. est assessmentr b in 2015 of how much farther beyond where it seemed the marketplace was going you could put under the clean act and had a good story to tell about modest cost an overwhelming benefits. if anything, what is undermining that now is the marketplace is moving faster. congress is supporting the movement with the extension of the wind and solar tax credits last december. know, you are going to have to keep looking at these climate initiatives and determine whether we can at reasonable cost go farther, because the need is there. we are not on a tract the country and a world to meet the degree target.

we had to reduce carbon pollution and other carbon greenhouse omissions are medically. modest in real life now. >> would you like to comment on why the justice department seems to be talking about two different regulations. you would think they were not talking about the same thing. can you tell why that might be? >> i think they are speaking to two different audiences. the president and gina mccarthy are talking politically and are wanting to show this is a big deal, and the justice department is talking to judges and they emphasize different things. any weight on the decision at all? understandthe judges that this is a big deal. whether you want to use the word forsformative, they know

the first time in history the supreme court stepped into state this rule. they decided the first time in the d.c. circuit that they were going to hear this without going straight through a three-judge panel. all the justices, all the judges know this is a big deal whether or not it is transformative in terms -- i do not think anybody can really dispute that, and as judge griffith -- and a question about whether this should be congress or epa, david says this is another thing under the clean at act -- clean air act, the judge says this is not help your case very much. they know this is a big deal. again, all of us who have been you tend tofice, emphasize different things when you're speaking to different audiences, and that is what we are seeing. trying tos experience get congress to pass legislation

in the bushnts administration term, and when it did not pass, trying to implement -- get to some of the results under the existing parts of law, click here role in the erean air mercury rule, w your efforts to do this. [indiscernible] administration, always has to use the existing law for best use, but at the same time you like to work with congress to get in men is to improve on it. the acid rain program was not the first time epa had authority to regulate sulfur dioxide. underad authority multiple parts of the clean air act before that they were starting to use it. >> i wanted to drill down what you reset, which was his or her administration. also as a quick reminder, for those of you in the audience, live, if online, #bpc

you want to continue this on twitter. we will go to questions in the audience for a few minutes. be sure to fight the people with my friends down if you have questions. want to ask about presidential election, and we withoute over an hour talking about it. we are on a month out from the election. a lot of scenarios could play out depending on whether donald trump or hillary clinton wins the white house in november. i think some people have done pretty extensive flowcharts in terms of how you want this to play out. not everybody gets what they want, and some people will be unhappy on november 7, a wild guess. i want to keep the discussion contained to the plea clean

power plants -- two. clean power plants. let's start with the potential next administration. what are you going to be looking wins?clinton what will be the biggest things that could influence what happens with the clean power plants? there are a lot of different avenues, but what is the biggest thing you are looking at? a trucknk we have administration, the first thing would be, does that administration defend this prior existing rule of the clean power plants? at this point, we are done in the d.c. circuit, there is going to be an opinion. so if epa were to lose, would the trunk administration cert? probably not. losee petitioners were to would theo seek cert, top administration defend that

rule? so you have that. then there is a whole other later, could they do something actively to try to repeal it? in other words, do some kind of new rulemaking or if it were remanded, would they try to restructure it? an interesting question, but you are right about it being a flowchart with many different avenues. thoughtso you have any how this could play out if trump wins the white house? >> i know he or members of the campaign has said he would revoke this rule. -- and i think based on for a number of reasons that would not be that difficult to do. if the d.c. circuit comes out with a decision before they take office, than whatever they would have to take into account that position. as someone who has been involved

in several transitions from one party to another, it is difficult for a new administration to undo certain regulations, even though they do not like them. this is not one of those rules for a whole bunch of reasons. this would be relatively easy to undo. they have said they would do. we will have to see if that actually comes to pass if there were to be such an administration. i would think i would take them at their word that that is probably what they would do. >> would you then see the top administration -- would you then sue the trunk administration -- trump administration? it would continue in various manifestations. it was massachusetts v. epa, and things change when administrations change. we feel strongly that section --

in fact, we have an agreement with epa to regulate under section 111 that was entered in court which was really how this process was kicking off about five years ago. we expect we would be in court that the epa is meeting its obligations under the clean air act. trumpant to start with arst, but let discuss potential clinton administration. david, what do you anticipate what is happening if she wins depending on how the cases go? >> i am sorry, i cannot discuss the presidential race because i dc3 capacity. nr to observe much has changed, in that what was remarked earlier,

judge kavanagh acknowledged that climate change is a real problem, and there was no one among the lawyers, among the judges or the lawyers to be that voice of skepticism or climate denial, which you might have heard for years ago or six years ago, seven years ago. >> would you have heard it from a judge? >>

affiliation and please try to keep your questions to a question form and brief. >> excellent discussion with climate change business journal, let's take the case, david, despite your holdback, that they do take -- it is not just that they take ninth justice pending, it is that roberts issued a bitterly dissenting opinion in massachusetts versus epa. which we think is what -- some motivation for why he stepped in. does that create a charged atmosphere if it goes to the that wecourt, given already know chief justice roberts's position on massachusetts versus epa and the whole panel, do you think roberts wants another swing at

massachusetts versus epa? >> they have already taken two more swings since. in electric power versus connecticut, to stick with the massachusetts holding on the application of the clean air act ur in the you are case -- case we talked about earlier, there was no questioning the premise. one of the questions that the industry saw supreme court endangerment the determination and the court did not even detain to take the case . i think those issues are way behind us now. , -- actually agree >> i do think reopening

massachusetts v. epa will not be what the supreme court looks at. it will be a question of how can you regulate under the clean air act. that is what the case was. this will be similar. where david and i will disagree the how is fine and i think the how is not fine. >> and we are done. any comments about the question? >> i agree. are remarkably good at moving on, and you saw this often with judges that justice scalia, where he would be considered bound by the decision. you see the same thing -- >> congress would operate like that sometime. [indiscernible] michael fitzpatrick with

general electric. i have a question for jeff. i wonder if you could elaborate under his theory that under a truck administration it be umpatively easy -- tr administration and be easy to overturn this reprint in light of the decision and likely that there would be a d.c. circuit opinion by then, i would be interested in what the easy path to become a because my reading of the law is it is possible, but quite difficult to go through. and then a full set of litigation. i would be interested in your further thoughts. >> i agree with that completely. there is no question they would have to go through notice and rulemaking. look at the home builders case by chief judgeit garlic where he said agencies are free to change their minds on policy issues as long as they provide a reasonable basis for doing it.

rump administration would put out a rule, why this part of the clean air act is different. they might do a building block one only rule. they would put it out for public comment. then they would issue a final rule. that rule would be challenged, i assume. i think it would be very difficult for, even as good as our friends from massachusetts are, to argue that epa is required as the assistant of emission reduction. i do not see that happening. there is no question you would have to go through a notice and comment and rulemaking. it would not be difficult or time-consuming given issues that have been teed up squarely. you can do that in a year or less, and depending on whether the rule is stays, and

presumably it would be, it would not be difficult to do. >> i have a question from the internet. ohio, some lawmakers are currently two we can insulate any forceful increases in the state'sisting data -- state's existing standards. in the same vein, could you comment on the possible upside or downside of proposed state bills that require legislative approval before protection agencies could move forward with implementation plans? this question about what the states are doing from a state perspective impact on the federal level. >> those renewable for frodo standards programs -- portfolio

standards programs, there have been proposals to grant them that in certain states. i think the general experience across the country is they have been successful. you have seen a lot of states, even on the other side of the -- case, who have massive wind resources and are doing great things forward to -- four renewable energy. something ine state as they take the football renewable energy. those efforts have not been particularly successful despite a a lot political effort to get them through. that isbecause politically popular in those states. of thethe first aspect question. legislators that

hamstring their state agencies in terms of planning for clean power plant compliance, they are making a mistake. something that states can do. they are very familiar around planning around clean rules. this is a very different task, but it is doable in the state that i was talking about earlier. a very diverse group of states -- new hampshire is very different than massachusetts and new york, and we work together, work by consensus, and got these fairly ambitious goals put into the state regulations and laws in a short order several years ago. that is an example of states that are looking at hamstringing irere's dates -- the

states' agencies. it is not a herculean task as some state tests. >> as a practical matter, the clean power plant is a federal were noble portfolio standard -- federal renewable portfolio standard. it requires that a certain emission rate be met, and the epa expects that would be met by renewable energy. if the state undoes its under armour, the same amount of it --ble -- does it may be moved around a little bit, but that total amount may be the same if the clean power plant stays in place. kasich is resisting these moves in the ohio legislature because he

understands the value of the energy efficiency and renewable requirement in that state, and those should be a liar -- should be allowed to write. lose the ability to write its own plan and become subject to a federal plan. the american legislative exchange council is behind these bills. what we need is a smart alec that would be conducive to better state planning. >> more questions from the audience. the judges offered a number of hypothetical regulatory options throughout the day. was a judge that asked if the epa could require all plant to switch to gas. from jeff and allison, what would have been a legal use of

the clean air act? how should the epa have regulated power plants? >> that comes up in the petitioners have never disputed that building block one is a proper use of section 111. in other words, putting in place energy efficiency measures at the plants. in terms of actually converting a cold plan to a gas plant -- plant, thato a gas is not an appropriate use, because that would be redefining the source. >> we disagree about that. epa has held that in reserve. plantsd observed that can make substantial reductions, very deep reductions, by switching to gas or using carbon capture and storage. what they have observed is that is more expensive. have not taken the position that it is too expensive to be

required under section 111d. observedher absurd -- if it was based on the standard of gas or coal firing, what would the power companies do? they would operate cleaner lands more and these -- cleaner plants more and these plants less. we support the rule that is written now, but we would like to see further exploration of that if there were a ruling that somehow epa was limited to building block one, we would see building block one having a lot more in it than the mere tuning up of efficiency. >> [indiscernible] >> more in the block. >> christoff, you said massachusetts has shifted a lot

to gas. does your office support natural gas? >> it would be a long answer that question. >> the politics of natural gas is dicey. >> one thing our office has looked at, and this will be an issue around the country in general, not just under the clean power plan, but how much new gas infrastructure to a need? we look at electric system reliability last year. future ast into the we become more reliant on gas, and what are the potential options? and what we found our the infrastructure -- are the infrastructure have now is adequate to keep the lights on, and that suggests we should not be investing immense amounts of more in new natural gas infrastructure. one of the strengths of the rule is it utilizes existing infrastructure in place and maximizes use of that infrastructure. that is a smart decision for

ratepayers and for reducing emissions at the corner tech -- burner tip. >> i saw a question back in the corner. >> thank you. shifting from the technical aspects of the regulations, in too prescriptive in terms of the technologies it was calling for to reduce carbon emissions as opposing flexibility. the regs say the state can come with new technologies. is instance, there discussion about carbon capture storage as opposed to carbon capture and use. do you have any thoughts or opinions on that? >> i would start by saying you need to understand the way these

rules are set, if you come up technologyrence story, in this case, a fairly complicated one with the three building blocks, but then it comes out to be a performance and it can be achieved using the credits system anyway that a company chooses to do that, including by making the conversion of the plants to gas or carbon capture and storage or any new options of energy efficiency downstream as well as the renewable energy -- there are so many different ways that a company has to implement this. states have further choices. they can use a rate-based approach, or they can switch to a mass-based approach with a

conversion that gets you two allowances in a cap and trade system. it is hard to imagine a rule with more stability than this. >> i agree with david on this one. knowing how epa thinks about this, i do not think epa has any interest in restricting technology. >> one of the nicest things you have ever said about epa. actually, i have very high regard for the folks at epa who did this rule. they have tried to maximize flexibility, and they have designed it in a way that will strongly encourage states to adopt some sort of a trading system, either mass-based or rate based, and in the systems, people have a broad flexibility. quickhave time for one question from the audience. noah has a question -- nobody

has a question? i'm going to ask about donald trump and if he is going to win -- no, i will not. -- what of thehe other four could be the surprise argument, if you had to take a could be theat surprise argument that makes an impact on the decision, which one would it be? >> if the court has a hard time agreeing on some of these big issues, and they do not want to have a firefight decision either, there is a real notice problem here, and was one of the issues we argued, that as you may remember, we had this event here 18 months ago. the proposed role we are talking about it different from the final rule. mind, free to change its

but it has to give notice so people have the opportunity to comment on the rule. it is possible that the court would say we're not going to but we can agree that epa should have put this rule out for public notice, and that is not what people are expecting, but if you look at the way where they could punt on this and send it back, you could go to the proper process. would one of the arguments be a surprise argument? >> i think most of the arguments were duds. i would be surprised if any of them landed with any force. >> i have one last lightning round question, which is to say you have one word because we are out of time. i am not going to ask you who you predict will win, because as in customary washington, the

team you are on will win, as we discussed before this event. a very important question is when the decision will come. january 20, which is also known as inauguration day, do you think the decision will come before or after that? all you have to say is before or after. >> after. >> possibly before. >> two words, but that's ok. >> after. \ before.make it 2-2, >> what i can predict is it will come on jason's vacation. i want to say thank you to everyone, thank you to jason, and to the senator for introducing us and hosting this great event, and for the panel. i hope you have enjoyed it. i think everyone who watched. everyone who watched.

[applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

>> if you missed any of the and clean about epa power plants in the courts, you can see this anytime in our video library at www.c-span.org.

hillary clinton campaigns in harrisburg, pennsylvania. you can catch her stop in philadelphia at noon streaming online live at www.c-span.org, and join us on c-span for her stop at your spurred at 3:45. on c-span2, donald trump campaigning in arizona at 5:00 eastern time. the next debate between clinton and trump will be held sunday in st. louis. c-span.org this evening for the vice presidential debate on your desktop, phone, or tablet. watch live streams of the bait and -- the debate. not able to watch? listen to the debate live on the c-span radio app.

live coverage of the vice-presidential debate this evening on www.c-span.org and the c-span radio app. the vice-presidential debate happens tuesday, october 4, at longwood university in farm bill, virginia. c-span's live coverage starts at 7:30 p.m. eastern. hours, wext 2 1/2 will take a look at the candidates, virginia senator tim kaine and indiana governor mike pence. first we will hear from tim 1937.in may in he was then serving as a member of the richmond city council and was joined on the program by a republican discussing a bill on taxing the internet. the legislation was signed into law in 1998 and included a three-year ban on taxing certain internet-based transactions. >> a city councilman from

richmond, virginia, is joining us great you are going to be testifying before a congressional hearing on the subject this morning. what is your point of view? mr. kaine: the point of view of me and other local government officials, this all concerns the internet tax rate. the main purpose of the bill is to preempt state and local taxation for an indefinite period of time on internet services and internet providers. we have a real concern about that. first a philosophical one, the federal government should wrestle with federal tax issues that when congress starts to tell states and localities about what local activities it should or should not tax to raise local revenue for local programs, we have real concerns about it. we don't think there's a need for preemption of this kind. in virginia, my constituents are glad to call me and complain about taxes and i get complaints a lot. i've never had a complaint about

taxes relating to any internet transaction or the city is being contradictory. i surveyed other local officials in virginia and they feel the same way. a nationwide preemption of 30,000 local governments for an indefinite period of time, there will be a moratorium on taxation of this industry concerns us. finally, carving out this area of commerce and preempting it from taxes hurts local revenues but is also potentially unfair to businesses that don't transact business over the internet. why should we have a government mandated advantage for internet commerce and not for non-internet related commerce, the standard main street business, manufacturing facility, won't have the benefit of the statute. it will just be for internet related commerce, and that causes us concern. the principles behind the statute the congressman is talking about our once we favor. we think there are ways to harmonize the way taxes are carried out by localities in

this area. there are ways to do that short of a statute. >> are there any federal taxes when i go to the internet to buy something? >> there aren't any, police none specifically related to the internet. if you are a company and you get income from the internet, you have income taxes. if you are a company who sells something on the internet, you still have to pay sales taxes. we are not trying to say you can't tax the same transaction you tax locally just because it happens on the internet. what we don't want to see is people taxing the internet just because it's the internet. tim makes the point there are 30,000 taxing jurisdictions around the united states. we have to make sure that before we get too far down the pipe with 30,000 different taxing schemes, we figure out what this new medium is about. host: how long would your moratorium last? >> the moratorium is indefinite under the bill that we call for a two-year study. we appoint a commission that has state and local officials on it,

and we try to think about what makes sense in terms of taxing the internet, and we will have a report two years from now. then if there's a good reason to lift the moratorium or set up some other system, we can do that. host: what about this point regarding it being unfair to other local retailers who are not on the internet and have no plans to be on the internet? >> that's the one point i disagree with the most. but we have tried to do in our bill is make sure if you conduct a transaction on the internet that would otherwise be subject to tax in the state, you have to pay that tax too. you can't tax the internet just because it's the internet. i fully understand that state and local governments need tax revenue. they have a lot of obligations, they don't have a lot of money and are looking for new ways to find revenue. they are so creative, you sometimes have to stay one step ahead of them to make sure things don't get out of control. there isn't a good reason to tax the internet because it's the

internet, from a state and local standpoint. it's not like cable licenses, for cable tv. there are some right-of-ways is using some services the state and local governments provide. this is a new medium comments and the newspaper a lot, state and local governments would like to figure out a way to drive revenue. i think that would be a mistake at this time. host: for our viewers, if you would like to join us. you will see the phone numbers at the bottom of your screen as we spend time talking about this legislation before congress right now. specifically it will be the topic of a hearing on capitol hill today. i go online, i go to something like l.l. bean. go to l.l. bean, which is located somewhere in maine, i'm not sure. they're in maine, i'm in washington, d.c. whose taxes do i pay if i order a coat?

mr. kaine: is not much different if you order from mail order catalogs. most localities and these kinds of sales rely on self reporting. we don't have a good mechanism -- either in catalog sales or internet transactions, it relies on the consumers and everyone acknowledges this is an area of taxation that is poorly enforced because we don't have the mechanism. it would be the same concern with an internet transaction as exists within l.l. bean telephone catalog. you are supposed to pay a sales tax in your locality unless you live in the state where the catalog operators are located. host: it's a little bit more complicated for the internet, isn't it? i could be a third place, couldn't i? someplace out west with my computer ordering something from the northeast when i lived a third place. >> is not all that much more complicated. the internet uses the phone lines just like you do when you make a phone call.

we are not trying to change that. you still should have to pay a sales tax, just the way you do now, whether you get into the l.l. bean website or call them on the telephone. we are not trying to change that. what we are trying to prevent is somebody in california which has all the internet servers for the west coast of the united states, taxing a transaction that happens from one of my constituents just because the internet server happen to be located in california. that's a kind of thing we're trying to avoid. host: how did you get involved in this issue? mr. kaine: a couple of ways. i'm on a policy committee dealing with telecommunications and i'm on a committee appointed by the fcc on telecommunications policy. it interests me. i'm like congressman white, getting familiar with the internet because my kids are teaching me. i see this is a dramatic and expanding part of the economy the next few years, and putting it off limits for local tax purposes does cause us concern because it is such a growth

area. the taxes should be fair, they should be worked out well between localities. there are many kinds of businesses other than internet that do business across state lines and multiple jurisdictions and they have been able to have their taxes harmonized. the internet isn't that different in some ways than a telephone or catalog sales. we have been able to work out taxation with respect to those sectors of the industry, and i don't see there's any reason we can't here either. we don't really need a moratorium on taxes. >> our next segment features mike pence just after his election to congress in november of 2000. he won the seat in indiana's second district after running unsuccessfully in 1988 and 1990. this c-span interview took place on capitol hill. >> mike pence the representative elect from indiana, second district. in orientation what have you learned about setting up a new congressional office?

mr. pence: i've learned that it is a massive undertaking. we're trying to build on a solid foundation of people of experience who can focus first on meeting and addressing the ongoing needs of the people of the second congressional district. >> tell us about your home district. mr. pence: the second congressional home district of indiana is heartland america. it is marked by a couple of industrial centers. for the most part, it's a lot of farmland, a lot of small communities, and i think it's going to be a delightful place to represent in washington, d.c., as a conservative. >> what issues from home are you bringing here you would like to focus on. mr. pence: i would like to focus on tax relief. i believe that once we have kept our promises to senior citizens, this imperative that we seize this time of extraordinary impee this time of extraordinary budget surpluses to bring about tax relief for working families, small businesses and family farms. i'm hearing from the people of my district a real concern about

military readiness and national security, and i'm hoping to be a part of the discussion of rebuilding the military. >> tell us about your background, which includes broadcasting. mr. pence: it does. although i'm trained as an attorney, i have spent the last seven years of my life working in syndicated call-in radio, c-span without the cameras. and enjoyed very much being a daily syndicated talk host, exclusively in indiana and often did a little bit of television work. hopefully that prepared me well and taught me how to be a listener. >> what happened learned from your listeners about what their concerns are as the new congress starts? mr. pence: i have learned that people are genuinely concerned with that which most closely touches their lives. the security of their family, the strength of their jobs and local economy. the education of their cre