additionally, the e.p.a. is pressing forward despite two recent supreme court cases that expressly rejected the agency's broadest definition of bodies of water and made it clear not all bodies of water are subject to definition under the act. few regulatory agencies will be able to escape the reach. this proposed new definition could apply to countless numbers of small wetlands and creeks that are typically regulated at the state level. more specifically, the proposed rule extends the reach of federal regulatory authority by adding interstate wetlands and all adjacent waters to the definition of waters of the united states. it also deems all tributaries to be categorically jurisdictional. and for the first time ever, ditches -- ditches, mr. president, are defined as jurisdictional tributaries. this is cause for concern. this should be the disturbing and troubling to all americans, is subjecting roadside irrigation, storm water ditches to regulation under the clean water act which would have practical consequen

now, the e.p.a. has recommended that states work together, work together to figure this out, how we're going to make these cuts, but again, when you're not part of the contiguous united states, it's a little more difficult for us in alaska and our neighbors to the south in hawaii. if you're not part of an interstate electric grid. alaska is really in many, many ways on its own. because of our constant need for federal approvals or at best federal cooperation that is too often slow to come, we're not even able to develop our clean hydropower, and some may ask well, i understand that you have got about 25% of your -- of your power in the state of alaska that comes from hydro. that is correct, but because of other federal policies, whether it's the roadless rule or other policies, we are -- we're truly hamstrung in our ability to build out more hydro. based on more than 50 years of delayed or broken federal promises, there is no guarantee that we'll be able to develop fully our abundant natural gas or ev

the idea that the e.p.a. would mandate something by regulation that's axe i been rejected by the u.s. congress is troubling and unconstitutional. >> ifill: you don't think there's a way of allowing certain states with a bigger carbon footprint to meet these goals in different ways than others? >> i do think there is some flexibility allowed into the clean air act. e.p.a. has emphasized flexibility while not paying attention the ultimate goals. flexibility in reaching an aggressive goal is enormously expensive and i don't think e.p.a. can do that. >> ifill: how does someone at home make sense of the numbers and know what to believe? >> i think it's hard. i think most people are skeptical when the e.p.a. says here's this regulation that will save you money by incliew creasing your electricity rate, we'll bring down your power bills by making you use less electricity. i think people are skeptical of that. i think as a party of add government the idea that e.p.a. would discover the new authority in the clean air a

the e.p.a. s a plan to reduce carbon emissions by 2030. it aims to cut down on dangerous pollutants to 30% of 2005 levels. it's a move the e.p.a. says could save thousands of lives each year. >> there was a time when lily mcintire's parents doubted she would be ail to simply run like the other kids. at 10 months old, she was diagnosed with asthma. >> it was bad and i couldn't really stop coughing. >> she is one of the lucky ones. her parents moved far from factories and power plants. asthma for her is now more of a memory than a medical condition. >> good. >> most kids don't have that chance. now, president obama is using the record number of asthma case to say sell new regulations for the nation's power plants, giving states a couple of years to figure out how to reduce carbon pollution by 30% by the year 2030. one powerful republican called that proposal just nuts, and industry groups warn it will raise energy prices. >> it's going a disproportionate impact on lower income americans, people who

the e.p.a. says it plans to cut carbon emissions from power plants, the equivalent of taking two-thirds of cars and trucks off the road. >> reporter: the proposal takes aim at carbon emissions from power plants, spewing out more than a third of all greenhouse gases in the u.s. it's coal-fired plants in the cross-hairs. 600 nationwide. by 2030 the e.p.a. wants their emissions slashed by 30% from 2005 levels. the agency says this will cut down on dangerous pollutants, preventing more than 6,000 premature deaths. e.p.a. administrator evoked the image of a child with asthma, a child that would be helped by the cleaner air. >> for the sake of our family's health and our kid's future, we have a moral obligation to act on cloiment. >> some called it a step forward. we have an opportunity to get our hands on emissions that have not been regulated, that have been doing damage to public health. >> opposition is fears. it could raise energy prices, cut jobs and cost the economy $50 million. criticism echoed

he works for the e.p.a. and the c.i.a.? kind of an interesting combination.ut then they called the c.i.a. and they said jonathan who? it turns out he had never worked for the c.i.a. but i imagine this guy makes $150,000 a year sitting at his apartment or his house next to the pool with a beer and he's like his boss calls and says are you coming in? no, i'm in istanbul on secret assignment. this is where your government is. it's completely crazy and completely out of control. so we went through this shutdown and you said, well, i guess that was terrible. all the government's shut down. right? no. two thirds of your government's anauto pilot. two thirds of your government is mandatory spending and never shuts down. this is medicare, social security, and medicaid. so a third of your government is national defense and the other stuff we spend money on. so we did the right thing. we said we should pay our old jers. we can't have them in the field. so we opened up the military and paid. so now we're down to a sixth of got. about 16% was closed. you would have thoug

when i look at the details of e.p.a. proposal, they kicked to the states all the heavy lifting in terms of how you design a plan. and the epa is not going to acquire states to close coal-fire power plants as a condition of meeting reductions. rather it will say "listen, you can offset emissions from investing in efficiency and deployment of renewables and transmission and distribution line upgrades so you don't have as much electricity costs", especially when you focus on energy efficiency, it has the effect of lowering consumer bills. the chamber of commerce put out a hit piece to scare people by taking the worse case scenario. it's factually inaccurate. >> while there'll be costs, there'll be health benefits, we'll save more in the health benefits than we will in the costs. politically republicans are lining up against the measures. speaker of the house john boehner put out a statement saying: >>> senator majority leader mitch mcconnell said this:. >> this is the single worse blow to kentucky's economy in modern times.

the e.p.a.'s proposed rule requires power plants to reduce their co2 emissions by 25% by 2020 and 30% by 2030. and i do believe that there will be major legal challenges facing this rule if it goes final. i will talk about that in just a minute. over the past decade, the senate has debated a number of cap-and-trade bills. the first one was the mccain-lieberman bill of 2003. i am going from memory now. i think republicans had a majority at that time. i think i chaired either the subcommittee or the committee of jurisdiction. we defeated the mccain-lieberman bill. it came up again slightly changed in 2005. we defeated it at that time, too. then the warner-lieberman bill came up in 2008, and we defeated that even by a larger margin. the waxman-markey bill -- keep in mind, this is the distinguished senator from massachusetts that was in the house. it came up in 2009 but it never did reach the floor. now, all of these bills would have established greenhouse gas regulations for the nation's largest man

the e.p.a.'s proposal is a powerful step in the fight to protect our health and our environment. we face a crisis. we know that high carbon dioxide levels in our atmosphere are driving climate change. we know those carbon dioxide levels are increasing the acidity of our oceans, disrupting already fragile marine ecosystems, and we know that power plants are responsible for about 40% of america's carbon pollution. add all that up and we know enough to know that reducing carbon pollution from power plant emissions will make a real difference in the fight against climate change. pollution from power plants is also associated with other dangerous chemicals. a study led by the university of syracuse and harvard university found that reducing carbon dioxide emissions from power plants can also reduce emissions of other pollutants sul as sul you are dioxide, particulate matter and mercury. these dangerous chemicals contribute to acid rain, the destruction of ecosystems, ozone-damaged trees and cops and m

. >> the e.p.a. administrators for four republican presidents have urged lawmakers to take action on climate change today. the former e.p.a. administrators once worked for richard nixon, george h.w. bush and his son and ronald reagan. [laughter] >> jon: nixon, double bush, the great reagan himself, blessed be thy name. you know that people who work for those titans of history will give us the straight dope. listen up, tree-huggers. >> we believe there is legitimate scientific debate over the pace and effects of climate change, but no legitimate debate over the effects of the earth's warming or man's contribution. >> the issue has been settled, the e.p.a. does have the authority. the law says so. the supreme court has said so twice that. matter should be put to rest. >> jon: traitors! traitors! bring me my smelling turds. climate change warnings and e.p.a. empowerment coming from actual republicans? that's like being told pizza causes cancer by the teenage mutant ninja turtles who love pizza. it's goin

give us the details of what the e.p.a. announced today. >> reporter: this takes aim at power plants, particularly coal-fired power plants. there are about 600 of them, contributing to a third of the emissions in the atmosphere. under the plan, the emissions would have to be cut by 30% by 2030. it's based on a level in 2005. we are part-way there. this would lead to health benefits, preventing 6600 premature deaths. they claim that bills would drop by 8% because of energy innovation and efficiency. geena mccarthy unveiled the proposal saying it would protect the health and the environment. >> although we limit pollutants like mercury, arsenic, sulphur, currently there's no limits on carbon pollution from power plants, our nation's largest sources. for the sake of our family's health and kids future, we have a moral obliges to act on climate. >> mccarthy says this would be equal to taking two-thirds of all the cars and trucks off the road. if this proposal goes into effect, the e.p.a. estimates in 2030 we'd have 30% of energy

usda or will it be the e.p.a.? farmers generally trust usda's voluntary approach to conservation, but what happens to that trust if usda is suddenly thrust into the business of enforcing e.p.a. regulations on the farm? conversely, is e.p.a. going to hold any sway over usda's voluntary conservation standards? since they're planning to use those standards to regulate farms, this is a great concern. let me mention one additional cause for concern. these supposedly exempt practices are not even in the proposed rule. they're in a separate document from the rule, and that document can change on the whim of the e.p.a., without warning and with no opportunity whatsoever for public comment. so ranchers doing a practice consistent with the list may get the rug pulled out from under them. now, e.p.a. claims that this rule will provide certainty. it will provide predictability, they say. in one respect, they're right. as a constituent of mine from ogalala rightly put it -- quote -- "the only clarity the proposed rule provides i

the question about global warming and what the e.p.a.'s limits are is what is at play, what happened when the congress passed the act. if you believe global warming can be contained, the question is how much do you want to pay for it, are you ready to be taxed. in order to do that it can't be an expansive use of your tax dollars. it can be something reasonable. that is the big picture that is playing out here. >> what would a ruling against the e.p.a. mean? >> i think it would mean they have to adopt different strategies to keep the total number - the total amount of emissions down. i don't think it will be the collapse of clean-air policy. on the other hand you have to remember it takes place against the backdrop of a congress that is paralyzed. we are not likely to get anything that would clarify the situation, if the court makes a mess of it. >> listening to oral arguments makes it uncertainly. what do you make of mccullan verses popely. >> i will confer to mr epps. >> start with a little background. >> in mccullan versus copley, there

the e.p.a. is listening to the american people. the obama administration is listening to what the american people are saying. day in and day out about the action we need to take. unfortunately this congress, the leadership in this house in particular, has not apparently, heard the cry of the american people when it comes to doing something about climate change, and so i congratulate the e.p.a. for taking these measures. because this is what the american people want to see and it's going to have a tremendous positive impact. on climate change per se. 0% of americans think the u.s. should take action to address climate disruption. 80% of americans. so those are like commonsense people, getting up in the morning, going outside, getting their newspaper, opening the newspaper, and seing that there's been violent storms here, or that there's a drought happening here or that the water supply is in danger there. all connected back to what's happening with the climate. and affecting their communities. so

the e.p.a. lly it will be a benefit for energy efficiency. but in the short-term it's going to hurt. >> because the coal plants have to spend money to cut the emissions. >> clearly. >> they are going to have to charge more to the consumer to cover that expense. and it they may lay off people, right? >> definitely. the estimates are huge. >> all right. so that's number one. not good for the economy in the short-term. however, if you get cleaner alternative energy to take over, maybe in the long term it works. does the government get any money itself from imposing fines on coal powered plants that don't gut emissions enough. >> not really. not at the front side much the estimates are that this is going to cost anywhere from 13 to $17 billion a year to some $50 billion a year, according to the chamber of commerce. now, the e.p.a. says, again, in the long term, it's going to pay off o. there are no penalties that are paid upfront. >> so the government doesn't derive any money and all of that expense

do think your party should take a stand on anything, maybe the e.p.a., maybe the bank in september on a funding bill when funding runs out? >> i think, burgess, we'll probably have hopefully pretty spirited and vigorous debates on hopefully on e.p.a. if we can get it at least on the floor to get it discussed and debated, bank, too.e no republican is talking about using that as leverage to shut the government down. we've got a budget number that's been put in place now that we're under.ng any continuing resolution that gets adopted this year, i meet that number. so the spending issue shouldn't really be a question. are therestion is, other of these matters that we would like to get votes on that be a part of that discussion? i think it's entirely possible be. they could certainly there isn't any republican in the senate that's know,g about using, you any kind of leverage in that circumstance to shut the government down. not something anybody's talking about. >> so there might be a bit of a truce here in september to get think, the election, you on spending? >> well, my guess is because

he works for the e.p.a. and the c.i.a.? kind of an interesting combination. but then they called the c.i.a. and they said jonathan who? it turns out he had never worked for the c.i.a. but i imagine this guy makes $150,000 a year sitting at his apartment or his house next to the pool with a beer and he's like his boss calls and says are you coming in? no, i'm in istanbul on secret assignment. this is where your government is. it's completely crazy and completely out of control. so we went through this shutdown and you said, well, i guess that was terrible. all the government's shut down. right? no. two thirds of your government's anauto pilot. two thirds of your government is mandatory spending and never shuts down. this is medicare, social security, and medicaid. so a third of your government is national defense and the other stuff we spend money on. so we did the right thing. we said we should pay our old jers. we can't have them in the field. so we opened up the military and paid. so now we're down to a sixth of got. about 16% was closed. you would have tho

he works for the e.p.a. and the c.i.a., kind of an interesting combination. they did something extraordinary. they called the c.i.a. and they said jonathan who? turns out he had never worked for the c.i.a., but i imagine this guy makes $150,000 a year sitting at his apartment or his house next to the pool with a beer and he is like his boss calls, are you coming in? no, i'm in istanbul on secret assignment. this is where your government is. it's completely crazy and completely out of control. ntrol. so we went through this shutdown and you said, well, i guess that was terrible. all the government's shut down. right? no. two thirds of your government's anauto pilot. two thirds of your government is mandatory spending and never shuts down. this is medicare, social security, and medicaid. so a third of your government is national defense and the other stuff we spend money on. so we did the right thing. we said we should pay our old jers. we can't have them in the field. so we opened up the military and paid. so now we're down to a sixth of got. about 16% was clo

more people like the e.p.a. than liked hillary clinton or the democratic party. [laughter] so they support climate change regulation. they support the common core. even conservative republicans we found were split on the education standards we call common core. immigration reform, more people thought that it helped the country more than hurt it. gwen: somehow none of that translates. >> none of that translates. >> what about republicans? >> one of our pollsters said when we were doing the briefing, it's bad for obama, but nothing in here is good for anybody else either. the standing of the republican party remains overall lower than democrats. the generic ballot question that we ask about, would you rather have congress be democrat or republican, it's a slight edge for democrats. so, you know, it's not clear that the mistrust of obama is translating into trust for republicans. i mean, there's generally a sense that this is going to be a good political year for the republicans. but it's not going to be any kind of landslide. >> is there any consolation that foreig

it's in a geopolitically hot zone. >> there's news from the e.p.a. changes in the u.s.o reduce 30% of emissions by 2030 from power plants. a step in the right direction. it's a good step, important step, it's not enough. we have to think about how we increase efirm sis and nature-based adaptation. how do we use nature to buffer us from storms, see level rise, replanting trees. all of that will be important to contribute to a comprehensive package. >> having gone through the episodes of the show, are you more or less optimistic about what is happening to the atmosphere and what we are doing. >> it's not a question of more or less optimism. i came way from the show knowing that real people are feeling the impacts of climate change. it's not an issue for the future. it's an issue for us now, today. >> now, today, approximately be a - part of that somehow will be an interview done with president obama. >> i have not seen that segment. it's one. first sit-down indepth interviews that president obama has done on climate change. i'm eager to watch it. >> again, the season fin

. >> the president's e.p.a. reporters focusing on elections instead of the environment. >> could there be a political price for democrats? >> you have connecticut, wyoming, west virginia, north dakota at risk of losing seats because of this. >> i know people have concerns about the candidates distancing themselves. >> name one democrat in this election cycle that this will help. >> there is nothing to condemn more senate races to democratic doom than this kind of stupidity. >> joining us tonight executive director of bold nebraska. good to have you with us tonight. i want your thoughts on the e.p.a. regulations because within 24 hours there is a political calculus being made that those running for office in kentucky and indiana and west virginia where the coal industry is very strong, connected to jobs no doubt. of course, the democrats want to run on jobs. how is this all going to play out? what will the new regulations mean for the environment for politics of it all? >> it makes sense that the senators are sta

>> you know, even the e.p.a. itself says that it's going to cost utilities $8 billion a year. who do you think pays for that? it's not the utilities, it's the people at home watching the program. that's who ends up paying the higher bills. i look at the economy and where we are, the big contraction we saw in the first quarter, we are heading in the wrong direction. now isn't the time for something like this. >> marie a red flag, your state of the economy thoughts snnch the state of the economy is seen through the numbers. the g.d.p. was down 1% in the last quarter. employment should be a lot stronger than where we are right now. unfortunately companies are sitting on enormous amount of cash. the corporate sector is doing quite well. they have 2 plus trillion dollars in cash on the balance sheet. they are using that money to buy back stock and pay dividends rather than putting it toward hiring and putting it toward capital expenditures. so the truth is companies continue to have all of these unknowns, whether it's new fees from the e.p.a., whether it's we don't know where what o

the initiative was cited in the e.p.a. report outlining the initiative for other states.he state of colorado is making the right bet on energy. >> former colorado governor bill ritter is ahead of the center for economy. >> we were the first in the country to put a renewable energy standard in place at the ballot box. >> the standards in a mix of solar power helps colorado reduce emissions by 30% by 20, 10 years after the e.p.a. mandates. >> all of this will come at a cost. this plant is a prime example of the price that rate payers may have to shoulder. >> the plant was dammed by fire. converting it to gas when it returns to service has been deemed too expensive. >> we have to dig a high pressure, high capacity line and put it in. and the cost is not economically feasible. excel energy. colorado's largest facility says customers will pay 2% more to cover the cost of converting plants. a price the company believes is worth the cost as it moves away from coal to a clean energy future. >>> celebrations of d-day continued today in a french hamlet. u.s. secretary of state john

just scalia said the e.p.a. sought to regulate 86% of the sources of greenhouse gases in the county and the court's decision give them the authority to regulate 83%. it is seep as a victory -- seen as a victory for the epa. they didn't lose most of what they were asking for. there's troubling language in the opinion that leads some to believe we'll be back here when the epa issues regulations because the court sud they'll take a close look at the regulations. some said the test set up will be impossible for any legislation to pass. >>> one of the major cases pending is harris v equip. diane eastabrook spoke to pamela harris who sued the governor of illinois. >> a medicaid programme pays pamela to take care of her developmentally disabled son at home. that makes her a state workers under illinois law and eligible for union representation. she wants no part of organised labour. >> they are over stepping. you don't belong in a house, a home, intruding into a family. you don't belong interfering in the care of an ind

just one day after the e.p.a. unveiled president obama's plan to cut carbon dioxide emissions by thirty percent by two thousand and thirty china's government has announced that it too will begin cutting c o two emissions so is the trying to plan for real and what to say about the prospects for global climate change deal international also its official seattle has become the first place in the country where businesses to pay their workers are fifteen dollars an hour and a living wage is just a left coast aberration is a sign of good things to come for the rest of the country we'll talk about that and more and it's big picture politics and the growing grassroots efforts to overturn the supreme court's devastating citizens united decision has come to washington what happened in the senate today and what could it be for the future of campaign financing in america. you need to know this time is running out for planet earth and if we want to work. well that's even a remote lee capable of supporting human life are not jus

. >> they are ahead much better announced pie the e.p.a. from last week. >>> rogue to hawaii, the first of its kind boat race expected to launch and the local athletes are taking part. >>> and the mother of 8 killed in ahead on crash in sonoma county, the discovery made in the other car which has them facing serious charges. . >>> welcome back. 4:52 they are mourning the death of 8 killed by a drunk driver. they were driving home from a graduation ceremony on saturday night. police say their car was hit on by a 25-year-old man who crossed over the double yellow lines. the woman died instantly. the 9-year-old daughter in the back seat was okay. >> she has a mother, a sister and she took her away. >> awe. >> the victim's family is not sharing her name because they are still notifying relatives. the driver has been notified as jessie and they did find an open contain they are of alcohol. he was hospitalized and is expected to survive and will face charges. >>> they are facing charges for the eastern span of the bay bridge and it turned out to b

it's like if the e.p.a. was dumping its office trash in the national zoo's spotted owl exhibit. [laughter] meaning it would be ironic. but even if the irs deleted the tapes, why can't they just get the e-mails from her inbox. spoiler alert: it's stupid and preventable. each irs employee's e-mail box back then only held 150 megabytes of information. also known as five pictures of your family. or one picture of anthony weiner's [bleeped]. boom! boom! [bleeped] [bleeped] yeah. he has a somewhat large penis. 150 megabytes. that's 1% of what gmail offers you for free. and that comes with a google plus account for you to not use. the federal government has built an entire complex in the deserts of utah to store everything americans have ever said to each other. but intergovernment conversations? [laughter] i don't know. buy a [bleeped] thumb drive. if there is a larger scandal here, it's that our government's handling of information across all platforms borders on criminal idiocy. the irs is frying hard drives, the v.a. is drowning in paper. is there any record keeping medium that the

economists have suggested the e.p.a. is systematically underestimated the economic impact that may occur. counties across the country are concerned about losing control over their ability for local planning. mr. speaker, the american people elected the representatives of this body to preside over the making of law. an agency cannot rule byifyat. the american people deserve better. i -- byify ot. the american people deserve better. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise to honor the state of new jersey, which is celebrating this year her 350th anniversary. tomorrow i will introduce in the house a resolution with all the members of the new jersey house delegation, a resolution commemorating our state's rich heritage and this 350th anniversary milestone. mr. holt: and it is my understanding that senator men endez will be introducing a --

>>> i'm convinced he'll run the e.p.a. what god to meet some interesting people. >> i met two guys trying to understand the power of water that shapes the landscape. they are greatating this in a lab. >> reporter: at cal terk jess studies how rocks and gravel cause grain in lab experiments, interacting with water and gravity and nature. can you talk me through the major components of this sperms. >> we draw water from the tank using a pump to the top of the test section, and the water runs over the gravel and we recirculate the water and we adjust the speed of the pump to adjust the discharge. we are trying to identify the condition at which things will move. we'll increase the discharge more, and that will be enough to overcome the existing stress derived from the for example of the grains and initiate a failure and the grains will move down the slopes. >> reporter: what is most exciting about the experiment is recreating what happens in nature. >> that's the beauty of laboratory experiments, we can simplify things going o

those standards and a healthy mix is helping carbon emoigss be reduced by 30%, 10 years before the e.p.adates. >> reporter: all of this comes at a cost and this is the example that rate payers may have to shoulder. >> the city-opened coal plant was damaged by fire. it's shut, converted to gas. it's been deemed too expensive. we have to dig a high pressure, high capacity line to put in there. the cost is not economically fees ill. >> excel energy says its customers will pay 2% more to cover the cost of converting its plants, a price the company believes is worth the cost as it moves away from coal to a cleaner energy future. >>> once neglected neighbourhoods in london becoming the place to see and be seen, but it's coming at a cost. we'll tell you why, next. >>> we can afford tomorrow, i would. >> the unachievable american dream - why many millennials can't dream of buying their own home. >> counteracting a venomous snake bite with a single spray. >>> welcome back to al jazeera america. i'm morgan radford and i'm so happy to be with you this morning. these are the top stories. >>> a new p

the e.p.a. is seeking to seize from the -- for the federal government powers traditionally held by the states and oppose burdens on farmers and taxpayers. the e.p.a. has continued a full y pursuant to put ford mandates that threatens the livelihood of our farms and businesses. it is an abuse of power that cannot and will not be tolerated. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leave of absence requested for mr. fitzpatrick of pennsylvania for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the request s granted. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? mr. thompson: mr. speaker, i move that the house now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the house stands adjourned >> i'm serious. i said because i will never miss a