ms. mccabe we are delighted you are here today. all of us view this as a significant and it many ways unprecedented regulation. and pursuant to the constitution i can assure you that congress is going to do its role and look very closely at this over 600 page regulation that would dramatically change the way electricity is produced in america. and it's certainly a lot more than about coal. this is one of those regulations that will affect every person in america whether it be a manufacturing plant, an electric generator or consumer of electricity or whatever it might be. and this will be the first of many hearings on this regulation. now this proposal looks similar to the cap-and-trade legislation that the obama administration advocated for a long long time. they attempted to pass it in 2009. passed the house that was not successful in passing the senate. now the president as he has said is going to act unilaterally antiestrogen epa to set rules and regulations that are essentially and many of us believe, the majority of us believe

ms. mccabe. we have quite a few here from the pa. so, we welcome the interns as well as the interns from capitol hill. with that i will recognize myself for a five-minute opening statement. ms. mccabe we are delighted that you are here today. all of us view this as a significant and unprecedented regulation. i can assure you that the congress is going to do its role and look very closely at this over 600 page regulation that would dramatically change the way that electricity is produced in america. whether it be a manufacturing plant on electric generator, consumer of electricity, whatever it might be. so we end this might be the first of many hearings on this regulation. now this proposal looks similar to the cabin trade legislation that the obama administration advocated for a long time. they attempted to pass it in 2009 and they passed the house but it wasn't successful in passing the senate. now the president as he has said is going to act unilaterally and he's addicted to the epa to set rules and regulations that are essentially

ms. mccabe for being here. i'm in a lonely place and the only honest place to be in this town, but you be the judge. i accept the scientific evidence of a climate change. i accept the scientific evidence in the common sense that tells me if you take all of the carbon that god put down on the ground and belch it into the air we'll have an impact on the climate sooner or later. but i reject previous legislative attempts to address this problem and i don't accept and don't agree with the current administration's efforts to do this by regulation. mainly because i don't think they'll work but they'll definitely hurt. they don't work especially when you -- whether you consider an isolation or against the back drop of what's taking place in the rest of the world. i think we need to take another approach to this basically and the debate between those folks who say we need to put mandates out there in the hopes that technology will arrive on time to the rescue and invest in technology i'm firmly in the technology first

ms. mccabe. i yield back. >> the gentlelady's time has expired and the gentleman from kansas or five minutes. stay i want to follow up on a question for mr. whitfield. he asked you about the president going after the source under 111d and you cited the clean air mercury rule. are there other precedence that the epa has for going on regulating existing sources? >> this is beyond existing sources because it's focused on the fossil generation. steve gave the example and you cited the clean air mercury rule. do you have other examples like the clean air mercury rule? >> guest: no? >> the other examples are industry-specific like this one is. >> under the clean air mercury rule there's nothing outside of regular sources and you can trade but you couldn't go beyond that to apply such as you are proposing here. is that correct collects a yes or no question. >> question. >> that's write. >> to my recollection the clean air mercury rule was overturned. >> it is no longer in effect. >> it was lawless much

ms. mccabe, we're delighted that you're here today. all of us view this as a significant, in many ways, unprecedented regulation. and pursuant to the constitution, i can assure you that congress is going to do its role and look very closely at this over of 00-page regulation that would dramatically change the way electricity is produced in america. and it's certainly a lot more than about coal. this is one of those regulations that will affect every person in america, whether it be a manufacturing plant, electric generator, a consumer of electricity or whatever it might be. so we -- and this will be the first of many hearings on this regulation. now, this proposal looks similar to the cap and trade legislation that the obama administration advocated for a long, long time. they attempted to pass it in 2009. it passed the house but it was not successful in passing the senate. now the president, as he has said, is going to act unilaterally. he's directed epa to set rules and regulations that are essentially, and many of us believe, a majo

ms. mccabe for joining us here or your testimony. i want to give you a chance to perhaps answer some of the questions mr. mckinley asked because there are a couple of arguments we hear over and over again from those who oppose u.s. action on climate change. first they say this is a global problem so why should the u.s. at first and second even if america attacks is not going to solve the problem anyway if other countries ignore so why bother? as far as i'm concerned there's no question that climate change is a global problem and it demands a global solution. it doesn't mean they would wait for other countries to act first so to the contrary i would say global problems almost always requires united states leadership in a bikini one would claim that they leadership and action that i want to give you a chance to answer some of the specifics because it's hard when you have to answer yes or no to say what you really feel. >> i appreciate that congressman and i agree with the way you characterize this. there's no question it's a global iss