which brings us back to the e.p.a. the supreme court has ruled in the past that the e.p.a. has the authority to regulate the atmosphere emissions of carbon dioxide all the fossil fuel industry was back before the supreme court today arguing against that it's the wall right now if there's even a small chance of an extinction the death of more than half of all life on earth the president and the e.p.a. should be acting today no matter how much the baron's of carbon from the koch brothers to exxon mobil the trans canada the matter how much they may dislike it the weird behavior of the jet stream is warning us right now. today but we have to do something and do it quickly mr president please move forward with your instructions to the e.p.a. to regulate and reduce carbon dioxide emissions. and that's the way it is monday february twenty fourth twenty four. begins with you. your. face. technology innovation. from russia. on larry king now he's a timeless talent it's way below i stepped on a coach's foot in the eighth grade and the screen going off my foot you're hunk of meat loaf'

the e.p.a. overstepped its bounds when figuring out which plants could emet greenhouse gases, what the limits would be. the e.p.a. has regulatory authority to monitor things like cars and buses, moving sources. they always wanted to look at stationery sources, power plants, cole fired power plants, everything from oil refineries to chemical facilities. the question tailed is whether or not the e.p.a. went too far. this is coming up in a big symbolic way. president obama has talked about using his executive authority, that pen and phone to go ahead and make regulations when he feels that congress isn't acting. we heard a lot of pushing from both sides of the supreme court, some of the more liberal justice questioning really what is pollution and how is this supposed to be measured and then some of the more conservative justice, finding some real questions about just however the e.p.a. has gone. >> do we have a sense where industry stands on this, how industry groups feel. >> some groups have sided

the e.p.a. regulations have placed on their families, their businesses and their communities. it's time for this to stop. it's time for the e.p.a. to begin working with my constituents, with local officials and with state governments to bring commonsense consensus-driven regulations instead of the heavy-handed washington-driven bureaucracy. many of these regulations are stifling small businesses, leading to slow economic growth, stagnant jobs and less opportunities for the next generations of americans. so today, my colleagues and i would like to outline some of the most egregious e.p.a. regulations and off commonsense solutions to fix, replace or eliminate previous e.p.a. actions that are hurting the average american. for example, the e.p.a. recently proposed rule on standards on power plants have raised serious concerns on rate pairs in my district. on them oncern remains to provide reliable electricity. 80% of our power from coal, the e.p.a. has proposed a rule that uld create a defacto band o

the e.p.a.'s ability to regulate pollution coming from water called stationery sources. places like cole fire power plants or chemical facilities or oil refineries. the e.p.a. has gotten the green light to regulate greenhouse gas causing pollution from moving sources, things like cars. they say it's also within the authority of the administration to regulate those stationery plants, as well, because the e.p.a. says that they are the largest source of pollution, therefore the most hazardous to people's health. 13 states, along with energy groups challenging the e.p.a.'s ability. they say the e.p.a. has overstepped its boundaries and they've taken the case all the way to the supreme court. now, president obama has said repeatedly over the last couple which months that he will use his executive authority to go ahead and put forth more stringent regulations, even if congress isn't onboard. so today's case is seen as a test for executive authority. that's why it's being closely watched. it is largely

now, let's take the e.p.a., the caller was particularly exercised about the e.p.a. and saying that it's doing thing that is congress has never authorized. one of the most important areas that the e.p.a. has been working in has been reducing the incidents of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere as a way of combating global warming. those actions have been controversial but they're not unlawful. the district of columbia circuit court of appeals, for example, in a very important decision that is now under review in the supreme court and a very important decision that was written by one of the most conservative republican appointees on that court found that a whole slew of the actions that e.p.a. has taken that are very strong actions to reduce the incidents of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, that those actions were clearly lawful. and i would just like to say to the caller who seems to be very concerned about the federal executive branch agency's running amuck without any check, the fact is that virtually everything these agencies do can be challenged in the courts. a

the e.p.a. lement broad protective statute by bending a little bit on the implementation side. i think that's a choice that the agencies have to be able to make. >> the supreme court hearing arguments, basically six cases in one, all dealing with regulatory powers of the administration. this one dealt with the e.p.a. and whether it could literally rewrite federal statute. so it would meet the e.p.a.'s regulatory aims. rewriting what congress did. just a quick glimpse asking the slither general. this entire history of the federal regulation. what is the best example you can give us of an agency doing something like that, whereas taking a statute with numbers and crossed them out and written in the numbers that likes. obviously i wouldn't characterize it right that way. i don't have a case that's exactly on point. and that is how it is in the supreme court, a lot of give and take. we're back with the panel. steve, this is a huge, huge deal when it comes to the constitution and the whole pen and the

reverend republican state representative paul shepherd as introduced a new bill that declares that the e.p.a. is regulatory authority is unconstitutional it violates the u.s. cars intuitions true meaning and intent as given by the founders and ratifiers. i don't get it you know they're trying to become a solution clearly says. that it's put in place to promote the general welfare article one section eight congress has the power to to. create regulation what is unconstitutional about the e.p.a. i don't get it this guy is clearly not a teddy roosevelt republican you know this guy richard nixon about exactly who started the e.p.a. . it's the battle that's going on and this guy is not going to win there's far more americans who want our their air and water and parks protected then there are libertarians who want total chaos in the wilderness and something tells me that introducing this a piece of legislation. i get the feeling that. something else is pushing them. i don't think that his motives are purely political i think he might have you think he's got a primary challenger from the tea party

create regulation what is unconstitutional about the e.p.a. i don't get it this guy is clearly not a teddy roosevelt republican you know this guy richard nixon or about exactly who started the. it's the battle that's going on and this guy is not going to win there's far more americans who want our their air and water and parks protected then there are libertarians who want total chaos in the wilderness and something tells me that introducing this a piece of legislation. i get the feeling that. something else is pushing i don't think that his motives are purely political i think he might have you think he's got a primary challenger from the tea party come letters or your he took a pretty common. to these days it wouldn't it wouldn't surprise me at all if he could be had some lobbyist in his ear. ok. you can't know if i federal laws i know this is a regulation but it's under the clean water act it's part of implementing it therefore you can't know if a tenth amendment doesn't even cover that that's right you know but that being said we shouldn't

the e.p.a. r ways to regulate pollution. >> libby casey joins us from washington. what are the real world repercussions of this case? >> this has been in affect for three years. the e.p.a. says any plants, companies that are building new plants or modifying old ones have to limit the amount of air pollution or greenhouse gases. we are talking about coal fire powered plants, chemical facilities, oil refineries, the e.p.a. went narrow on this saying the regulations really only pertain to the larger plants. they could have gone bigger and targeted smaller plants, mom and pop operations, but the e.p.a. said this is what we're targeting, big plans that emit the most. because of that, it has a fairly narrow scope. when we say the supreme court rule, which should come this summer, it will only relate to some plants, not all across the country. that's why people are saying this is in many ways symbolic, because it will be one of these things that both sides can use to argue their point. if the obama admi

the e.p.a. despite legal authority. banning lead bullets and tackle would hinder sportsmen and cause economic harm to outdoor sportsmen and the recreation industry. this legislation ensures that the e.p.a. does not, does not, mr. chairman, have the e.p.a. to regulate ammunition and fishing. title 2 of this bill makes more funding available to states for longer period of time to create and maintain shooting ranges, which preserves american tradition. title 3 would direct the secretaries of agriculture and interior to allow with a permit, commercial filming on federal lands for crews of five or fewer. this permit would ensure fair return to the taxpayer in exchange for use of their lands. title 4 of this bill would allow for the importation of legally-taken polar bear hunting trophies from canada through no fault of the sportsmen can be trapped in a bureaucratic limbo. this is focused squarely on resolving existing permits and does not open the door to any future imports. the next two titles of the

the e.p.a. said it should ever the power to regulate stationery sources of greenhouse gas emissions, they mean non-moving, things like coal fired power plants or chemical facilities or oil refineries. the e.p.a. has targeted large ones, if they're undergoing renovation, they have to apply for a more stringent permit. mom and pop operations or smaller stores or outlets have said that they don't reach the threshold that really needs crucial targets. >> the case made it all the way to the supreme court this morning. we heard arguments really focusing on the question of does the obama administration have the power to enter this realm of regulating stationery sources to the degree that the e.p.a. wants to. we heard a lot of arguments centering around the question of really basically what is pollution and how do you even measure something like greenhouse gases. >> following the supreme court for us today, appreciate it, thank you. >> the longest serving member of congress is retiring, john dingell of m

. >> the e.p.a. and union carbide adopted a remediation plant. it's a superfund site. we will let these chemicals go into the public drinking waters and aerate them out and then the water will be safe to drink. someone said, why don't we put carbon filters on that water just to make sure nothing gets through. they said it's going to aerate out, you don't need carbon. well, that was a mistake that cost lives. because it turns out the only thing, there was a lot of other stuff in the water they weren't looking for because they weren't on e.p.a.'s priority pollutant list so the group included other chemicals, thyrene and acilorites is known to cause cancer and they let it go 10 years and it wasn't until they saw the high rate of cancer that they took another look at the water and they found this. every critical fact community need to learn. you may think you're safe. you're not safe because there may be things in there you're not looking for. the priority pollutant list of the e.p.a. >> in 1996 when these cancer causing chemicals were found, all eight wells of the parkway

so the e.p.a. a proposal for tough pollution standards for new coal fired power plans. they are using as their model, this is not that plant, but a new power plant in mississippi which has begun using this technology. the problem, plant operators say, is it is not ready for commercial use, so, bill, is this new proposed e.p.a. regulation a new coal powered plants reasonable or not? >> it doesn't sound too reasonable. i would say talking to businessmen and not simply those in the energy industry, the number of people who tell me the e.p.a. is unbelievably overbearing and pushing the boundaries of established law and costing economic growth and costing jobs, i'm really struck by that e.p.a. is one of those things that below the radar. not legislation but regulations. but i think it's a real issue out there. >> chuck? >> it is a real issue for the coal producing states for sure. and two of them have big senate elections this coming november. west virginia and mitch mcconnell's home state of kentucky.

now, had the e.p.a. published this rule in the register on the same day proposed it on september 20 of 2014, it -- 2013, it would have been forced to finalize the rule by september 20, 2014 which would be six weeks before the 2014 elections. now, this reveals an astounding double standard and is consistent with the remarks at the state of the union. on the one hand the president says we don't have time to delay action on global warming, we must act before it's too late but on the other hand it's okay to wait to finalize rules that will harm the economy until after the elections. ultimately this hypocrisy repeals that the administration is fully aware that the e.p.a.'s greenhouse regulations will put a drag on the economy and we're starting to see strains of our elect markets, the cost is becoming real to consumers. consider american electric power, one of the country's largest electric companies and they're the ones who supply the power for my state of oklahoma. last week during the recent cold weather th

into the elk river contaminating the water supply for three hundred thousand west virginians now the e.p.a. is saying that west virginia residents shouldn't be worried about this latest spill as the creek was not connected to a main drinking water source nor did the coal slurry contain the dangerous age and chemical but these assurances have done little to placate the fears and worries of west virginians are now heavily reliant on the coal industry and its economic benefits well earlier today i spoke to investigative journalist carl gibson was on the ground in west virginia about the latest developments regarding both spills i first asked him if he believe the e.p.a. has claims that the coal slurry contained none of the potentially deadly chemical and see. h m. tets was a guy who lived in charleston he drove to the side of this bill the morning after and he told me that you know when you smell the air you smell that licorice and that licorice is the smell of and c h m which was the chemical spilled into the elk river on january night another environmental activist stockman from the ohio va

. >> it was hot inside today as the justices heard arguments about how heard the e.p.a. regulatory power does or doesn't go. i just stepped out of the case and i'll bring you details when we come back. you want a way to help minimize blood sugar spikes. support heart health. and your immune system. now there's new glucerna advance with three benefits in one. [ male announcer ] new glucerna advance. from the brand doctors recommend most. jon: late breaking news from the u.s. supreme court. the justices appear closely divided over a climate change regulation. the constitutional battle pits the federal government against the states on the power of the e.p.a. to set regulations on emissions. shannon just heard the arguments and is joining us from outside the supreme court. >> i just stepped out and what that boils down to is how far the e.p.a.'s regulatory power goes. this case is not about whether the e.p.a. can regulate the gases. but how they go about doing that is in question. they decided to expand the regular la cory power so it would cover a number of stationary source

i think the e.p.a. in the next twenty years is going to elevate itself to being a major law enforcement agency in this country if it's going to strong arm regulations instead of just having them in place and i think if you want to get out of the conspiracy theory right i'll give you and i mean i know yours about the crashing of the economy oh no no no. this is really sick much more simple even you know it's going to if they do if they build the pipeline if they build a pipeline we now have a thousand mile long bull's eye for any terrorist which means that we now have to hire thousands and thousands of police of some kind probably federal marshals and station them every mile or so along the pipeline to make sure that nobody ever blows of thing up because now i mean you know right now to do major damage to this country you got to like fly an airplane into a building but a couple of sticks of dynamite on this pipeline over the ogallala aquifer awkward for and you could shut down five states you know for the

been screwed news big oil corporations and their republican allies are trying to do away with the e.p.a. it is the supreme court heard arguments in a case that challenges an e.p.a. requirement that companies get permits anytime they want to construct new plants or factories will emit a lot of greenhouse gases and thus increase pollution they go and republicans view that requirement as part of a larger environmental power grab by president obama even though it's actually an existential step to helping to combat pollution and climate change so what's the bottom line on the latest assault against the v.a. and what happens if the supreme court decides against the obama. joining me now for more on the cases.

now, let's take the e.p.a., the caller was particularly exercised about the e.p.a. ng that it's doing thing that is congress has never authorized. one of the most important areas that the e.p.a. has been working in has been reducing the incidents of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere as a way of combating global warming. those actions have been controversial but they're not unlawful. the district of columbia circuit court of appeals, for example, in a very important decision that is now under review in the supreme court and a very important decision that was written by one of the most conservative republican appointees on that court found that a whole slew of the actions that e.p.a. has taken that are very strong actions to reduce the incidents of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, that those actions were clearly lawful. and i would just like to say to the caller who seems to be very concerned about the federal executive branch agency's running amuck without any check, the fact is that virtually everything these agencies do can be challenged in the courts. and certa

in screwed news big oil corporations and their republican allies are trying to do away with the e.p.a. that is supreme court heard arguments in a case that challenges an e.p.a. requirement that companies get permits anytime they want to construct new plants or factories will emit a lot of greenhouse gases and thus increase pollution they go and republicans view that requirement as part of a larger environmental power grab by president obama even though it's actually an existential step to helping to combat pollution and climate change so what's the bottom line on the latest assault against the p.a. and what happens if the supreme court decides against the obama structure joining me now for more on the case is shane farnham supreme court reporter for talk radio news service chain welcome back thank you so much but have you who are the players in this case where does it come from and what's the what's the there will lot of plaintiffs in this case a bunch of different cases were filed in the kind of not even in conjunction they each different industry groups different states states that

and it's a depression because of overburdensome regulations coming out of the e.p.a. which are putting thousands of my fellow kentuckians and all of our fellow americans out of work. these are heartless policies. we've lost 7,000 jobs in kentucky's coal mines in just the last five years, putting coal industry employment in the commonwealth to its lowest level since 1927. you want to talk about the welfare of workers, these people need paychecks and it's because of unaccountable, un-- overburdensome regulation, unaccountable bureaucrats in the executive branch that these people no longer have an opportunity to provide for their families. this is wrong. we need to roll back these burdensome regulations, and i'll say this in conclusion, madam speaker, and that is that it is dangerous when we combine legislative power into the hands of the executive branch. madison in federalist number 47 , in quoting, the accumulation of all powers, executive, legislative and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few or many and whether he had red tear may justly be pronounced t

witnessfield sent to the e.p.a. back in november talking about these new coal-based emission standards and they base those standards on some demonstration projects using carbon capture and sequestration and just so happens that the energy policy act of 2005 and title 4 section 402-i says they can't do it explicitly. we have sent this letter and not responded to it. they kind of back door put out a proposed up in the federal register something. maybe they have read the law and maybe what they have done is illegal and maybe they are going to take a step back. so right now, my position on some of these things they are doing in the war against coal, you may not like it, but if you can't change the law, follow the law. >> let me respond and say i think the e.p.a. is following the law and the courts have agreed with that. and furthermore, i think the problem with coal is not a war against coal, but rather market conditions changing, a lot more natural gas coming on the market and coal becoming -- not only is it lessen tale

congress, so he's invoking presidential executive powers to carry out with the e.p.a. lls its mandate under existing environmental laws. >> we are applying the law as intended to a pollutant that is regulated under the clean air act, done what we've always done, looked at how to be reasonable and rational. >> while obama is accused of a war on coal, he out toes the benefits of natural gas as a cheap and abundant substitute, calling it a less polluting bridge fuel until renewable energy sources that emit no carbon dioxide. natural gas's mine ingredient may be worse for global warning, methane visible here with an infrared camera. the impact pound for pound is 30 times greater than c.o.2 in accelerating climate change. >> if you release natural gas to the atmosphere without burning it, you release pure methane instead of c.o.2. it has a significant warming impact. >> a new study by stanford university researchers found the e.p.a. was underestimating the amount of leaking methane by half. the gas escaping from hundreds have thousands of well storage tanks and corroding pap

and that the e.p.a., the environmental protection agency, is already closing down these polluters, closing them down. the pipeline, they say, is not as important -- >> sure. >> -- as mckibben says. >> this is an important, coal-fired power plants are very important. and the environmental movement, including 350.org, has worked very hard. the reason that the obama administration has put forward these regulations on coal in the last year is because the environmental movement did a wonderful job, led by the sierra club, of taking 100 -- plans for 150 coal-fired power plants and fighting every single one of them. and most of them will never be built. and it's good that the obama administration is pounding the nails now into the coffin that the environmental movement prepared. that's good. but that doesn't mean that we don't have to work on oil and natural gas and everything else. we need to get off fossil fuel. and we need to do it with lightning speed. and there's no sign of that. just the opposite. in fact, even with coal, the obama administration is burning less in this country, but u.s. co

. >> james, on the e.p.a., what is the recourse if the t president,he when he moves onous regulation like this? is there a response? obviously it can be challenged in the courts and you're seeing that in, for example, thellen executive -- the recess appointment decision probably will be overturned in the coming months by the supremesi court. f these other things, are the courts the only recourse? >> you have a few options. co as you mentioned, the justices seemed prettyopti skeptical of his claim thatd he and not congress declares when congress is in recess. if the courts can help, that's great. if not, congress still does have a role to play. they have the appropriations power. say in the annual bills you may not spend any of this money implementing x, y, or z. >> but the senate will sayrty. you must fund it. >> there are ways congress can effectively force votes, referenda on specific regulations. again, you need a senate tope cooperate. but ici think if you're someone who wants to set the constitutional limits on theso president, what you think about is at least forcing some of th

>> i think the president's record through the e.p.a. on a regulatory fashion on energy and climate is really good. i think that he really understands this issue. messing this up, you wouldn't see today but in 20 years would be superobvious. and i think they have that perspective. >> tom, do you have any ambitions of running for office? >> i've always said that i would do virtually anything to make our agenda come true. and that is true. but i've also tried to be clear that this is not a intelligent, strategic, well thought out interested effort to promote myself so i would say if there came a time i thought that was really important to do, i wouldn't shy away from it because i felt like i was going to get the bejesus kicked out of me. >> you looked like a little bit of a political candidate there at the mayflower diner. though he says he has no plans for higher office, steyer stopped to have lunch with some of the victims of the mayflower oil spill while he was in arkansas and listened intently like a good politician. what did you learn

underway and will continue until the state regulatory officials determine the spill is remediated the e.p.a. says the leak could have been confined much more quickly but the plant's still alarm failed as for west virginia residents this latest information is just a nother item to add to a growing list of environmental and public health concerns in washington meghan lopez r.t. . unfortunately it's not the first time residents drinking water has been contaminated in the u.s. not many people know about it but it happened and camp a military base in jacksonville north carolina it's a site of what is thought to be one of the largest water contamination sites in american history between one nine hundred fifty seven and one nine hundred eighty seven hundreds of thousands of marine corps members and their family members were exposed to tap water containing toxic chemicals during that time people living at the base drink and bathed in that water it's believed the chemicals leaked from underground storage tanks gerri and something or a career marine who raised his family at camp lejeune tells our t.

the e.p.a. is beginning to put limits on a mission limits on power plants which are one of the biggest sources of carbon in the country but all of those things have to come together and all of the emitters and all the people who are profiting from fossil fuels have to have to pay and we probably we have to accelerate what were the emission limits that we're putting on i think the way that you do that i think the preparedness discussion the president is starting is a way to tell everyone we have a stake in this and we can't solve the problem but we all have to contribute so that's consumers it's producers it's the guy. companies that are digging the call out of the ground you know and it's not so hard to do for we've found i think there's a study last november that showed that two thirds of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere today came from the extraction activities of nineteen entities exxon mobil shell chevron and addition to state owned companies in russia and china for in saudi arabia for ex

system and a fourth issue is that it brings competition to the payments think about when you think of the e.p.a. what will you think about exactly i mean there's no one else out there google all of this starting but i think they felt when he was. in the last thing is it helps the bags if you think about people who work at wal-mart middleweights bank account fees etc people don't actually need to have a bank account they could actually run everything through the payment system and they would have lost fees as a result target and we would all love to not have to deal with our bank anymore and you are fabulous and this idea i think is absolutely fabulous original content right here at harrah's and that's all for now but you can see all segments featured in today's show on you tube you tube dot com slash boom bust r.t. we also hearing from you so please check out our facebook page at facebook dot com slash boom bust r.t. you can also tweet us at aaron aid at edward and h. from all of us here at boom bust thank you for watching the next time shall. there's a saying you know when you're in the arctic

fracking in the safe water drinking act thanks to that carve out what's called the halliburton loophole the e.p.a. can't regulate fracking poisons even when they get into our water supply but cheney and his oil industry buddies didn't stop there in two thousand and five congress also gave the natural gas industry an exemption from having a write up reports on its activity under the national environmental policy act an expanded exemption from having to follow clean water act regulations on what kind of chemicals that can dump in storm water runoff coupled with existing exemptions to a variety of pollute. laws like the clean air act the resource conservation of recovery act the superfund act in the emergency planning community right to know act the two thousand and five car about its gave the fracking industry seven total exemptions for important environmental regulations in years later it's clear that dick cheney and halliburton got what they wanted free from having to follow even the most basic environmental regulations the practice of fracking industry is today bigger than ever and will likely t

hold maybe because then test the bit they're going to spill in a hell of a lot of oil according the e.p.a. there almost fourteen thousand oil spills reported each year in the u.s. not to mention the ones not reported so how much more persisting landscape will suffer and degradation of human life or curb before we end our addiction to toxic energy once and for all. stick around you guys of a break and on the latest on how the n.s.a. is contributing to drone strikes. just like. everybody else did you know the price is the only industry specifically mentioned in the constitution and. that's because a free and open press is critical to our democracy albus. in fact the single biggest threat facing our nation today is the corporate takeover of our government and across several we've been hijacked why handful of friends dash and the corporations that will profit by destroying what our founding fathers once built just by job market and on this show we reveal the big picture of what's actually going on in the world we go beyond identifying the problem. rational debate and real discussion critical

why such a rush hold it because then they're going to spill a hell of a lot of oil according to the e.p.a. they're almost fourteen thousand oil spills reported each year in the u.s. not to mention the ones not reported so how much more persisting landscape will suffer and degradation of human life or curb before we and our addiction to talk sick and she once and for all. stick around you guys with a break in on the latest on how the n.s.a. is contributing to drone strikes. i marinate join me. for in-depth impartial and financial commentary interviews and much much. only on the bus and. there's a game we like to play you see a game with no added sovereignty you chase me to a book that puts me on my knees you call it master and servant leave call outs in the summit with a sort of independence you need servitude alex why be another nation on the chain gang when you can be the first on the block. i'll be likely to see any sort of call to revolution aimed at preserving traditional. even a char called. the islamic religion this is one very powerful force so wards maintaining traditional marriag

maybe it's because then to support it they're going to spill a hell of a lot of oil according to the e.p.a. there almost fourteen thousand oil spills reported each year in the u.s. not to mention the ones not reported so how much more persisting landscape will suffer and degradation of human life or curb before we end our addiction to talk sick and energy once and for all. stick around you guys have a break and then the latest on how the n.s.a. is contributing to the drone strikes. that's our floor so that. when they're finished line up the marathon. i look. like the. last i'm a obama made a wide ranging speech on u.s. drone strike policy in which establish new rules meant to lessen casualty rates in countries like yemen and pakistan yet despite this declaration an analysis by the bureau for investigative journalism found that drone strikes killed more people in these countries in the six months after his speech than in the six months prior and although two thousand and thirteen we did see a noticeable drop in the practice that has killed as many as four thousand five hundred ninety eight