Transcripts For CSPAN3 Politics Public Policy Today 2014061

priority of american foreign policy. among elites, it's 29%. that is a huge divide. it's the largest divide, by the way, in this poll. the only one that's even close is climate change, which the league thinks is a more important issue than americans. the odd element is if you look at american foreign policy, particularly in the last 12 years or so, there is very little focus in our foreign policy on jobs and the economy. i am reminded in the first go-for the chant was "no blood for oil." you heard a little of this in 2003 in the iraq war. i think of that now -- i don't mean to be overly flippant, but i wish we actually thought this was about oil. then you should actually justify all the blood we expended. but it's not. we haven't fought the war these last 12 years for economic reasons. i would argue that the wars have undermined our economy dramatically. there isn't a real connection between our foreign policy agenda and the economy, which is what you would think your foreign policy should be focused on, at least somewhat aside from security. and i think that's something americans are responding to. so if you think about sort of why we've gotten to this point, why americans are so fed up, and i think part of it is what chris is talking about, about military interventions, certainly hang over from iraq and afghanistan. i'm actually struck by -- i was reading -- i'm sure many of you are familiar with the recent cover story in the new republic by robert kagan why america must continue to be a forceful leader around the world. and, of course, he warns against isolationism. the irony of this, of course, is that the individuals that are most responsible in some ways for isolationism are people like robert kagan, right? the ones who are out there recommending we fight stupid wars who are out there saying we should get involved in iraq again today, they are promoting, in a sense, this sort of isolationist bent among americans. if you look at the polling today -- this just came out an hour or so ago, i saw a recent poll on iraq. 74% of americans opposed intervention in iraq, 16% support. i'm actually surprised they found 16%, but maybe they're all related to john cain, i don't know. it was surprising. if you look at those numbers, imagine what would happen if the u.s. were to get involved in iraq. there would be a significant backlash, i think. there is no question about it. you've seen this already on the left with groups like move on, other folks who already are sort of warning president obama not to intervene or there is going to be a backlash and it's going to affect the midterm elections. we've also seen hillary clinton who has never really found a war she didn't want to support. actually, i can't think of any war in the last 12 years she hasn't supported. she is saying we shouldn't get involved in iraq. that's a big deal that people aren't talking about. the second element on this, aside from the hangover in iraq and afghanistan, is that americans think we should focus on problems at home. if you look around the country, if you look at rampant inequality, poor economy, poor job growth, infrastructure economy, it is an underfunctional federal government. as the kids would say, america today is a bit of a hot mess. we've got all kinds of economic and health-related problems in this country that need to be addressed and they're not being dra addressed. so i think for americans, they would rather address these issues than further immerse themselves in global numbers. they want us to be a superpower. this is a bit of how americans in foreign policy want to have their cake and eat it, too. this has been a consistent feature in foreign policy. we want to be a superpower but we don't want to do all those things involved that robert kagan wants us tobacco be to be superpower. it's going to be undercut by more of the kind of military folly that we've gotten in trouble with in the past 12 or 13 years. that's sort of the message that should be taken from all of this, is that if you believe that the u.s. has a global role to play, if you believe the u.s. has to be involved around the world, okay, fine, but you also have to recognize there are limits to that and that some of the things you want to do to enhance american leadership are going to blow back to things that are actually important elements in american foreign policy. i was talking earlier to gary posen and i said, people like kagan are hurting their own argument by recommending we use military force. he pointed out quite wisely that they don't care about those issues, they care about going to war. that's really their main concern about american foreign policy. for the rest of us who actually do want to have an important global role in dealing with iran's nuclear program or pushing for trade talks in the far east, these kinds of adventures are going to hurt that argument, and they're going to hurt that sort of liberal nationalism that progresses, for example, and are long supported. i go back to the hillary example i mentioned earlier. i think there's a sense, maybe, that this idea is penetrating a little bit. i mentioned earlier, but i think the fact that hillary clinton, again, who is somebody who has consistently worried about not appearing to be too dovish on the iraq war. she supported the surge, she supported syria, she supported libya. she's been a regular supporter of american intervention. i think she's of a certain mindset in the democratic party that says we can't ever afford to look weak on foreign policy. i think that's how she approaches this issue. that she is now saying, no, wait a minute, let's step back is an indication to me that at least some political issues are getting there. i think president obama gets that. i think he understands that probably better than 99% of people in this town that if you continue to push foreign policy the americans don't like, that americans don't support, that they don't want to see us do, then you're going to lose that critical support for things that are important. if, for example, we move forward on something with iraq, if we use force against iraq, it's only going to give energy not just to the opponents in the democratic party for use of force but also the republican party as well. i think someone like rand paul, if i was rand paul's political advisers, i would be -- this sounds crass, but you understand what i'm saying -- i would almost be cheering for us to do something because it would give real energy to his critique of american foreign policy. on that note i'll end and we can go to q and a. >> do you think the rand paul people are that crass? >> i probably shouldn't say. he is a politician. it's certainly possible. >> thank you, michael. if you have any questions, we would be more than happy to take them, and we would ask you to step to that microphone. i have a question to start off, and it's a primary question for everyone. we can go down the line here. so let's just say that the public opinion, which it clearly has brought about a shift in the last year and a half or so, operates as much of a constraint as you and chris were suggesting, michael. but bear in mind at the same time that the elites have not really come around. they may be coming around because they've got their arm twisted behind their back but not in terms of their own thinking. and we're certainly not seeing anything in congress that is attempting to put constraints on the administration. i mean, nothing like gerald nye's neutrality act of 1935, which was a very powerful thing. i think franklin roosevelt actually violated it on the destroyer deal. it probably was an impeachable offense if anybody wanted to pursue it and it was a major constraint. we're not seeing anything like that. so what kind of a synthesis from this antithesis might we see or should we see in terms of a foreign policy that reflects what michael was saying the public opinion attitude that, yes, we need to be a country in the world, we need to be a country that is projecting itself diplomatically backed up by power, but we don't want to go off and do these foolish things. what does that say? just as a little fill-up here, you mentioned balancing, and balance of power seems to have been in dispute the last 20 years since the end of the cold war. what role might that possibly play? let's start with mr. judas here. >> there is a lot of questions buried in there. >> pick whatever you want. >> yeah. let's -- let me talk a little about -- well, here, let me say this about the choices you gave. how does the administration proceed when there is such a public antipathy to intervention? drones, cia, all that stuff. i mean, that's where it's led for obama. i mean, that's the alternative if you want to be active in the world. and there is obviously problems with that. i want to go back to the syria thing, because i have -- see, being a leader in the world also involves credibility. i know this is a bad word because henry kissinger always used to use it as an excuse for not leaving whatever conflict we were involved in. part of the problem that obama got into in both with syria and now with iran is this idea about red lines where he said, we're establishing red lines. and there was an odd political veil to that that we should consider. on the one hand the public is not for any kind of intervention, but on the other hand, there is support for, you know, knocking off the evil guys. and i believe that part of the reason that obama got involved with the syria red line was in response to romney and mccain attacking him in the summer of 2012 during the campaign. then in august he says there is this red line, and then when it happens, when the syrians do it, he does nothing, and i thought that was a very damaging thing. so the politics are funny. i'm just -- i guess that's my comment. on the one end, don't intervene, but there is a kind of inclination where there is a real bad guy to support our doing something. and we get into trouble that way, and i think that obama has gotten into trouble that way. >> well, i think there is an inclination, but it's mainly here in washington, to do those sorts of things. and the lesson, if you're concerned about credibility, john, is don't issue warnings or red lines that you don't have the backing of the public to back you up. now, in his dwenefense, maybe h didn't realize just how much the public believed in it straight away. but michael cited the statistic gaps between the elite and the public. i did a very unscientific survey in late august, early september of the five sunday morning shows and counted 18 people in favor of intervention, three opposed. 18-3 all washington insiders. >> in what context? >> on the syrian intervention. this was a year ago. a year ago when we were debating syria, and it was a reminder, a very kind of vivid reminder of just how disconnected the political elites are in this town from the rest of the country that pays the bills. and, again, in the past, that sort of public opposition didn't manifest itself. what was different last year was that for whatever reason -- there was a combination of reasons, no doubt -- the public did rise up and stop what i think -- i think obama would have gone forward, he would have had sufficient support in congress had the public not risen up in the way it did to enforce that red line. in an incredibly, unbelievably, smaller than small way. and he would have checked off your box, john, that i keep my promises because i launched a military strike that checked that credibility box. i think he would have done that had the public not risen up the way it did. >> just two quick things here. first of all, on the red line issue. i believe that politics plays a role here. this is a little bit of a diversion to the main argument, but it seems to me one thing barack obama is passionate about in foreign policy is nonproliferation. and i think that's both -- you see this in iran, i think you can sort of see it in the other issue as well. i think that's why he took the position he took. but the public was against intervention in syria, but it was congress' opposition that i think ended up pushing the administration away from use of force. if you remember that, there were republicans who generally are in support of use of force, but in the last couple years, they were opposed to syria. the democrats were even more more opposed to it, or just as opposed to it, i should say. that, i think, is what convinced obama not to use force. for the record, he deserves enormous credit for that, actually. he made a series of one mistake after another, calling for a red line and what that meant and what he was going to do about it. and basically getting caught behind public opinion when syria had these weapons. i have a hard time thinking of any other historic example of a president basically saying, i'm going to use force to maintain my credibility both domestically and internationally. and then saying, you know what, i'm not going to do this because i don't have support of it. that's unprecedented. a, i think it was bad about how they misrepresented public opinion, and then he said he's not going forth. i think he deserves credit for it. i think politicians are sort of waking up to where america is on this. in a sense, voting against using chemical weapons, i think that would be a slam dunk. it's a pinprick, right, smaller than small. it's not really a huge political problem, not calling for use of force against iraq, for example. and yet you had, i mean, broad majorities in congress who were opposed to this. i think that tells you a little bit about where the conversation is shifting and that some politicians are sort of catching up to this reality. not all, but some. >> i see no one has stepped to the microphone. >> hi, i'm michael brennan daugherty for the weak and alum nus conservative. you mentioned congress' opposition being kind of key in preventing a smaller than small intervention in syria. how -- does anyone have any clue or idea how the foreign policy preferences of the electorate could be expressed in an election involving the executive branch who actually has this? in 2008, it was just two years after the thumping of republicans over iraq and yet they nominated john mccain. in 2012, there was a candidate kind of announcing a foreign policy that was about jobs and other things. john huntsman would go out there -- i'm sorry to be a cliche of myself talking about john huntsman, but he said our true roots were in asia and not libya. he got zero response. it was a flat line as far as electorate politics were concerned. he's not like rand paul kind of waving a pitchfork for a jeffersonian remark. this was someone deeply entrenched. is there any political surveillance or are they sort of in the executive branch and have antibodies for that? >> that's a great question, and i think the way to answer that is if you look at what's happened in presidential politics, the last six elections, democrats have won a majority of the votes in five of them. the one they didn't win was 2004 in which foreign policy played a major role. i think one of the things that sort of, i think, is not appreciated enough is that at the end of the cold war was a big political boon for democrats. during the cold war republicans always had this built-in advantage as being seen as the more hawkish party, the party better able to stand up to the communist. after the fall of the union, that argument faded. and so republicans tried for a long time to try to come up with a new bogeyman, and they tragically found one after 9/11, and that became sort of their weight to gain some sort of political advantage from foreign policy. but in general, i just think that foreign policy doesn't play a huge role in presidential elections unless you're sort of in the midst of a conflict. and who knows what will happen in the next two and a half years. i really hope we're not in a war. i don't think it's going to play a huge factor. where i think it could make a difference and where you've seen it make a difference is in the two parties, within the parties. so in 2008, there is no question that barack obama won the democratic nomination in large part because of his opposition to the iraq war and hillary clinton's support for it rathe war. there is no question about it. that's what gave him a political opening, and it was a vulnerability that hillary never dealt with properly. what i think is interesting to think about is whether or not in 2016, whether this plays out in the republican party. i'm loathe to suggest that republicans are going to go for somebody who is in isolation like rand paul because it goes against how republicans think of foreign policy. but when you have people like john mccain who were dominating the foreign policy discourse saying we won iraq, and that driving a lot of where republicans are on foreign policy right now, i do wonder whether it creates a backlash in the party and allows someone like paul to gain a political advantage. who knows. i don't think it matters much between the parties. i think ultimately the next election will be about the economy as most presidential elections are. but i think within the parties, yeah, it could certainly play a role. >> i just add one thing to what michael just said, and i think it is widely believed that -- first of all, foreign policy doesn't usually factor in elections. there are a few rare exceptions, 2006 being one, 2008 because of what happened to barack obama. i think you're wrong, michael, in 2004. i think in 2004 that the iraq war was a drag on george w. bush but it wasn't large enough to compensate. he underperformed where he should have been given the state of the economy in 2004. and the other reason why it didn't matter as much is because he was running against a guy who voted for the iraq war. there was not a clear distinction between the two major candidates. and even in some respects kerry sort of, the whole, i was for it, before i was against it sort of thing which republicans seized upon with gusto. so if there is a real choice within either of the two parties, and mainly, i presume, within the republican party or a clear choice in foreign policy between the leading democrat and leading republican, then foreign policy might be a bigger factor than you would otherwise expect. >> yes? could i ask you to go to the microphone? >> moving is difficult. >> i'm sorry about that, but this audience on tv is going to want to hear your every nuance. >> i'm norman -- i'm norman burnbaum from the nation. before the syrian decision by the president, something happened in a small, archaic country across the atlantic which we mostly know from "masterpiece theater." the british parliament acted out a scene from "masterpiece theater" and took a majority vote after quite an interesting debate not to intervene in syria. no very large proportion of the american public looks at cspan, but somehow the news must have gotten to people and it must certainly have come to the president's desk in his morning intelligence briefing and had some influence on his decision. but it was quite a remarkable sequence of events because it didn't seem to turn obama around. obviously, it meant that he couldn't count on much european support on that. the germans certainly weren't going to go in if the british didn't. and this was not convincing to napoleon. so what did happen? >> john? >> what did happen? i mean, i agreed with the point in the first place. i think the british not going along was the single most important thing, and i think that without that, the french were ready -- the planes were on the runway that i think they would have done something. then he decided that he would submit the whole thing to the public, and it blew up in his face. so that's -- i agree with you, norm. >> thank you, norm. let me pose this thought, because we're talking about a sense of political reality and a sense of political sentiment as it exists in the country, but we're also living through some very dramatic events in the middle east right now. the president suggested -- he's being kind of wary in terms of tiny, but he suggested he's going to take some action regarding the emergence of isis in iraq and what that bodes for iraq and syria. to what extent do you see any change as a result of these developments either in terms of the elites and how they feel about what needs to be done and in terms of popular sentiment in the country? >> well, i would say quickly, bob, that the elites haven't changed. the elites were in favor of intervention before, they're in favor of intervention now, generally speaking, and the public remains opposed. the little bit of polling that has been done confirms that. now, that's not to say that there might be kind of opportunities or circumstances in the iraq case where the precise use of force might actually be useful for degrading isis' capability or blunting their progress, and i think that was also part of the problem with the syrian case, is there wasn't a clear military solution. what exactly were these pinprick strikes supposed to do? so i think it is possible that they could make a case for military action but of a particular character and very, very small in a good sort of way. i can't come up with a different term besides unbelievably small. targeted. >> one of the things about this that's sort of interesting is there actually a reasonable argument to be made for use of force in iraq. i'm not going to make it, but i think there is a reasonable argument for it. i think there is a reasonable argument for force against syria. i think i made it at the time, but i'm not sure i still agree with it. the problem is, this kind of political environment, bad cases for war, good cases for war aren't going to have any popular support. the syria thing is fascinating. you saw such opposition to what was basically some cruise missiles and air strikes. no one talked about use of american troops on the ground, nobody. and nonetheless, the fear of this spiraling into a severe conflict clearly in flaflamed a of americans. on iraq, i go back to my earlier argument, the internationalists who want the u.s. to be active around the world, they are stabbing themselves in the foot -- or shooting themselves in the foot, that's how bad their argument is. they're taking a crowbar and hitting themselves, too. the reasonable cases for use of force are not going to be heard by americans who simply do not want to get involved in another stupid war. and every single time something bad happens around the world, like crimea, your response is we have to use force. it's like the little boy who cried wolf. at some point people are just going to tune you out. we talked about this with the elites, as somebody who is not an elite, i guess -- maybe i am, maybe i am and just don't realize it -- but it's not a foreign policy elite. i'm just sort of stupefied for the disconnect that the elites talk about foreign policy and the reality of americans. i think this has always been the case but i don't think at the level you're seeing now, the level of disconnect. the problems with the john mccains of the world and the reality of where americans see this, i think the elites need to catch up to american people on this issue. >> i see we have a question. >> yes. my name is abraham karavilla. i am an editor of an indian magazine. i closely follow the debate regarding syria, and in my opinion, the mainstream western coverage was superficial. so to understand the situation, i turn to russian and syrian sources. what i was so surprised by was to see ordinary americans who had no ethnic ties to syria or religious ties, they were posting links from rt.com, russia today or syria perspective. as far as i know, this was something fairly new, so i was wondering if i could talk about that. >> go ahead, john. >> i don't have anything very interesting. i'll just tell you on syria, i like joshua landis' website. he's a professor from the university of oklahoma. there are available sources if you don't want to have to rely on the russians to find out what's going on in syria. that's the -- i mean -- >> that's a fair point. and it's not an entirely new phenomenon. maybe it was just that syria was the first time it was able to manifest where the phenomenon of the mainstream media so-called losing its stranglehold on information, that's been a long-term process. but it may be that the syria case was one of the first times it actually, you know, resulted in something that you can grab ahold of. >> and i would just say watching some of the iraq coverage and some of the people offering analysis on this. yesterday paul bremer was on. he's on television. that's like interviewing the captain of the hindenburg about flying led zeppelin. these are the people who end up being who they lean on in these situations. >> we are at the end of our time, so thank you, michael, chris, john. thank you, american conservative, and thank you all for coming. [ applause ] we're live now on capitol hill where a house subcommittee will hear about a proposed plan to cut carbon emissions. the acting administrator for air and emission is janet mccabe. the proposal cuts existing carbon by 30% by the year 2030. it was announced by jennifer mccarthy earlier this month. it should get under way in just a moment. >> today we'll be discussing epa's proposed regulations targeting carbon dioxide emissions from existing electric power plants which was proposed on june 2nd. before i introduce -- before i recognize myself for an opening statement, i want to welcome ms. mccabe. we appreciate her being with us this morning. it's also my understanding that we have a number of interns here today, some from offices here in the congress, but i know we have quite a few also from the epa, so we welcome the epa interns as well as the interns from capitol hill. and with that, i'll recognize myself for a five-minute opening statement. 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 majority of us believe on this committee, at least, they're unworkable and will not even have an impact on our future emissions of greenhouse gases or affect global temperatures. former epa administrator lisa jackson confirmed this when she testified before this subcommittee, we will not ultimately be able to change the amount of co2 that is accumulating in the atmosphere alone. then epa administrator jean mccarthy summed up the views of this administration when she testified before this subcommittee saying that epa does not meriwether its regulations and the tens of billions of dollars spent by the administration will actually affect future climate change. it is simply part of an overall strategy to demonstrate the president's global leadership. so these actions appear to be about removing coal as an energy source in america and promoting president obama's leadership perception in the international community. now, beyond the president's unwillingness to listen to the american people, this proposal raises serious policy and legal questions. epa has never been this extreme under 111-d before. instead of the states establishing a performance standard for units within the source category, epa is now dictating to the states the level of emission reductions that each state must make, so statewide rather than individual units. in essence, they're requiring the states to alter the way in which electricity utility systems make power. and in our experience with oversight of this agency, the proposed rule rarely changes significantly before it's finalized. so we're talking about a proposed rule that was just introduced a few -- a couple weeks ago, but our experience is that even after the comment period, that rule really becomes final. now, the original clean air act respected the appropriate role for state and local governments. in fact, the statute begins with the congressional finding that air pollution prevention is the primary responsibility of state and local governments. this policy is also reflected in the language of section 111-d which has previously been used by epa in a very limited and very deferential manner. but the epa appears to be casting aside all present and expanding its interpretation of this section as a justification to force states to redesign their electricity generating systems, even though two previous epa administrators have said it will not have any impact on global warming. so is this a power grab? it seems to demonstrate once again that this administration is getting the reputation that we hear repeatedly of being a unilateralist, that the president will decide what's best for america, as he did when he went to the copenhagen conference in 2009 and unilaterally committed america to certain emissions without discussing with the congress, without discussing it with job creators. so we welcome this opportunity to talk to you in depth about this proposal, and thank you again for being with us. and at this time, i'd like to recognize the gentleman from california for his five-minute opening statement, mr. waxman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. on june 2nd, administrator mccarthy released a central piece of senator obama's plan, proposed carbon solution limits on power plants. they may identify this as the moment that america got serious about tackling climate change. we know that carbon pollution from fossil fuels is accumulating in the atmosphere, trapping more heat and warming the climate. we are experiencing the results all around us in every part of the country. we also know that power plants are our largest source of carbon pollution, yet today there are no limits at all on the amount of carbon pollution they can emit. the good news is that there are many cost-effective ways to reduce the pollution. as the proposed rule demonstrates, the power plants can operate more efficiently. reduction can shift from the dirtiest and oldest coal-fired plants to modern, natural gas plants. retirmements of nuclear power plants can be postponed. investments can be made in clean renewable energy. and we can all contribute by becoming more energy-efficient. the path outlined in the proposal is the path to cleaner air, better health, a safer climate and a stronger economy. if we make these investments in cleaner energy, the united states can be the world leader in the industries of the future. that's not just a perception, that can be a reality. but you would never know that from the house republicans. they're using the same scare tactics that opponents of clean air have always used. the fossil fuel industry and house republicans have a credibility problem when it comes to claims about the economic impacts of the clean air act. i've been in congress for almost 40 years, and for 40 years, the industry has made doomsday claims that clean air regulations would shut down businesses, destroy jobs, drive prices skyward and cripple economic growth. and they have been wrong every time. this morning i released a fact sheet that documents some of these inaccurate claims. mr. chairman, i ask that this be made part of the record. >> without objection. >> in 1990, when congress last amended the clean air act, electric utilities widely overestimated the cost of acid rain controls under a cap and trade program that we adopted and which has been tremendously successful. they projected allowance prices of 1,000 to $1,500 per ton. the actual prices were less than $150 per ton. forehead motor compa-- ford mot company testified that quote, we just don't have the technology to comply, end quote. not even the technology on the horizon, end quote. in fact, the industry began making vehicles that met the new standards in just three years. dupont testified that the provisions to protect the ozone layer would cause, quote, severe economic and social disruption, end quote, while mobil corporation predicted that the requirements for reformulated gasoline would cause, quote, major supply disruptions, end quote. well, these dire projections never happened. today house republicans claim that the clean power plant will cause a surge in electricity bills and effectively end coal use in america. this is just the same old scare tactic. we heard that it's not enough to deal with the climate change problem. well, it's not in and of itself, but you don't take -- you don't refuse to take a step in that direction because you haven't taken all the steps yet. we have air pollution reductions at the state and local level. that's the way the clean air act has always worked under the epa rules. the clean power plan is eminently reasonable and achievable. it gives the states the flexibility to choose how to achieve the reductions. the goals are state-specific and cost effective. polls show the public supports proposals by large majorities. it's time for this committee to stop its partisan obstruction. if my republican colleagues have a better idea for protecting our planet for our children and grandchildren, they should speak up. by just saying no, shortchanging american ingenuity and condemning the next generation by a world wrecked by heat waves, droughts, wildfires and extreme storms is not an option. if you have another idea, let's hear it. but all we hear from republicans is there's no problem, this is not enough to solve it, we shouldn't do anything at all. and that's why i'm supporting the president's plan. >> your time has expired, and i might respectfully say to the gentleman that we did inspect what we viewed as a representative plan that passed the house and representatives with a large victory. >> that plan simply said epa may not act. >> it did not say that, it said epa could set the standard of existing plants, that congress would set the effective date, and it also set a standard for new coal-powered plants. we did submit a proposal. it's waiting in the senate for action now. >> you think that would cause the problem of greenhouse gases? >> you said we didn't submit a proposal. >> does your proposal solve the problem? >> our energy emissions are the lowest today they've been in 20 years. and our whitfield bill would make it even better. at this time, the gentleman from michigan, mr. upton, chairman of the full committee, is not here, so i'm going to recognize mr. barton of texas, and if he does not utilize all of his time, if he wants to yield to someone else, that would be great. >> does the chairman know if there are other members on our side that wish time? >> is there anyone that would like time? you want any time, mr. shimkus? then i'll recognize the gentleman from texas, mr. barton, for five minutes. >> well, thank you. mr. chairman, members of the committee, and our witness and folks in the audience, one could argue that the audacity of this proposal is so breathtaking that in and of itself it's a health hazard, because it literally takes my breath away what they have proposed. in the case of my state, texas, if texas were to implement this in its entirety between 2012 and 2030, we would have to reduce co2 emissions by 41%. we would also, in terms of the national total, have to reduce co2 emissions -- our co2 emissions would be 25% of the national total in one state. now, i understand that texas is somewhat unique because we are still creating jobs in our state. we still have an economy that's growing. in fact, over half of all the net new jobs created in the country in the last 10 years have been created in texas. most people think that's a good thing, but apparently the obama administration thinks that is a bad thing. so it is punitive in its nature. as chairman whitfield has pointed out, there are no health claims. there is nobody claiming that this actually improves the public health, which is the number one goal of the clean air act. there is no net environmental benefit. even if one were to be a global warming believer, which i am not, this doesn't allege that there are any net benefits to changing global warming. what it is is an exercise in political arrogance that the epa has the power, although even that's debatable, under the clean air act. all these power plants that are currently in operation are regulated under section 112 of the clean air act. this claims that we can now regulate those same power plants that are already regulated under section 111-d. that's of questionable legal standing, and i believe that the courts will overturn this proposed regulation if it comes to that on that basis alone? my good friend from california in his opening statement referred to carbon pollution. well, actually, what we're regulating is co2, carbon dioxide, which i am creating as i speak, in which every person in this room is creating, as you breathe in and out. now, i don't know about the rest of the people, but i don't believe everybody that's alive and breathing is a co2 mobile source polluter. that may be the stance of the obama administration, but it's certainly not my stance. so calling co2 to be pollution doesn't make it so. i could call mr. waxman a conservative, but that would not make him a conservative, or he could call me a liberal but that would not make me a liberal. mr. chairman, we need to seriously redo this proposal, and i think as the subcommittee does, and if necessary, the full committee does, welcome to the conclusion that this is more of a political proposal than it is an environmental proposal. and again, i pointed out texas has to reduce its co2 emissions from the baseline of 2012 by 41%, louisiana 50%, florida 48%, pennsylvania 25%, arizona 45%, oklahoma 40%, illinois 20%, new york, 49%. alabama 24%, arkansas 46%. what's glaring about this list, and that's the top 10 states, the state with the greatest population base and the state with the largest environmental problems, at least in the los angeles basin, the golden gate state of california is not even on the top 10 list. and they're the number one state in terms of population. so i could go on and on, mr. chairman, but i've only got 29 seconds. simply, let me say that we have great respect for the epa. i voted for the clean air act amendments in the early '90s. this proposal does not comport with my understanding of what the clean air act amendments were when we passed them in this committee over 20 years ago. with that, i would yield back to the chairman. >> the gentleman yields back, and at this time recognize the gentleman from chicago, ranking member mr. rush, for his five-minute opening >> i want to thank you, mr. chairman, for this important hearing on the epa's clean power rules. as part of president obama's climate action plan to cut carbon pollution and help mitigate the disastrous effects of climate change, this rule will allow epa to use this existing authority under the clean air act to control carbon pollution from existing fossil fuel, fire and power plants. i must say this rule could not be more timely as these power plants account for the largest source of greenhouse gases, from stationary sources, in this country. and they are responsible for about one-third of the total u.s. greenhouse gas emissions. where no current federal limits on their emissions of carbon pollution. this new proposal seeks to cut emissions by 30%, compared with the 2005 levels by 2030 and gives states great flexibility when implementing the rule based on their existing utility, infrastructure and policies. mr. chairman, while we hear from some industry groups and opponents of any type of regulation, that these new rules will be costly and overburdensome, the newly released point by the offices of management and budget contradicts that claim. from the annual oil meeting reports to congress, we know that for the 34 million epa rules issued between 2003 and 2013, the benefits have greatly exceeded the costs. in fact, mr. chairman, it was two rules issued under the george w. bush administration, the clean air interstate rule issued in 2005, and the prodigal pollution rule issued in 2007, that brought about the highest estimated benefits. more importantly, the science, mr. chairman, is settled. climate change is real. and it is negatively impacting the lives and livelihoods of the american people. we see this in extreme weather events in everything from destructive flooding on our coasts to relentless wildfires in the west to costly drought and crop loss in the plains and in my beloved midwest. that is why, mr. chairman, four former republican u.s. epa administrators who served under presidents nixon and reagan and george h.w. and george w. bush all praised the agency's climate change rule in a senate hearing just yesterday. as george w. bush's first epa administrator, christine todd whitman told the senate clean air and nuclear safety subcommittee and i quote, the issue has been settled, epa does have the authority, the law says so, the supreme court has said so twice. that matter i now believe should be put to rest. mr. chairman, end of quote. the american people expect their leaders to answer and address this serious threat. not only to our environment, but to our national security. even president reagan's former epa administrator lee thomas agreed that the science settle on this matter telling the same panel, just on yesterday, i quote, we know that other greenhouse gases are warming the atmosphere. we know they have contributed to a more than 1.5 degree fahrenheit rise in temperature, end of quote. mr. chairman, if congressman refuses to address this issue as the american people demand, and at the very least we should allow epa to do its rule, do its job, and act accordingly thr ly rule will go along to helping us to address this dire issue. i look forward to hearing from our witness today. i yield back. >> thank you, mr. rush. the gentleman yields back. his time is expired. at this time, i'm going to recognize miss mccabe, because we're going to give her five minutes to get her views on this issue and as i said in the beginning -- we do look forward to your testimony and the opportunity to ask you questions. so miss mccabe, you're recognized for five minutes. i'm not positive that your microphone is on. >> there we go. thank you chairman whitfield, ranking member rush, members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the epa's recently issued clean power plant proposal. climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our time. it already threatened human health and welfare and economic well-being and if left unchecked, it will are devastating impacts on the united states and on the planet. the science is clear, the risks are clear, and the high costs of inaction are clear. we must act. that's why president obama laid out a climate action plan and why on june 2nd, the administrator signed the proposed clean power plan to cut carbon pollution, build a more resilient nation, and lead the world in our global climate fight. power plants are the largest source of carbon dioxide emissions in the united states, accounting for roughly one-third of all domestic greenhouse gas emissions. while the united states has limits in place for the level of arsenic, mercury, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, there are currently no national limits on carbon pollution levels. epa's plan will cut hundreds of millions of tons of carbon pollution and other harmful air pollutants from existing power plants. together, these reductions will provide important health benefits to our most vulnerable citizens including our children. the clean power plant is a critical step forward, our plan is built on advice and information from states, cities, businesses, utilities, and thousands of people about the actions they are already taking to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. the plan aims to cut energy waste and leverage cleaner energy sources by doing two things. first, it uses a national framework to set achievable state specific goals to cut carbon pollution per megawatt hour of electricity generated. and, second, it empowers the states to chart their own customized path to meet their goals. we know that coal and natural gas play a significant role in a diverse national energy mix. this plan does not change that. it builds on action already under way to modernize aging plants, increase efficiency and lower pollution and paves a more certain path for conventional fuels in a clean energy economy. the epa's stake holder outreach and public engagement in preparation for this role was unprecedented. starting last summer, we held 11 public listening sessions around the country, we participated in hundreds of meetings with a broad range of stake holders across the country and talked with every single state. now, the second phase of our public engagement has begun. we have already had dozens of calls with states and other stake holders and the more formal public process, both public comment period and public hearings will provide further opportunity for stake holders and the general public to provide input. these are not mere words, this is a proposal and we want and need input from the public. that's why we have already engaged states, utilities, and other stake holders to get their feedback. to craft state goals, we looked at where states are today, and we followed where they're going. each state is different, so each goal and each path can be different. the goals spring from smart and sensible opportunities that states and businesses are taking advantage of right now. under the proposal, the states have a flexible compliance path that allows them to design plans sensitive to their needs including considering jobs and communities in a transitioning energy world. it allows them enough time, 15 years, from when the rule is final until compliance with the final target to consider and make the right investments, ensure reliability, and avoid stranded assets. our plan doesn't just give states more options, it gives entrepreneurs and investors more options too by unleashing the market forces that drive innovation and investment in cleaner power and low carbon technologies. all told, in 2030, when states meet their goals, there will be about 30% less carbon pollution from the power sector across the u.s. when compared to 2005 levels. 730 million metricen tons of carbon dioxide out of the air. in addition, we will cut pollution like smog and soot by 25%. the first year we will avoid up to 100,000 asthma attacks and 2100 heart attacks and the numbers go up from there. in 2030, the clean power plan will deliver climate and health benefits of up to $90 billion. for soot and smog, that means for every dollar we invest in the plan families will see $7 in health benefits. and because energy efficiency is such a smart cost effective strategy, we predict that in 2030, average electricity bills for american families will be 8% cheaper. president obama's climate action plan provides a road map for federal action to meet the pressing challenge of a changing climate, promoting clean energy solutions that capitalize on american innovation, and drive economic growth and providing a role for a range of fuels including coal and natural gas. the proposal sets targets in a reasonable schedule that can be achieved by every state, using measures they choose themselves to suit their own needs. i look forward to your questions. thank you. >> well, miss mccabe, thank you so much. again, i neglected to mention that she is the acting assistant administrator over at epa, and so we do appreciate your being here. at this time, i would like to recognize myself for five minutes of questions and statements. i've noticed, miss mccabe, sometimes when we have our question period, we oftentimes make statements. so i probably will do a little bit of both. first thing i want to do, i want to read a statement by former ipcc coordinating lead article coordinator, his name is dr. steven snyder. of course, that's the international panel on climate change which i think is recognized as the world leader in this issue of climate change. but dr. snyder made this statement. he said, on one hand as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method. in effect promising to tell the truth, which means we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs and the buts. on the other hand, we are human beings, and we want a better world. and to do that we must have media support. so we must offer up scary scenarios, make dramatic statements, and do not mention any scientific doubt. and then he concluded by saying, so we decide what must be done to being most effective and getting our message out. and i say that because you were really positive in your statement, and it is our responsibility to raise doubts about these kinds of regulations that have such an impact everywhere, and so i just wanted doctor dr dr. snyder is not the only lead coordinator who made these statements. others have said we have to make them dramatic to put political pressure on political leaders. others said we use the worst case model scenarios, so as i said in the beginning, our responsibility is to try to focus in and see really what is going on here. and so first question i would like to ask you this morning, i touched on it in my opening statement, epa's carbon dioxide regulation for power plants are being pursued under section 111-d. and it is my understanding that you all have issued regulations under that section on five occasions. and now section 111-d has traditionally focused, in fact, of those five times, it always has focused on emission standards for specific sources, specific units. and it has never been attempted to do it in a state wide way. and that's what your recent proposal does, it sets a standard that can be achieved only state wide. what precedent under section 111-d is there for this type of standard setting, which has never been done before? >> actually there have been six regulations issued under 111-d. the last one being the clean air mercury rule in 2005, which was addressed this sector. and that took an approach that allowed utilities to trade among themselves, to reduce emissions. but the fact is that what we have done in this rule is completely within the four corners of 111-d which directs us to identify the best system of emission reduction that has been adequately demonstrated for the particular secretarier that we' we're looking at. in the case of the power sector, it is a fully integrated system that encompasses the kinds of technologies that we included in the rule, and we know that because that's what we heard from states and utilities. these are the things they're already doing to reduce carbon from fossil plants. >> you basically are directing the state's -- setting up renewable mandates, you're setting the efficiency of the coal plants, you're determining the natural gas capacity, what percent of the capacity must be run. you're setting consumer demand, you're going further than you've ever done before in my opinion. >> we're not actually setting any mandates. >> you set this out in the regulation. >> but they're not mandates. the states have absolute flexibility to use whatever -- >> they don't have to meet the four standards. >> they do not have to meet the four standards. those were -- >> they have to meet your target, though. >> they have to meet the overall carbon intensity target, but they have complete flexibility to get there, however they choose, which is what they told us -- >> we're going to explore some more, but 15 seconds left, want to ask you one other question. one of the real concerns we have, now this relates to the now power plant rule, we can't build a new plant in america because the technology is not there that commercially makes it feasible. the plant in mississippi is like a $5 billion cost overrun. in europe, they're closing down natural gas plants. they have mothballed them because natural gas prices are so high coming out of russia. so they're building new coal power plants and last year they imported 53% of our coal exports. so they have the flexibility if gas prices go up to build a new plant. we don't have that flexibility. do you think that that is fair to the american people? >> i actually disagree respectfully, chairman. we think that new coal plants can be be be built under the new rule and they are going forward. >> at this time, i would like to recognize the gentleman from illinois, mr. rush, for his five-minute opening statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to commend you, miss mccabe, i want to commend the epa, i want to commend all your colleag colleagues, in the way you have approached this proposal. i think that you have been extremely open during this process of creating this proposal, and from what i hear today, that the -- this process is not concluded, that that would mean more and more opportunities for states and stake holders to add their voices and to look at this proposal and to engage positively commentary with you on this proposal. you already reached out, asked for suggestions and have been guided by that feedback. as you craft your plan. i'm from the midwest. and we get a lot of our electricity from coal. we have a higher carbon pollution rate at the beginning, starting out of the gate. but it also means that we have more opportunities for cost effective reductions. and i want you, if you would, explain to me and to others in more detail how you develop the state's goals, potentially for the midwest, and how the different situations in the different states are reflected in the individual state goals. >> that's a very good question, congressman rush, and one we have been getting a lot from people. really goes back to the fundamental approach we took in this rule, which is to take every state from where it started. one of the loudest things we heard from states was please don't do a one size fits all every plant across the country has to meet a certain emission limit. give us flexibility and recognize that states are in different places in terms of their energy mix, the age of their plants, and all that sort of thing. so that's the approach that we took. we looked across the whole country, at the power sector, and we looked at the things that people are already doing. and there are many things that can be done to reduce carbon from the existing fleet, but we found four that were the most prominent and the most promising, we thought, to satisfy the standard of best system of emission reduction. and those things are, let's have coal and gas plants be as absolutely efficient as they can be. so that we get every -- we get every electron, as many electrons as possible for every ton of coal that is burned. we found that a lot of efficiency improvements are being made across the country. we then looked at what else our states and utilities are doing to reduce their carbon intensity. well, they're using their gas plants more than their coal plants. and that's due to a lot of reasons, but it results in less carbon. so that was number two. number three was that states all across the country are looking at increasing the amount of energy they get from renewable sources, from zero carbon emitting sources. that's a very positive trend being pursued by a lot of people. that was our third element. and fourth was the great interest across the country in almost every state, to employ energy efficiency or demand side so that we're more efficient. we know there is many, many ways to waste less energy. and all of these things are important in order to bring carbon down as well as other pollutants. so we came up with a national framework that set a reasonable and moderate expectation for each of those four, recognizing that those were not the only things that states could do. and we then looked at every state, and we took the most recent information that we had for the power sector, which was 2012, and we applied those four building blocks we call them to each state. and that generated a carbon intensity rate that if those were applied, that's where that state would get. and these are things that we think are very reasonable to achieve. >> thank you, so very much. my constituents are -- when they heard about the proposed rule, the thing that was most important in their minds was the price of electricity. my friends on the other side here and there have been engaged in a lot of fearmongering about the cost of electricity, increase in the value by low income constituents. and my question to you is how will the clean power plan effect the electricity bills for my constituents? >> well, the first and most important thing to say is that each state will be in charge of designing its own plan, so that means two things. one is that they will have the opportunity to take those kind of considerations into -- build those into their plan. also, that epa, at this moment, can't predict exactly what every state is going to do. we did do some ill lust tiff examples of what states might do and in our regulatory impact assessment we do include those numbers and that we show that with the significant increase in energy efficiency, that we'll be implemented as a result of the rule, that electricity bills in 2030 we predict will go down because electricity bills because people will be using less energy. we also show that the price of electricity will go up a little bit, but overall, bills will come down. i also just want to note that low income families are most at risk of the adverse effects of carbon pollution and climate change. and can greatly -- will greatly benefit from the health benefits that will be achieved by this rule. >> gentleman's time has expired. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> i recognize mr. upton of michigan for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. miss mccabe, a number of us have concerns with this proposed rule. epa agency with no energy policy authority or expertise and under questionable statutory interpretation has now placed itself above state governments and public utility commissions on electricity generation issues, not to mention doe, ferc or other federal agencies. last month, the dc circuit ruled that absent and i quote, clear and specific grant of jurisdiction, end quote, federal government cannot regulate areas of the electricity market left by the federal power act to the states like electricity generation and intrastate transmission. but what epa calls flexibilities in its proposed reg changing dispatch rules, mandating efiei efficiency, very intrastate generation and distribution matters explicitly reserved bit federal power act for the states. so where do you see specifically the clear and specific granted jurisdiction over intrastate electricity matters. where is the site that you can refer to. >> chairman upton, this is not an energy plan. this is a rule done within the four corners of 111-d, that looks to the best system in emission reduction to reduce emissions, no state is required to enter into any particular agreement or take interstate efforts. we're not controlling the power sector through this. >> you don't have a specific site, right? is that right? >> i can -- >> neither doe nor ferc has the authority to dictate how states plan and operate their energy systems. if they can't do it, what authority does epa have to mandate that the states actually restructure their electric systems and subject state energy decisions to federal oversight and control. >> that's not what the rule does. the rule is a pollution control rule, as epa has traditionally done under section 111-d. >> assuming you did have the legal authority to go forward with the rule, have you identified all the federal and state agencies that would have to play a role in the redesign of the state electricity systems, under the proposed a d rule? >> we have been talking to many agencies at the state and federal level, but it is state governments as they always are in -- with respect to 111-d plans that will be responsible for putting the plans together. >> so as we look at epa's budget and this year epa took a reduction in the appropriation levels, agreed upon amount, and bipartisan way, from the cr that was passed, 6-1 last january, have you identified more funding or personnel that is going to be required at the federal level to conduct this review and oversight? for existing plants? >> these are state plans. the states will put them together and epa will act in its traditional role with respect to state air quality planning. >> but you've still got, you know, you've got the hammer to go after him, so are you going to -- is it going to be a new focus engaged in that? >> we think states will want to take a leadership role on this. and -- >> what if they don't? i heard the west virginia governor saying that every utility in his state would be closed. every coal fired facility in his state was going to be closed. >> i, again, i think that states are going to want to be in the lead on this. >> i think i know where they want to be. >> i also would suggest that our plan certainly does not require that all coal plants be closed in that state or any state. >> well, i'll leave that for mr. mckinley to ask. i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. at this time, i would like to recognize the gentleman from california, mr. waxman, for five minutes. >> doesn't the epa under the clean air act set standards that states have to meet, which affect their energy resources within that state? >> to the extent that it addresses pollution emissions, yes. >> so this is not unprecedented? >> it is not. >> okay. i understand epa asked a lot of stake holders for input. did the states ask for greater flexibility or did they argue that epa should just tell them what to do? >> they were very strenuously arguing for greater flexibility and, in fact, the ability to use some of the very tools that we have outlined in our proposal. >> you indicated there are a number of ways that the states can meet the objective of reducing the carbon pollution coming from the power plants. and it is up to the states to design how to do it, but they have to achieve that goal. this isn't a mandate from washington how to accomplish the goal. it sounds to me look a mandate from washington to achieve the goal. >> that's correct. >> isn't that the way the clean air act has always worked since 1970? >> with respect to 111-d, and some other elements of the clean air act, that's exactly right. >> the arguments i hear from the other side is one, they don't believe the science, two, they don't think there is anything to do, three, this is not good enough because it does not achieve the goals, four, it tells the states what to do. seems like every one of those points is incorrect. and then they come up with the argument that this is going to have a bad impact on the economy. did you look at whether this will have a negative impact on the economy or do you have people who make the claim that it is going to help the economy. >> well, we looked at the expected impacts on the power sector. and we also looked at and heard from a lot of states that are moving forward aggressively with some of the very measures that we outline in the proposal. and indeed those states are enjoying job growth and additional investment in innovative strategies and the creation of jobs and in pursuant of things like energy efficiency. >> i ask that we put in the record a paper that we drafted of all of the quotes over the last 40 years of the industries who said they couldn't achieve what the epa was asking them to achieve under the law passed by congress, on a bipartisan basis. they said they couldn't achieve it without closing down their businesses or suffering dire economic consequences. we hear exaggerated claims about electricity costs, job losses, and even impaired electric reliability. these are doomsday claims. we heard them before. and in the paper we put out, we showed how these claims were made and how we interactive they were. what is the history of the advances made under the clean air act to give us some guidance if we have to choose between clean air or strong economy? >> we don't have to make that choice between clean air and strong economy. and congressman, i think as you illustrated, the history of the clean air act shows we do not. air has gotten cleaner and the economy has grown, and the united states has been a global leader in pollution control technology, and energy and efficiency investments, and we expect that to continue with this program as well. >> we heard a claim on the other side of the aisle that the cpa proposed rule would have no impact on public health. can you give us your view of that? >> we disagree with that. in fact, as i noted, the rule will result in 25% reduction in soot and smog pollutants, as well as 30% reduction in climate -- carbon pollutants. all of these issues affect public health and reducing the emissions, taking them out of the air, will improve public health. >> this doesn't just deal with the global problem of a warming planet, that leads to climate change, but will have an impact on the health that people near some of these power plants? >> that's right. those are important co-benefits of the rule. >> well, i compliment you on the rule. i think it makes a lot of sense. it gives a lot of flexibility and achieves the goals. and it encourages entrepreneurship to develop the industry and technology that will make us the leader in the world to accomplish these goals. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> gentleman's time expired. i recognize the gentleman from illinois, mr. shimkus, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. it is great to be here. and, no -- >> i'm sorry. mr. barton actually was on the list first. >> i yield to -- >> okay. mr. shimkus is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm glad mr. waxman is here because he and many of my friends on the other side have seen this poster before. these are the real life job losses from the last clean air act. kincaid, illinois, i invited you to come by there, 1200 miners lost their job under a flexible system controlled by the state. state made the decision, this mine closed, 1200 miners. so those are the -- as you talk about the debate, we're trying to save our coal miner jobs in this country. and the president promised to make electricity generation by coal so expensive that he would drive that out of our market. promise in the san francisco chronicle, well documented. he just is following up on his promise. so those of us in coal regions of this country are under attack and we have to deal with this, with our constituency and the debate. so that's why there is a lot of emotion as you can imagine. also part of my portfolio here is the nuclear portfolio of the nuclear side. and so there is some curious things about this rule that begs -- that creates a problem based upon states that had clean burning nuclear power, or generators that have shut down but still have a standard by which now they can't meet because -- we're incentivizing the closing of nuclear power which if we're in the clean air climate change, we should be incentivized. let me give you an example. 2014, four nuclear reactors, premature to close, one was kawani plant in wisconsin. when you all set the reduction target for wisconsin, it did so based on electricity production in 2012, a year in which kawani was still operating. so you're calculating your reductions a year when you got nuclear plant operating, no carbon emissions, that facility closed. now that state and many states that have nuclear power, i have up with of the largest nuclear power generating states in the country is now disproportionately harmed by the rules. extremely harmed. so the result is that wisconsin will be be forced to compensate for the loss of this plant and reduce emissions even further than the epa target. is that correct? is that analysis all correct? >> so, let me explain -- >> quickly, please. quickly as you can. >> yep, yep. so this rule addresses the fossil fuel sector. that's our responsibility under 111-d. that's where we start. and the -- our job is to identify the best system of emission reduction for fossil fired plants, that doesn't include nuclear. so in 2012, we looked at the emissions in each state from their fossil generation. and we then looked at what that best system of emission reduction from a national basis would result in, in 2030. we recognized that there are states that rely on nuclear power, that is zero carbon emitting, that's very good for carbon -- >> we're disenfranchising those states that have the nuclear option. >> we're, in fact, giving states credit for some portion of nuclear in their compliance -- >> but to meet the standard, they have to have more cuts, especially when a plant has closed because you're basing that off the emissions in 2012, but they're generating portfolio was based upon a nuclear plant that was operating. >> but this is not an energy plan for the state. this is a -- >> that's our problem. >> but that's not our job to -- >> but that's the problem for our rate payers. because if you -- if a generating facility that has zero emissions drops off 1200 megawatt, 800 megawatt, whatever the base load is, they have to make that up, otherwise their costs are going to go up, and so we're not taking into consideration in this carbon debate zero emitants. we should be incentivizing this, should we not? >> we are. for any state that uses zero emitting generation to replace coal fired generation or to meet their needs, they absolutely will be able to count that in their compliance plan and move them towards their goal. >> let me get to the final questions and i appreciate that answer. what happens if the epa doesn't approve a state implementation plan? >> there is provision, there is a little bit of language in 111-d that says if we're not in a position to approve a state plan, then epa is to move forward with the plan for that. >> you have a federal implementation plan? >> we are not focused on that right now. >> but that's what the law will be. the rule would be. >> that's what the law provides. >> what will that federal impleme implementation plan look like? >> we have not come anywhere near to -- >> i would suggest you start looking at that and be prepared to answer the questions on that. i yield back my time, mr. chairman. >> gentleman's time has expired. at this time, recognize the gentleman from kentucky, mr. yarmuth, for five minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. welcome, administrator. last fall, epa administrator mccarthy met with our governor steve bashir to discuss the proposed rule and after that meeting kentucky sent a fraem work to epa with recommendation on ways to produce a rule that would reduce carbon pollution, cost effectively, while offering our state the flexibility in meeting the new standards. my understanding is that epa filed almost all of the commonwealth's recommendations. is that correct? >> i believe so, congressman. >> and those included, again, allowing states to reduce emissions, flexibly, using measures like energy efficiency, renewable energy and fuel switching to natural gas, rather than forcing states to reduce emissions in any specific plant. also recognizing differences among states resource potential, current generation portfolios and allowing a variety of compliance options including energy efficiency and so forth as you said. here is another example of how that flexibility can help. the american recovery and reinvestment act established a rebate program to help spur development and adoption of energy efficient appliances to replace older less efficient appliances. general electric has a major manufacturing facility in my district and because of that program, they were able to bring a manufacturing line of refrigerators from mexico back to louisville and creating hundreds of jobs in the process. does the proposed rule allow states to take credit for reductions, achieved through energy efficient initiatives like this one? >> certainly any program that encourages or incentivizes or provides for ways for people to save energy which means less carbon going up the stack, are completely creditable under the plan. >> we're happy that epa agrees with that. that's a good example of,000 create flexibility and create energy efficiency and help consumers save money and reduce emissions. i'm glad the chairman mentioned, waxman-markey, earlier in his opening remarks because i was one of a group of ten or 12 or so representatives from states that were heavily dependent on carbon, on coal-based energy who went to our leadership at the time, rick baulcher led that effort and we basically said to our leadership and mr. waxman that we couldn't support the bill as it was originally drafted it would have been devastating for our consumers and our businesses. and they made changes in that bill. and before i voted for that bill, i talked to all of the major consumers of energy in my district. general electric being one. ford motor company has two major manufacturing facilities, the university of louisville, the jefferson county public school system, louisville metro government, u.p.s., the global hub of u.p.s., and not one of those users of electricity objected to that law, proposed law. and said they were either for it or neutral on it, saying we can live with it. i talked to our utility company and asked what the impact of that law would be on residential customers and they said we think that after ten years the average residential user will have their rates go up 15%. if they do nothing else. they don't adjust thermostat, don't change lightbulbs, don't insulate so forth. they're paying $200 a month at the beginning of the period, ten years from now, they would be paying $230 a month. so i feel pretty comfortable that i could vote on that and knowing that there would be minimal negative impact on my constituents. so i'm glad that the chairman compared what the epa rule does now to that law back then. and republicans in the senate killed. but i want to get to this whole scare tactic of manufacturing businesses being affected and moving out of states and so forth because, again, i haven't heard from any of my major manufacturers and i have a lot of them in my district. they're not afraid of this proposed rule. my question is to you, assuming -- it is not easy to move a manufacturing company. ford has almost a couple billion dollar invested in my district in their two plants. they can't just pick up and leave. even if the -- but you made an estimate of what the increase potential rates would be even in the short-term on this. i think it was 3%, is that correct? >> that's correct. >> so it seems hard to logically predict that a 3% rise in manufacturing companies rates would be enough of a financial disincentive to force them to pick up a major investment and move somewhere else. is that part of the calculation you did when creating this rule? >> well, energy efficiency is good for everybody. and good for business. i think we all know that. and as you say, the increases in electricity prices we see are modest in the short-term, and then go down over the long-term. so i think businesses will take that into account. >> great, thank you. i yield back. >> this time we recognize the gentleman from texas, mr. barton, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. am i not correct, administrator mccabe, when i say that this proposal that we're discussing today is not actually required by the clean air act? isn't that a true statement? >> no, it is required when we issue a 111-d standard for a sector to then go forward with a 111-d standard. >> well, i think that's wrong. i think it is allowed, but i don't see any statutory authority that demands these proposals. i do accept there is a supreme court case and a presidential finding of endangerment that allows the cloean air act to be used but nowhere where it has to happen. do you agree with that? >> respectfully, no. i believe we -- the clean air act does -- >> if you believe that, i want the general council of the epa to back that up. will you do that? >> sure. >> send it to the committee? >> yep. >> my understanding is what you're attempting to propose is directed by presidential speech dated june 25th, 2013, that was called the climate action plan. that has then been followed up by presidential memo where some of these requirements were directed towards the epa to implement that. i would assume you're aware of this -- of this memo. >> i am. >> okay. >> can you tell me what the legal force of a presidential memo is? >> well, the president's memo and climate action plan laid out a series of steps that are within the responsibility of epa and other agencies to move forward with. president gave us a schedule on which to move forward with this rule-making, but directed we undertake the rule-makings that are within our authority under the clean air act to address -- >> well, i accept that the president has the right to give speeches. i even have accepted the fact that the president has the right to issue memos and as the chief executive officer of the federal government, to direct that the executive branch in this case, your agency, the epa, to try to implement those presidential memos. but i don't accept that this is something that absolutely has to be done. and i -- whatever documentation you can provide that shows the -- that this is a forcing authority, i would like to have. and in your statement, you went to some lengths to talk about all the flexibility that the states are going to have. i'm told in the case of texas that the decisions were made before the state of texas even had an opportunity to comment, that they received a memo or a checklist almost after the fact. are you aware of that? >> i'm not sure what you're referring to, congressman. we had many conversations with states, both individually and in groups. and, of course, this is a proposal, so we are still taking comment from people. i've had at least multiple hours of conversation with states, even since june 2nd. so there has been lots of opportunity to talk. >> i just -- just as an example, are you aware of the fact that if texas closed down every existing fossil fuel generation plant in the state, every one, every coal fired plant, every natural gas plant, in the state of texas, that it would still not meet the new proposed esps. are you aware of that? >> the plan relies on states implementing -- >> i'm not asking what -- i'm asking if you're aware of that in the case of texas, if we shut down every coal-fired plant and every natural gas plant in the state, every one, we can't meet this -- these suggested goals. >> i haven't done that calculation, congressman. >> well, i would suggest that you do it. texas would end up with a new source performance standard that is below epa's own standard. the epa standard is 1,000 pounds of co2 per million megawatts or megawatt of production, and for texas to actually meet with the epa is suggesting it should, we would have to go down to 791, which is about 21% below your own standard. i mean, it's -- the renewable standard for texas is based on the energy -- renewable portfolio standard for kansas. i'm not anti-kansas. i went mr. pompeo to know, but kansas' electricity demand and generation is 10% of the state of texas. texas leads the nation in renewable generation, and texas produces three times as much energy by renewable as the next three states combined. >> texas has immense opportunities when it comes to -- >> and we get no credit for that in your proposal, none. none. >> the state does actually. and -- >> the state of texas tells me they don't. >> well, we're happy to have further conversations with the state of texas about the goal. >> my time is expired. >> the gentleman's time has empired. >> put me down as extremely undecided on this proposal. >> yeah. i will. at this time i would like to recognize the gentleman from california, mr. mcnerney for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i thank miss mccabe for coming here today. you mentioned that the epa predicts a reduction in energy costs, family energy bills, i take it, by the year 2030. would you elaborate on that and maybe give us some idea of what the reduction estimates look like. >> sure, sure. so as the states implement their plans, we expect a large reliance on demand side and energy efficiency measures that will reduce the number of kilowatts a family needs to consume over the course of a month. so when we project that out, we show that it is about an 8% decrease in a bill, in a family's bill. >> so american family might look to something almost like 10% of reduction in their monthly energy bills by 2030 as a result of this rule? as the proposed rule. >> that's what the proposed rule predicts. based on our forecasts, of course, each state, as i said, will do its own plan. >> that's not too bad. would you please describe the outreach that epa conducted to the various states, give us some idea of the magnitude of that effort? >> sure, we started last august, well below -- before we even put pen to paper on the rule. in my experience of decades in working first from the state side, most of my career from the state side, i'm not aware of epa ever doing this kind of outreach. so we -- and it was broad ranging with all stake holders, but in particular, with respect to states, we met with states in groups, they have regional organizations, we met with those regional organizations, our regional offices convened groups to a state official, both from the environmental and the energy side as well as other stake holders and utilities. >> were most states cooperative or did they stand aside and give a less cooperative stance. >> i would say there was great interest and continues to be great interest from the state officials on talking with us about the program. >> would you describe the reduction of conventional pollution, its projected impact on health and the monetary impacts of those health benefits, from these rules, if implemented. >> sure, as co-benefits of reducing carbon, there is also reductions in particle pollution, nitrogen, oxide, sulfur dioxide, which have very immediate and localized as well as regional health benefits. and we predict about a 25% in reduction of those pollutants compared to what they would otherwise be in 2030 without this rule. so that will result in reduced missed days of school, in the billions of dollars of health benefits to the american people. >> is there any way to talk about the return on investment that might have to be made by the different states? >> well, we do show that for every dollar invested there is a $7 return in public health benefits as a result of the program. >> and would these investments be made by states or the private e entities involved? >> by the private entities, the businesses investing in technology, investing in new workers to employ energy efficiency around the state, and with all the benefits that those bring. >> well, you know, the -- i understand the four pillars of this are increasing operating efficiency of the different plants, what could be more reasonable than that? using gas fired plants at 70% of their capacity, which is a good idea if you have a gas-fired plant. gas is more affordable now than many other forms, using renewable energy that is applicable locally to the state, and using nuclear as long as possible. and encouraging user efficiency, in user efficiency. these are all pretty reasonable in my mind. i don't see how that would be viewed any of those as -- as too intrusive. are there other measures that can be taken that would also help reduce pollution that are included in this rule? >> yeah, those are so reasonable that they're being done in a widespread manner. but there are other things that state or utilities can think about doing. other types of fuel switching they can do, they can look at their transmission systems and see whether there is leakage there that can be tightened up so, there are a number of other things that folks can do. >> and the last thing is the state flexibility. i understand there is a great deal of flexibility that states have adopted and will make it a lot easier for the different states to implement the proposed rules. >> yes, that's right. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> this time i recognize the gentleman from ohio, mr. latta are, for five minutes. >> well, thank you very much, mr. chairman. and thanks very much for being with us today, really appreciate it. last week the governor of ohio signed a piece of legislation citing energy costs and growth concern that put a two-year freeze on ohio's renewable energy mandate that the state imposed on itself. i would like you to consider this hypothet cal situation going into the future. to comply with the epa's existing plant rule, assume that the epa approved that sip, in that scenario, would the state of ohio maintain its discretion to freeze the renewable energy program in order to protect the interests of ohioans? >> the state would continue to have flexibility if circumstances change in the state to replace one particular measure with another. and the proposal lays out the process by which a state could do that, so there is opportunities for states to adjust their plans along -- >> let me ask then, would the state have to get that approval from the epa? >> if a state wants to replace one measure with another, they would come to epa and say this is what we're doing. >> okay. and how would the process overall work and how much time would it take for a state to get that implemented then, if they want to make a change? >> well, we work with states all the time, in circumstances where they wished to change their state implementation plans and we work with the state to prioritize those actions and try to meet the states' needs in terms of timing. >> and also, would ohio be subject to clean air act penalties they didn't first obtain in any epa approval before they make any impleme implementation to a change at that time? >> i don't believe so, congressman. the provisions in the clean air act for penalties are pretty clearly laid out and there is a pretty clear process for when those could be invoked. so i think in any circumstance like this, we would work with the state to make sure that they could do what they needed to do as long as it met the ultimate goal. >> just to be on the safe side, if we get that made back to the committee, that they wouldn't face penalties, if that would occur? >> sure. we'll answer further on that. >> and also, just talking about a little bit about ohio. we get about 70% of our generation in the state of ohio comes from coal. in my district, which i have about 60,000 manufacturing jobs, even higher than that, that were coal-based generation. and up in my area of the state, i also have a very unique situation in i have a lot of electric co-ops. so how would the epa's clean power plan avoid putting small co-ops at a competitive disadvantage and especially their customers, because, again, in my district, look at who they're serving, you're talking about a lot of -- it is very unique. i have 60,000 manufacturing jobs, i also have the largest number of farms in the state of ohio. how do you put them not at a competitive disadvantage under the clean power plan, because, again, you got the farmers, you got the small businesses out there, you've got a lot of retirees. what happens? how do we make sure that they're not at a competitive disadvantage? >> this is where the design of section 111-d and flexibility in the plan really shows its value. it is because it's up -- it is up to the state of ohio to design a plan that works for the state of ohio. i come from indiana, and so it is very similar in terms of the types of -- >> if i could just interrupt, you are coming from indiana, you know that just a few years ago, especially when the president was talking about his cap and tax plan, that when ohio was at about 78% generation in coal, indiana is at 90%. so they're really in harm's way when it comes to these new rules and standards. so excuse me for interrupting. >> no, i gave you that opening. i actually don't think they're in harm's way. i think the way we designed the plan is very respectful of the fact that states like ohio and indiana do rely heavily on coal, they have different opportunities than states with the different energy mix, and they carate. >> presiding officer: it looks at emissions over a long planning period. it gives lots of flexibility for the states to adjust to its needs. its manufacturing communities, rural cities, whatever the needs are. >> thank you, my time spared and i yield back. >> i recognize the gentleman from texas mr. green for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have a little different texas accent. sorry my colleague from texas joe barton is a good friend. epa does have authority to regulate co2 under the clear air act. it's important to remember four building blocks proposed by the rules are not the exhaustive list. the four building blocks are marrying a prescription for success. states are allowed to construct a plan that matches their needs and those of their affected communities. as i said before, the epa is legally justified regulating carbon. i prefer congress taking the lead in doing it. i believe as elected officials we have the duty to act on behalf of our constituents and regulate these pollutants. again, ms. mccabe, i'm sure you are aware epa and my home state of texas have some issues in the past. more than four years they were responsible issuing permits that caused significant problems for our industry looking to build and expand even new facilities. just this last week, the governor of texas along with six other state governors sent a letter to the president asking him to dispose of the carbon rule. it's my hope we will not go down that path again. my first question, having said that, can you explain to the committee what concerns your office receive from stake holder groups including states as you prepare the rules. what did the epa do to mitigate these concerns and obviously, from my part of the country, i appreciate if texas had some input and how you responded to it. >> yes. we heard a number of very specific things from states and other stake holders. we heard that states wanted to be able to, for example, do their own plans.holders. we heard that states wanted to be able to, for example, do their own plans. or do a multistate plan. they were concerned about time to develop a plan and two, to actually achieve carbon reductions. our proposal response to both of those, first by giving an extended compliance time period all the way out to 2030 with a long glide path down to that, but also in response to their first concern, how long would they have to submit a plan. we have provided for either a one or two-year extension for states to get them some additional time to put their plans together if they need that. another thing we heard from states is to allow them the flexibility to craft their plan around a rate-based approach or a mass total tons of carbon emitted approach, if that's the way they wanted to manage their plan. our plan allows for both approaches. >> i review the rule and four proposed building blocks. epa estimated a majority of the carbon reduction from the state of texas would come from building blocks two utilize utilization of existing natural gas compound cycle power plants, however, there are other additional reductions calculated under building blocks three and four. texas has more wind generation than any other state. texas was the first state in the nation that passed legislation establishing energy efficiency resources standards. my concern is epa proposed texas is capable of meeting a higher renewable energy and energy efficiency demand. my next questions have to do with the studies conducted, included by epa to meet these demands. these estimates are subject to significant limitations and market barriers including consumer behavior. my next question, are epa estimates and the proposed rule expected to overcome these limitations and barriers? >> the estimations we use are based on a national framework. they are not individualized to every state. the state has the ability to apply them in any way that it wishes and makes sense for them. if there are market barriers, for example, to additional renewable energy efficiency, the state can look to other more reasonable, more appropriate measures for them to employ. >> okay. i only have 30 seconds. the epa estimates two building blocks are expected to raise prices, further epa estimates at 90% energy efficiency comes from the rate payers. what effect do you think these prices increase will have on consumer behavior? will they actually be more efficient and won't consumers be more inclined to maintain status quo as opposed to paying more? the last thing though. the studies that epa is relying on, are they available to the public before the close of the public comment period? >> sure. all our technical support documents and studies are available in the docket which i believe opened yesterday when the rule was published. the answer to your first question is that we've seen in states that have very proactive and forward-looking energy efficiency programs that they're quite successful and that measures do get implemented and consumers do save money. >> thank you. >> this time i recognize the gentleman from louisiana, mr. cassidy, for five minutes. >> thank you. i will first make a statement then ask questions. when you say the utility bills are going to go down 8%, reminds me of candidate obama saying under his health care plan insurance premiums would decrease by $2,500 per family, without increased taxes and without a mandate. of course now they are up $2,500 per family. when you say you are going to give states flexibility, it reminds me of if you like your doctor, you can keep it. i will tell you, i know of a family losing their home. they refinanced their mortgage, so it's paying less for that, but their cost of food, gasoline, insurance has all gone up. they've been denied the economic benefits of projects like keystone xl pipeline which now canada is going to ship their oil to china to create chinese jobs. and you want to raise their utility prices. now, you may say conservation will on net decrease, but let's be clear, let's not mislead. the reality is poor people, those who are lower income are less able to invest in those conservation measures. this is just going to be a bull's-eye on other families' ability to do things such as keep their homes. there's been a lot of -- this administration raised to an art level, misleading the american people doing certain things manipulating statistics. let's be honest with it. i will go to the question earlier. if ford has a decision to invest in kentucky or to invest in mexico, and we're raising their input cost of energy, we are going to tilt them towards investing elsewhere. is that a fair statement? >> there are many things that go into -- >> a fair statement. if one much your key inputs is energy costs and you are raising that cost, we can't compete on labor. so are energy costs lower so people have been reshoring jobs. reality is you wish to increase those energy costs. that said, doesn't it just make sense we will tilt them towards doing further economic development elsewhere? >> i don't think i can agree with that statement. >> at some point we have to be honest with each other. if you say this is not an energy plan and you're not saying any state has to cut down their coal usage or decrease or eliminate coal usage, but the only way to achieve this goal if they do not you'll come in with your own plan is to eliminate coal-fired plants, you may say you don't demand something, but the inherent nature of the rule, the only way it can be reached without the federal government squeezing the state will be to shut down coal. do you deny that? >> i do, actually, congressman. the plan predicts in 2030 coal will provide 30% of the energy. >> we have something here which is based upon an analysis of washington state, which has to have a 90% decrease in their use of carbon. the only way they get it is to completely shut down coal. you may say washington state does not have that machine date to shut down the coal, but the only way they get there is to shut down the coal. i feel like there is a lack of openness. let me ask you something else. has the epa examined the ripple effects of this throughout the economy? >> the epa has focused on the impacts in the power sector. >> but throughout the economy. the users of that power. louisiana has $90 billion in announced construction projects involving polymers, petro chemical, gas to liquids, jobs that will create, industry that will create great paying jobs for working americans. have you analyzed the impact on that manufactured expansion base? >> no these jobs are on the bubble. more families will lose their homes and you have not done the analysis. if you call me skeptical, i will join mr. barton and be incredibly skeptical. what else do i have here? i'm sorry if i seem so aggravated. i keep thinking about that

Related Keywords

Arkansas , United States , Louisiana , Alabama , Louisville , Kentucky , China , California , Upton , West Virginia , Syria , Russia , Washington , District Of Columbia , San Francisco , Mexico , Arizona , Los Angeles Basin , Libya , Chicago , Illinois , New York , Canada , Germany , Texas , Iran , Afghanistan , Florida , Indiana , Wisconsin , Michigan , Mississippi , Jefferson County , United Kingdom , Oklahoma , Iraq , Pennsylvania , Kansas , Ohio , Capitol Hill , France , Americans , America , Chinese , Russian , Germans , Syrians , French , British , Syrian , Russians , American , John Huntsman , John Cain , Jennifer Mccarthy , Lisa Jackson , Lee Thomas , Joshua Landi , Gary Posen , Henry Kissinger , Steven Snyder , Michael Brennan Daugherty , Christine Todd Whitman , Jean Mccarthy , Steve Bashir , Barack Obama , George W Bush , Michael Chris , Joe Barton , Gerald Nye , Paul Bremer , Robert Kagan , Hillary Clinton , John Mccain , Janet Mccabe , Franklin Roosevelt ,