Transcripts For CSPAN3 Politics Public Policy Today 20240622

For a long period of time focused on arabic and palestinian, visavis, the israeli. Now, at least you have got three, the palestinian, israel confrontation still there. We have the gulf region and the east coast and the west coast. They are opposing each other. The third one is about the traps significance. Started from tunisia, now to many countries. So the missions are changing. And the United States meeps areans are changing. Secondly the mekchanisms, the ways of dealing with the complex situation are changing as well. For instance, the United States used to rely very much on the socalled quartet which excluded china from that. Now, with this Iranian Nuclear issue, we Work Together for p5 plus 1. This also shows china wants to play a role. Although the United States still is the first fiddle and china is the third one. The second one is the europeans but we are learning. We are still in internship to have a digression. You have your American University in beirut for more than 100 years and you have American University in cairo. We even dont have many confucious institutes there. You can help us for that. The third one is, there are emerging new overlapping interests in the Corporation Like our corporation against piracy. Navigation safety and security and our corporation on the chemical weapon issue of syria et cetera. So i still believe the you states is the most important fact there but you will change your ways of thinking and practicing. Thank you. Brian, i think spoke very insightfully that the p5 plus 1, if a deal is done the first question becomes can it hold together for enforcing and supporting a deal . Then, another question starts to emerge, which is can this sort of a structure be the basis for a different kind of forwardlooking cooperation . Do you see that as something. Is that a mechanism that can do more than just one deal . Should we be looking at it that way . A coral larry question, thats the diplomacy question. The core larry question is the defense and security question. Rudy, i think the United States is of two minds on welcoming and expecting china to build its military capabilities but then feeling great doubt about how china may choose to use it. Great if it is for counter piracy. Maybe not so much if it is for enforcing disputed claims in the South China Sea. Where do you see that going and is the middle east a different kind of an opportunity compared with other areas . First, this diplomacy question. Everybody seems like they want to jump in. Let me start. I think were coming out of a period where it has been dominated by the security questions for the last 15 years. Sips the 9 11 attacks and afghanistan, we have had major elections focused on the wisdom of iraq. There are some enduring issues some enduring objectives in the region that i think dont expire and where if we can use the economic and the diplomatic, thats to our advantage. The Security Issues still remain. So this is a resolution of the palestinian question but security for israel. It is the economic path for egypt Going Forward. It deals with population bulges and an economy that used to have a big risk middle class that no longer does. To the gulf side, it is the security of Energy Supply globally. Were in a global environment. The right to navigate in International Areas becomes important whether it is the South China Sea or the straits of hormuz. Those things are not likely to change. I think america will continue to lead but if we do want to move and solve problems and not just simply go with the muscular approach then i think we need to be on the same page with or allies. I think china is no longer rising. It is, in fact, a global stake holder. Their engagement becomes very critical. What about the p5 plus 1 question . Can it do more . I think p5 plus 1 is not a one shot. This is already a process that countries in the world have been cooperating on the nonproliferation issue. For this i think it will gradually evolve into a more lasting, or permanent mek mechanisms. On the other china is learning. China is working hard. For instance at the one time, the differences between the United States and iran were so big and they could not any longer to continue the discussion and china use its diplomatic wisdom. Okay. If we could not continue talk at this level we propose we have the working group lower level js the to make just to make it survive. Now, our foreign minister, mr. Wong ye is shadowing and back and forth. They kept good and regular contact between Chinese Foreign minister and other Foreign Ministers including secretary of state, john kerry. Also china wants to have the outcomes. We are a stakeholder. For instance, because of the iranian issues, china was being sandwiched between the two sides and we could not make a longterm project in our political, diplomatic and economic relations related to iran. It also hurts our relations with saudi arabia and other gcc countries, et cetera. So the outcome and the sustainability of the outcomes are in the benefit of china as well. Thank you. Madame could you speak a little bit to the enforce ability of the deal and other things beyond that . I think p5 plus 1 is a good format to discuss and even to enforce that kind of out come of the dialogue. A very important feature of the p5 plus one is the multination. It would be good to organize the stakeholders to Work Together to push forward the process. Iran Nuclear Issue is kind of a Nuclear Issue. It is a very critical that kind of very, that kind of weapons system is very special. Other issues like folks with afghanistan and other issues, we need to involve more regional countries for multinational process. The regional countries have more interest in that kind of issue the solution of that kind of issue. So maybe afghanistan at least some of my colleagues in shanghai institutes think we need to consider about that kind of multinational dialogue on the afghanistan issues so we can apply that kind of p5 to other areas. I would say we should you encounter the chicken before it hatches. A real test will be whether this iran agreement is, afrmthsa, if there is an agreement and b, if it sustains itself. There are still not concluded discussions on the u. N. Security council arms embargo. With he know where russia stands on this. This is a terribly important issue to highlight. With the iranians bringing it up at this moment, and we also know any arguments that say, for instance, that iran would need more weapons to fight isis, doesnt make much sense. The arms embargo does not include small arms and things like this. So i think potentially, i would never disclose or cut off the possibility of p5 plus 1 cooperation on other issues. I would say, first things first. Even if a deal is inked in the next hour or two thats just when the real work begins of monitoring verification andal of these other issues, which i highlighted of can outside powers help actors in the region essentially stay the hand of vengeance. I think extremism of the sort we talked about in isis comes out of sectarianism in which very well think actors in the region have invested in. Those investments have yielded negative returns for all of us for the cause of global security. So, deal or no deal on the iran nuclear front, this framework is good. It is important. Maintaining the cohesiveness and getting into the details of whether these things work is essential. Two more questions from up here and then kick it over to the audience. The first will be on the overall macro dynamic of the region which is at some level the sunni, shia divide and the heart of the conflict between iran and saudi arabia. You, dr. Young were saying how the Current Situation makes it difficult for china to pursue constructive relations with iran and saudi arabia. This makes it complicated. You do unlike the United States, have relations with both and increasingly deep relations specially with saudi arabia. Does china see any kind of constructive avenue for engagement with countries that are essentially trapped in proxy wars and this sort of major this major competition that is on balance pad for all of us or does that just seem like it gets too much into internal affairs or other issues that are insoluble. I think it is very challenging to china but still china can walk on a very thin line because as you said china maintains relations with both iran and the gcc countries. That is to say china is in a better position to talk each other and to understand that their mentalities, their concerns, and also we can Work Together and thirdly, china and the United States now already have the Strategic Dialogue on the middle east affairs. So we can Work Together. The most important thing here is that for the major issues major consensus and propositions china and the United States should compare our notes first, not at the end. Also we would like to let the other parties know and so this is very important. China Still Believes now in interference in those affairs fundamentally speaking belong to the internal affairs. So there is still a margin that the china can be flexible and have reinterpretation of these long, persistent supports. My final question is actually to pakistan. Ryan has spent considerable time when we were speaking about it a little bit. China has embarked on actually an endeavor with pakistan. Chit napakistan economic corridor, which is very much in line with what u. S. Policy on the proactive constructive side has been with pakistan over many years, which is to help pakistan and invest in its people, infrastructure, energy water, the things it needs to be a Thriving Society and a little lesson the military side of things. That seems like where you could see a link between a new silk road and chinese projects. There is always a little concern and ambivalence in the United States. Do we welcome an aaib . Do we welcome a Major Initiative with pakistan or are we worried about it . I would like any of you to comment on this particular investment in pakistan. Not to exploit the pakistan issue but i think pakistan can play a very Important Role in specially issues related to have a a afghanistan situation. China generally has a very Good Relationship with pakistan. I think actually from the chinese perspective through that kind of economic cooperation, we can join today with pakistan to play some kind of constructive role in the afghanistan issue. Of course, at current stage, it seems that the u. S. pakistan issues relations have missed some problems. If we look at the history, we usually find that usually you states has quite Good Relationship with pakistan. It seems that maybe to some degree United States and pakistan can still a little bit readjust their relationship. They can unite pakistan and india to input constructive role in the how to say dealing with that kind of afghanistan issue. So thats a kind of general thinking in Chinese Research circles. Of course through that economic cooperation, have a balanced relationship with pakistan, india and then can unite. Or the positive elements in the region to deal with that for terrorism or other difficult issues for afghanistan. Three quick points. First, the political talks that are underway right now, the diplomacy between the Afghan Taliban and the Afghan Government with the involvement of pakistan, in our pages of the newspaper but not top of mine amazingly. Chinas role and the u. S. Being involved with this this is something that john podesta and steve hadley, when they did joint pieces two or three years ago, it was politically fraught here back at home. Now, the fact that this diplomatic engagement which you have been involved in personally. Vicram, is essential. Second, on the new silk road and pakistan again i would restate what i said before. To the extent all of these things are helpful in generating job growth in pakistan and create prosperity and an opportunity for the economy of pakistan to open up and flourish, thats great. If the approaches are more along the line of making basic investments that facilitate trade but making these countries flyover regions for other parts, then i think it doesnt address it. Finally, on the broader and we will get to questions. U. S. china cooperation. We have said it before. It is essential to underscore it. I think it makes it very difficult for the u. S. To talk about cooperation with china in pakistan or the middle east when there are all these big issues, including the cybersecurity issue, which has Great Potential for souring the overall strategic discussion. It makes it har. It is essential to explore these but it becomes more of an academic, think tank and less practical if these sorts of perceptions create so much distrust. Any comments before we go on . We have a lot of hands and we have 10, 12 minutes. Lets start with the gentlemen way back on the left. Yes, you. Im bill jones in executive intelligence view. I would like to focus on one road and one belt issue. The way the u. S. Attitude toward one road one belt will determine the course of human history. If it is willing to join this and work in this, we are going to have a flourishing of Economic Growth, the likes of which we havent seen. We saw at the eufa conference, nearly 50 of the World Population has said we have to move in a different direction towards this infrastructural investment, road development, highway development. This is what the world wants to do. The United States has been invited to this. President xi has extended an invitation to be a part of this. The attitude we get from the u. S. Is mainly critical or even kind of paranoid about it because it is china that is pushing this proposal. The new silk road as it has been put forward is largely a myth at the present moment. There is nothing being built. There is nothing being developed. It was used, i think, as ai ploy to say, we have our silk road and you have your silk road. I dont think thats going to get it. The idea is if the United States is willing to participate in this the hand of president xi is open to that type of participation. I dont think we have really got our act together in understanding the significance of this because we are mired in a debt crisis with europe and the United States and until we see asia moving ahead we dont know how to deal with that. Until we can get our act together, we ourselves will not develop. Infrastructural development, how much do we need in our highways, our railroads. We havent done that in a long time. If the u. S. Policy were oriented toward that, we could take that extended hand and work with china in trying to develop the world and to realize the common aims of mankind. I think we have to somehow reexamine our own attitudes towards this and understand the significance of this project. Just a little time. Let me take two more questions and come back to the panel. The gentlemen up here in the front. Hi. I just want to continue what dr. Young has started. Could china and the u. S. Reconcile on this different approach . It is a starkly different approach, intervention or intervention. For example, china see very different the arab spring compared with the u. S. Or when china see the u. S. Views of security consul resolution. So china is very mindful of any serious concept on syria, for example. So the other is you know, actually according to the pew center survey, china is more popular in the middle east than the United States. So there are slightly different policies. How you you the chinese scholars interpret this . Does that mean they like china approach or dislike the u. S. Approach . Thank you. Lets go right to the middle the gentlemen second in there. Im the assistant director for asia and the americanjewish community. I wanted to ask our scholars from china. China and india have had a very traditional walk, close ties with the Palestinian People and also since 91 have had growing ties with israel. How could both countries join the p5 plus 1 in trying to help forge along the middle east Peace Process as well as ensure israels security with the kinds of threats that iran makes . Really simple questions. The first is on the belt and road. Is the United States welcoming or not welcoming and should it . Second on how do you reconcile theez deep differences . I think the key there is different approaches and perception about the arab spring between the United States and china . The third is can china and india help with the Israeli Palestinian Peace Process . Very interesting. I am going to go down the row and you can pick and choose of what you want to answer. You want me to start. Just briefly, very good questions on the difference of perceptions of the u. S. And china, the popular level. Let me start with are second question first. Ive looked at the data a bit. I think part of it may be this issue of familiarity breeding some contempt. If you recall in turkey, 2010, 2011, 2012 specially after the first year of the arab spring, there was opinion surveys that said turkey was sort of the more positive and favorable country in the middle east compared to all others. Thats changed substantially. I think turkey is very active in its role in certain conflicts. I think this is a cautionary tale for china as it thinks about its deeper engagement. The more you get involved in a region of the world that is deeply fraccious, then you get these scenarios, where in the case of egypt the United States still remains deeply engaged there. We probably have one of the lowest favor abilities at the popular levels. People that supported the Muslim Brotherhood think we sold them out. People that were against it think we were with the Muslim Brotherhood. The more you get involved in societies that are fragmented and fractured, the less dividend in terms of popular perceptions. Your question on the dilemma of resolving u. S. And china, which are the issues, i think again ill reiterate the p5 plus 1 test case of iran and not just whether we get a deal today or this week but what does that deal need and how can we actually extend it is one of the best test cases of whether it proves its value. The easier test case like tunisia, even today egypt is much easier than libya, yemen and certainly iraq and syria. In the short run figuring out if there is a practical way for the two countries to actually resolve its stated interest and its stated program for the region, i would apply it to those countries like tunisia like egypt, where there is a greater sense of basic stability and not to those tough cases like libya or yemen. I think it is really hard on iraq and syria as we saw. Many have put forward a peace plan for syria. It jsust hasnt work. The difference of approaches of interventionism and noninterventionalism are easier to apply in the societies that after i foot hold on stability. I would start in those places and first and foremost, i would start with finishing the work thats been started on the iran front. I want to just make some additional remarks. Number one the belt and the road initiative, i think china certainly welcomes participation. And endorsement of the United States. The silk road existed almost 2000 years ago but the name of silk road was not created by the chinese but by the germans, 100 years ago. Now, we take this as a new way of thinking. We believe it will take about 3050, almost half century to realize. Secondly it is natural and be expected, we will have different concepts understandings specially when the notion is just being brought up. For instance, china and mongolia had a different perception and understanding of this silk road proposal. Then, after communications, the mongolia president said, we had the grass land road. You have the belt and the road. They can be integrated and chinas proposition was doubted by the russians because of the socalled Eurasia Corporation as well as the former backyard of the central asia but now we understood that we could be complimentary for each other. India still does not endorse it officially. When i visited the bay bridge in San Francisco area 30 years ago, i was overwhelmed by the United States capabilities on the infrastructure of these things. Now, you are way ahead let us chinese do the infrastructure. You do more on the superstructure, finance science, technology, planning et cetera. So different nations has different strengths and weaknesses. Last but you not least about the surveys. These surveys, you should not leave it totally about you should not discard it totally. In between i think china and the United States reconciled on very difficult questions of the wall. China and the United States had reconciled the socalled tibetan issue, human rights issue. Now, we agree. These issues should not be damaging. The overall china u. S. Relations but it takes a long time that we can come together. I will leave more to my colleagues. Thank you. Lets take the infrastructure herb u head on. First, does the United States need to improve its domestic infrastructure . Absolutely. Can congress get off the dime and meet the president halfway and make a constructive step . Absolutely. We have seen the impact on some of the economic post 2008 economic packages in terms of highways and off ramps. We only need to go to Fairfax County or go to the 405 on sn set boulevard in los angeles and you can see where the Infrastructure Improvements are made. It is only a beginning. In afghanistan, the lack of infrastructure has prevented the development of Strategic Mineral reserves that are there. For a country that is isolated and backward, the development of those minerals would certainly be a progressive step forward. The challenge will be not to find government money to fund that infrastructure but instead to create enough stability, enough moving forward so that the private sector will invest in commodities it will have a longterm interest in developing economically. To do that you have got to create a better environment for investment. I think thats the vulnerability for afghanistan. Bring it into a larger stability and you might have that stability. Infrastructure at home and overseas are both necessary nor 21st century. Thank you. I would like to say a little bit about china india cooperation in middle east. I think china now is more active in Global International affairs. India actually is always very active in international affairs. India can, of course, strengthen their cooperation. Comparing with a country like United States or developed countries like european countries, actually china and india pay more attention to economic development. So, i mean, the driving force for china to push it forward indias proposals in global and Regional Affairs are from the economic front. So as to that kind of middle east political dialogues i dont think actually dont think the governments will have very strong job reports behind them. So it will be better for them to consider more about this economic, social cooperation in the middle east. I think you might have the ingredient for a future report on u. S. china india cooperation. I want to thank everybody for joining us. Thank you for traveling all the way from shanghai. We really welcome this report. Thank you all for being here. If you missed any of this program, go to cspan. Org. Coming up later today on cspan2, the president of iran will be speaking on Nuclear Negotiations at 1 30 eastern. Pregs reports intd kate a formal deal could be close at hand. Wisconsin Governor Scott walker, is announcing he will be running for president. It starts live at 6 15. He released this video ahead of his announcement and more on the todays announcement from a reporter. For too long, they have said we have to compromise our principles to win. Scott walker showed the path to victory is to run on our principles conservative, bold, decisive. He balanced budgets cut taxes, beat the special interests improved education created jobs and showed how to fight and win. America needs new fresh leadership, big, bold ideas from outside of washington, to get things done. Wisconsin Big Government special interests. We havent won those battles. There are others who have won elections but havent consistently taken on the big fights. You showed you can do both. Now, im running for president to fight and win for the American People. Without sacrificing our prip principles, we won three of four elections. We did it by leading. Now, we need to do the same thing for america. It is not too late. We can make our country great again. Join our cause. Help us fight and win for america. We have ed gilbert on the line with the milwaukee journal sent nal. Good morning craig. Craig, are you there. Mr. Walker, Governor Walker is launching his campaign we understand at the same spot where he celebrated his recall victory a couple of years ago. What is that spot . What is the symbolism there . The spot is called the walk i shaw county expo center. The symbolism is twofold. His recall fight and victory is the foundation of his candidacy. It is really impossible to imagine his running for president without the recall. It is what sets him apart in his own mind. It truly does set him apart from others in the field. Only the third recall in american governor history and the first time a governor survived a recall. The basis for his Campaign Message and argument that there are fighters out there in the field an winners out there in the field. He is a fighter and a winner. The other piece of symbol ish is wau ka shaw county where he is doing this announcement and not his home county, which is milwaukee, which happens to be a democratic county. The best performing republican county. He has generated more per capita in the 2012 president ial race. There, sthe believe their path to victory has a lot to do with mobileizing republicans which is something w auchlt kesha it famous for. Was there a strategy for him to hold off until more than a dozen other candidates got in . Does he lose anything but having others join the race before him . I dont know that he loses anything. I think the timing had a lot to do with the fact that he is a sitting governor that had to pass a budget. In this case, it was a bit of a struggle even though the government was controlled by republicans completely. He had some battles to go through within his own party, some controversial issues to work out some budget issues to work out. It finally got done in the nick of time. He signed it yesterday and vetoed a number of provisions. It is finally done after some drama. I think he has got an opportunity. He still has an opportunity to get a little bit of a bump out of this budget announcement, this campaign kickoff. Even though he has been a defacto candidate for six months, even though he has been someone regarded within the Political Community as a as in the top tier of candidates, he is still not that wellknown. His name recognition is lower than a lot of people in the field. So he has got some room to grow in that sense. He will get not only a wave of Media Attention over the announcement but he is also doing things like sitting down and the family is doing interviews. I spent yesterday with him as he spent half the day with abc news. Just that the report that abc news does on him on the world news tonight tonight will expose him to more people than any other thing he has done on the campaign to date. So thats really i this i, a chance for him to get a little bit of a polling bump out of the race and kind of secure his place for now in the top tier candidates. What can you tell us about any details of the event itself . We are going to have it live on cspan3 in the late afternoon, early evening. Any sense of who will be there with him what type of event it will be . Well it is going to be indoors. It will be a crowd event. Not every candidate has done this. I think there should be about 3,000, 4,000 people there, which again speaks to his sort of political signature of energizing and mobilizing grass roots republicans and that is his calling card in wisconsin. It is going to be his calling card if he can succeed in this effort for the republican nomination. It is to kind of feed off that and, you know, create that sort of intensity among republicans or immobilize, enjize republicans, energize the base and incite conservative voters. He is going to revisit the recall because he is trying to tell the story to people that havent heard it before or have heard it but dont know the details. I think he will start to fill out his agenda a little bit, issues and ideas, what he stands for and what he would do. I think thats a little thin at this point. I think there will be an element, as i alluded to earlier, of a sense of who he is personally and where he comes from. What aspects will his opponents try to seize upon once the announcement happens. How will they go after him . Well, i think Going Forward they are going to go after him on his Foreign Policy credentials which he lacks as a governor. I think they are going to accuse him of flipflopping on issues. He has already admitted to changing his position on immigration. The campaign talks a lot about building on his, quote, authenticity as a candidate. Again, the recall is part of that theme. Immigration being the most notable. There have been some issues where there is a perception that he has shifted his emphasis on changed his position. That really cuts against that argument of his about authenticity. So i think thats something that his republican rivals will push at. There has been some occasions in the campaign where he declined to answer or ducked questions on the campaign trail. I think his rivals will push at that and sort of suggest maybe he is not ready for prime time. These are this is a challenge and a testing ground for all of the candidates. He has got to kind of grow into a president ial campaign and his ability to do that will go a long way toward determining his fate. He is going to it is going to get rough at some point. We will see what happens later today and beyond. Craig gilbert is the Washington Bureau chief of the milwaukee journal sentinel. Thanks a lot for the insight on Governor Walker today. It is a pleasure. Governor walker will be the 15th major republican candidate running for the white house. You will be able to watch live coverage starting at 6 15 eastern. Tonight on cspan. Epa Administrator Gina Mccarthy testifies about her agencys justification for its regulatory agenda. She answered questions on the Economic Impact on consumers and businesses and the status of subpoenaed documents and health issues. Lamar smith is sponsoring a house pass bill that prohibits the epa from basing its regulations on research not publicly available. Last month, they ruled that the epa did not appropriately consider the cost of the 2011 rule that limits the emission of mercury and other toxic air pollutants from utilities. The committee on science and technology will come to order. The chair is authorized to declare recesses at any time. Welcome to todays hearing entitled examining epas regulatory overreach. I may recognize myself for five minutes to give an Opening Statement and then the Ranking Member. Over the last year the Environmental Protection agency has released some of the most expensive and expansive regulations in its history. These rules will cost billions of dollars, burden American Families and diminish the competitiveness of american industry around the world. Todays hearing will examine this unprecedented regulatory agenda an the manner in which epa has used secret science questionable legal interpretations and plaued analysis to promote these rules. A glaring example is the president s power plan. This plan is nothing more than a power grab to give the government more control over americans daily lives. These regulations stifle Economic Growth, destroy american jobs and increase energy prices. That means everything will cost more from electricity to gasoline to food which disproportionately hurts lowincome americans. Even epa data shows that this regulation would reduce clevel rise by only 1 100 of an inch, the thickness of three sheets of paper. This rule represents massive cost without significant benefits. In other words it is all pain and no gain. Epa also seeks to impose stricker ozone standards once again with with few benefits. Their own figures show that since 1980, ozone levels have decreased by 33 . Todays air quality will continue to improve with the expected development of practical new technologies. Last week, the Supreme Court issued a ruling that is an important step towards reigning in the extreme actions of the e. P. A. It ruled that the epa must consider the costs of its decision and weigh these costs against any potential benefits. For two years, the committee requested the voluntary production of the data epa uses to justify clean air regulation. The refusal to provide the data led to the first subpoena in 21 years to retrieve that information. Earlier this year, the committee was forced to issue a second subpoena to obtain information related to administrator mccarthys deletion of almost 6,000 Text Messages sent and received on her official mobile devices. The administration claimed that all but one was personal. Most recently, the committee requested documents related to the epas development of the waters of the u. S. And generate grassroots support. The committee was again forced to notice the intention to issue a subpoena for the information. Following this latest notice, epa has begun to produce a limited number of documents to the committee. However, producing documents in bits and pieces after months or years of delay are not the actions of an open and transparent administration. They are the actions of an agency and administration that has something to hide. Earlier this year, the house passed hr 1030, the secret science reformat. It requires the epa to base the regulations on publicly available data. Why would the epa want to hide this information from the American People . The epa has a responsibility to be open and transparent with the people it serves and whose money it spends. I hope the administrator will tell us today and will produce the data and other information the committee has requested. Then he will help the president keep his pledge to maintain an open and transparent administration. That concludes my Opening Statement. The Ranking Member from texas is recognized for hers. Thank you very much. Welcome, administrator mccarthy. I want to thank you for being here today. And please take back to the employees of the epa my gratitude for their hard work and dedication. Epas job is as hard as it is important. For two generations, we relied on epa to be the one federal agency to protect the public and the environment from the pollution that comes with being an industrial society. Standing against you are corporations that have built their profits on a Business Model that viewed rivers, lakes oceans and the sky as their dumping ground. However, two generations of Economic Growth and innovation have shown us that we can clean up the environment and grow our economy. If we were to rely just on the majoritys assertions, we would think everything epa does is wrong. For example, the chairman has a number of on a number of occasions cast epa as a secretive organization, setting out an aggressive regulatory agenda that ignores Public Comments and throttles the American Economy. In fact, the reality of the situation is far different than the caricature. The reality is that the Obama Administration has done far more than the previous one to make sure that the water we drink and the air we breathe are clean. The administration is pursuing a prohealth oriented environmental agenda that includes reducing Carbon Emissions and slowing the path of global warming. These actions are immensely popular with the vast majority of americans. Know what else is popular . The economic results that the Obama Administration has delivered. As of january, the economy had gained almost five times more jobs under president obama than it did during the presidency of george w. Bush. Corporate profits are nearly double and stock prices have grown proportionately. This may come as news to my friends on the other side of the aisle, but we are seeing epa actually enforce the law. Something that the Prior Administration was reluctant to do while also producing jobs and profits. It turns out these are not mutually exclusive outcomes. Now the chairman is trying to paint a picture of epa has being engaged in secret dealings with the environmental community. He has made much of the administrators deleting Text Messages the use of private email by epa employees and the use of social media to reach out to americans to let them know of regulatory proposals. The truth is that no other agency in our jurisdiction has had to develop a more public and publicly discussed agenda than epa. This committee is not expert in regulatory process. So perhaps the majority is unaware of the multiple public listing sessions, the hundreds of formal filings and the hundreds of thousands of comments that epa gets and processes in their regulatory action. It takes years and years of effort for epa to move a regulation from a proposal to a final rule. You have to ignore all of the Public Comment to believe that there is something secretive about epas rulemaking. Finally, the use of social media to communicate with the American Public is nothing more than recognition of how our society communicates these days. I suspect every member of the committee uses twitter and facebook and the internet to communicate with our constituents and the broader public. Engaging the public and providing opportunities to shape regulation appears to me to be a positive step toward a more democratic government. In the past few years, ive heard many members of the majority complain that epa needs to listen more to the public. As they move proposals forward. However, the public consists of more than regulated industry with the highpriced lobbyists so i cannot see how using social media does not fit with the broad belief of members on both sides of the aisle that people should have a voice in policy making. Let me close administrator mccarthy, by encouraging you to not let the investigative theater of this hearing get to you. There are some in think tanks and industry lobby shops and perhaps even on this committee Whose Mission seems to be to attack the reputation of the agency as a way to slow down your work. However, it is vitally important that epa keep working to protect Public Health and improve our environment. The agency has been doing a remarkable job on that score, and i hope and trust that you will not lose sight of the importance of your great public task. Thank you, and i yield back. Thank you, miss johnson. Our witness today is the honorable gina mccarthy, administrator of the Environmental Protection agency. Prior to her appointment as administrator, she was the assistant administrator for epas office of air and radiation. Previously she served as the commissioner of the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection. During her career, which spans over 30 years, she has worked at both the state and local levels on Environmental Issues and helped coordinate policies on energy, transportation and the environment. Administrative mccarthy received a bachelor of arts degree from the university of massachusetts and a master in Environmental Health and engineering. Administrator mccarthy, we welcome you and look forward to your comments, and if youll begin. Thank you chairman smith Ranking Member johnson and members of the committee for inviting me here to testify on the Environmental Protections regulatory efforts. Our mission is protection of Public Health in the environment and the regulatory efforts are in furtherance of those goals. Were guided in meeting those goals in both science and by the law which serve as the backbone of each of the agencys actions. I will focus my comments today in providing a little more detail on three rules which will hopefully provide tremendous benefit not only to share this information but tremendous benefit to the Public Health and the environment. Approximately 117 million americans which is one in three people get their Drinking Water from streams that lacked clear protection and about 33 million americans fish, swim, and boat in waters that were vulnerable to pollution. Recently the agency finalized the clean water rule that will help to protect those waters that are vital to both our health and our economy. What the clean water rule does is simple. It protects clean water. And it provides clarity on which waters are covered by the clean water act so they can be effectively protected from pollution and destruction. The rule provides clearer definition to establish what waters are jurisdictional and what waters are not and it places boundsaries for the fist time that limit the need for casespecific analysis. It makes clear this rule only implies when someone intends to pollute or destroy a water because only then does the need for a federal permit arise. This rule not only maintains current statutory exemptions from normal agricultural activities, it expands regulatory exclusions. To make it clear it does not add any additional permit requirements on agriculture. We held more than 400 meetings across the country, reviewed over 1 million Public Comments we listened carefully to perspectives from all sides. In addition to the clean water rule, the agency is in the process of completing two significant air pollution rules. The ozone max. Because the air we breathe is so important to our Overall Health and wellbeing the Clean Air Act requires epa to review the National Ambient air quality standards every five years to make sure that they continue to protect Public Health with an adequate margin of safety. Based on the law, a thorough review of the science, the recommendations of the agencys independent science advisers and the assessment of epa scientists and technical experts epa issued a proposed rule in november of last year taking comment on strengthening the current standard of 75 part per billion to within a range of 65 to 70 so that we could adequately protect Americans Health health and welfare. We invited comments including an alternative level as low as 60 parts for billion. And acknowledging interests and offering comment in retaining the existing standard. The agency is reviewing the comments we received and we will issue a final rule by october 1 is it of 1st of this year. This summer epa will be finalizing the Clean Power Plan which will cut Carbon Pollution from the power sector which is the largest stationary source of co2 emissions in the country. In crafting this pro pefl epa sought to provide a range of flexibilities that would cut Carbon Emissions while maintaining Affordable Electric power and safeguarding system reliability. Climate change affecting communities all across the United States now and impacts will increase in the future, burdening our children, grandchildren with health and economic challenges. Epas unprecedented Public Outreach and the 4. 3 million comments we received have provided a tremendous amount of information, and we expect to make changes to the proposal to address many of the issues that have been raised. A key consideration of epa that was reinforced by many stake holders both before the proposal and during the Comment Period is the need to design the rule in a way that respects both the urgency of dealing with Climate Change as well as the time it takes to plan and invest in the Electricity Sector in ways that ensure both reliability and affordability. Weve paid close attention to both of those core concerns as well as other comments and will finalize a rule that takes them into account. Again, let me thank the committee for inviting me to speak on the agencys efforts to use the best available science to implement our nations environmental laws so that we can adequately and effectively protect Public Health on the environment. I look forward to taking your questions. Thank you, administrator mccarthy and let me say that because of the interest today and the time limitations and expected votes and how many members are present, im going to need to strictly enforce the fiveminute rule, even on myself. But were not going to start the five minutes until i start asking you my questions. Administrator mccarthy, my first question, and this will not surprise you, goes to the secret science reform act that i introduced that passed the house and that has passed the Relevant Committee in the senate. President obamas own science advisor testified before the committee and said absolutely the data on which regulatory decisions and other decisions are made should be made available to the committee and should be made public. Why dont you agree with the president s science adviser and why dont you agree that the data that you used to justify these regulations should be made public . As you know, the bill doesnt take a position on any regulation, were not making a judgment call, were just saying the American People and other scientists deserve to see this data. Im hoping youve changed your mind. If so, would welcome that comment. Well, mr. Chairman, let me first say that we epa totally supports transparency as well as a strong Peer Reviewed independent science process. But the bill, im afraid, i dont think will get us there. Weve had conversations about this before, mr. Chairman. The way in which our science works is for scientists to develop but why not make this information public . Why not make it publicly available . The information youre asking us to reveal is revealing identifiable now, you and i both know that information can be redacted and i agree that it should be redacted. So why cant you release the information after its been redacted . I think the fundamental difference of opinion we have, sir, is i dont i dont actually need the raw data in order to develop science. Thats not how its done. Understand. But why dont you give us the data that you have and why cant you get that data . Surely you have the data that you based the regulations upon. Well, epa has the authority and the need to actually get information that we have provided to you. But youre saying you cant give us the information because its personal and then youre saying you dont have the information. Which is it . Well, when we receive the information were not allowed to release it and there is much information that we do not have the authority to gather the president s science advisor is saying you should make it public. Ill willing to say well be happy to redact all the personal information. There is no good reason why other scientists cant review it. We are absolutely in line with the science adviser. The science adviser, however, isnt indicating that every study that epa looks at to determine to have a body of science im not saying every study. Im just saying the studies and the data that you relied upon to try to justify these regulations. That is a body of data that we did not generate that is generated in science and peer review. I wish the epa would follow the Ranking Member said you have nothing to hide, yet it looks to me like youre hiding a lot from the American People and maybe we have to disagree on that. Were just protecting peoples privacy and theres ways to do that and every other agency does it except for the epa. You can redact the information. If were not going to agree, i regret that, but i think it makes the epa look bad. On the Clean Power Plan, assistant secretary Charles Mcconnell said at best it will reduce global temp by only onlyonly 0. 01 celsius. Thats going to hurt the lowest income americans the most. How do you justify such an expensive burdensome onnerous rule thats not going to do much good and isnt this all pain and no gain . No, sir, i dont agree with you. If you look at the ria we did, the regulatory analysis, you would see its enormously beneficial. The value of this do you consider 0. 01 of a degree to be enormously beneficial . The value of this rule is not measured in that way. It is measured in showing strong domestic action which could trigger Global Action to address what is necessary action do you disagree with my 0. 01 of a degree figure . Do you disagree with the im not disagreeing that this action in and of itself will not make all the difference we need to address Climate Action. But what im saying is if we dont take action domestically, we will never get started. But if youre looking at the results, the results cannot justify the cost and the burden that youre imposing on the American People. Actually, this is a cost beneficial were obviously going to disagree on that, as well. My next question goes to the production of documents. I appreciate in the last couple of weeks youve been a little bit more forthcoming, but my question is when can we expect to get all the documents that we have either requested or subpoenaed . Let me begin by saying epa is committed to transparency and the true and faithful compliance can you give me a date when you will produce the numbers weve asked for . There are a number of documents, some of which we are still discussing with your staff with terms of the scope of that request. Any deadline or date that you can give us . Im more than happy to ask staff continue to we can have discussions forever. If youre not willing to give me a date by which youre in good faith going to try to give us the documents then i cant believe that the epa is acting in good faith. So is it the end of this month, the end of next month . Sir, you have a number of requests in to us and i want to make sure i do not give you a date that i cannot achieve. Give me a target date. Any target date. Anytime this year . I cant until your staff begins to discuss with us which they are. To me, this continues a pattern of obstruction that we have been seeing for a couple of years now. It would be easy for you to say ill do my best to get it for you in the next 30 days or whatever. The fact that youre not willing to do that is disappointing. Again, were talking about largely with these regulations, its all pain and no gain. Mr. Chairman we will respond as quickly as we possibly can and make every effort to do that. Im just trying to avoid giving you a date that anticipates what your own staff like i say, i wanted a target date, a good faith date and unfortunately im not hearing that date. Thank you for your testimony today and well now go to the Ranking Member and recognize her for her questions. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. I might remind you you went one minute over. Im sorry. You were one minute over on your time limit. The Ranking Member is correct. That has been confirmed and she gets an additional minute. But shes the last person to get an additional minute. Mrs. Mccarthy, the house is in the process of passing an appropriations bill that cuts your agencys budget by more than 750 million. It includes an amendment by the chairman to cut your office and funding of the office of legislative affairs based on a continuing pattern of obstruction and delays of committees request. I believe the chairman has signed or cosigned 11 document request letters to your agency in the first 26 weeks of this congress. Basically, a letter every other week. And each of these letters have been either a new request or an expansion of the previous request. Now, i have three questions and ill ask them all at one time. What is your account of the letters from this committee and from congress as a whole . How many documents have you provided to committee to date, pages or documents, however you keep track, and finally, can you describe the impact of the cut and the policy riders in the house and Appropriations Bills would have on your agency. Well, since january 1st of this year, we have received ten letters and one subpoena from this committee. Weve generated 13 written responses and sent up over 15,000 pages of documents responsive to the committees requests and were continuing to make production of documents to the committee. We have held approximately 10 Conference Calls and communicated by email or phone with Committee Staff on over 35 occasions. So we continue to try to be as responsive as we can, recognizing our commitment to transparency and the important work of this committee. In terms of the budget cuts, the budget cuts that are proposed in the appropriations bill and the variety of amendments that have been added would seriously threaten the ability of epa to do its core work. Now, i understand there are disagreements in moving forward with some rules like our Clean Power Plan to address the challenge of Carbon Pollution or our new ozone standard to protect Public Health, but this goes well beyond that. To impact our ability to deliver clean water, clean air, healthy land, work with states, support their efforts. This would be a devastating proposal in terms of disallowing us to move forward with the real problems were facing today and would be a serious problem in terms of rolling back all of the work that we would be able to accomplish because there would be no boots on the ground anymore. Thank you. Now, i have seen grocery carts of documents rolled in here from your agency. On research that was not done by the federal government. On that was done over 25 years ago. As related to tobacco and lung disease. Are you still being badgered for the information that you dont have . Well, part of the challenge with the secret science bill is that it asked us to gather information we have no authority to gather and it asks us to release information where i cannot protect peoples personal privacy or confidential Business Information in order to release that publicly. And frankly, the way in which science works in this country is we dont look at the scientists dont exchange all the raw data although they can and they often do. But they dont have to in order to do scientifically credible independent peer review which is the core of how this country has done science forever. Isnt it true that the American Cancer Society did that research independently of the federal government . Well, the two issues that started this concern about secret science had to do with the development of basically studies that were developed by the American Cancer Society and harvard, two not unknown or well thought of or poorly thought of entities. And they had information that we sought. We were given the information we had the authority to gather. They offered opportunities for that raw data to be reviewed in oneonone review by researchers, but it is they are cohort studies. Theyre individuals that are followed for many years. It is theyre great studies. We rely on it. But they are so filled with personal information that it would be impossible to redact that in sheer. So were doing the best we can to get the information out to people that were allowed to release, but in no way does the lack of access to raw data preclude us from relying on these studies and many others that have been the core of how we look at developing National Ambient air quality standards. Thank you very much. My time expired. Thank you, miss johnson. Oh, wait a minute, do i have an extra minute . You do get an extra minute. Let me ask one more thing, then. What do you think this committee will do with all that data when they get it . Were not researchers. Were just a legislative committee. Well, i think that i mean, we have it. And we havent done anything with it yet, but youre still getting badgered for more and more. What in your opinion is this a value to us . I havent figured it out myself. Well, i think one of the reasons why we rely on Peer Reviewed science is to allow raw data and science to be done by the scientists. My job is to rely on their judgment and to make sure that i practice all the practices that congress has laid out to rely on peerreviewed science. I do not know of what value raw data is to the general public, but i certainly will provide any information that i have the authority to provide and ill do it in a way that still protects peoples interest and the work of our agency. Thank you. Thank you, miss johnson. The gentleman from oklahoma, mr. Lucas, is recognized for his questions. Thank you, chairman smith. And i think its worth noting the comments from chairman of the epa Science Advisory Board that stated the data used to justify regulation should be made publicly available and that all data going into making conclusions in a Scientific Study should be made available. And similarly, i think its worth remembering the president s science advisory testimony before the committee that regulatory decisions and other decisions are based should be available to the committee and made public. I think we should remember that. That having said, administrator, is the epas use of nonpublic Scientific Data consistent with the agencys scientific integrity policy . Are you doing things consistent with your own policy on scientific integrity . Yes, sir, we are. Can you and ill be honest with you, administrator, coming from a rural area, im sensitive about the waters of the u. S. Rule. Can you guarantee me and this committee that all data supporting the final rule will be 100 publicly available . Actually, it was the docket it was published in the federal register just a short time ago. All of the data that went into our connectivity study, our science study is already publicly available and the technical documents are provided in the public format. In a particular area that goes with the waters of the u. S. Rule, have you made public how the epa developed the 4,000 feet of high tide line or the ordinary High Water Mark number in the final rule . But was not in the proposed rule or, for instance, the 1500 feet within a 100year flood plain number in the final rule . Yep. Or all the waters located within 100 feet of the High Water Mark . Has that information been made available in what youve provided . It is available in the docket. And the good thing about attracting a million comments is it allows us to make changes between proposal and final that are based on better science better understanding of how the agencies have been managing these programs for years, and thats what we relied on both the knowledge and the expertise of our staff, the information that we received from the public on comments and the science thats available to us. Well, i hope that the information that you say is available is indeed available and will continue to be added to. I would simply observe that, like many members of the committee and the public out there, i think the chairman of the Science Advisory Board and the president s science advisor make very good points. And we follow those to the letter. Years ago i was told as a young legislator that theres a fine line of doing things for people and doing things to people. You and the agency may believe youre doing things for people, but there is a perception out there across the country, whether its in ag or construction or in a variety of places that in all these rules, youre not doing things for people, youre inevitably doing things to people. Thats an unfortunate set of circumstances. We in this committee and we in congress serve a very Important Role. Going all the way back to our predecessors and parliament on the other side of the ocean. Our responsibility is to protect the citizens from the king and his government. You are the president s administrator, and its our responsibility to make sure that our constituents interests are well taken care of and that the king, using an old term, remembers the public. That said, mr. Chairman, lie i look toward to all this information thats been promised to us. I know weve had a substantial amount thats appeared in recent days. Maybe we need to have more hearings so we can continue the flow of information. Service and some of the other members on our transportation and Infrastructure Committee where weve held joint hearings with the senate and hearings on the same issues in that committee and the administrator has been there on hearings from this committee and the administrator is here. And i feel in some ways that weve asked so many of these questions so many times and frankly with the clean water rule, i think since the majority has already voted to gut it it seems unclear why were even discussing it here today. Nonetheless, you know, later in the day, were going to vote on the interior environment appropriations bill for physical fiscal year 2016. It includes a rider that prevents the epa from proposing a standard lower than the current 75 parts per billion. During the debate i offered an amendment to the bill to strike that rider specifically because of the testimony weve heard before in this committee which told us that the current standard is not in line with current science. Testimony we received back in march on the next concerns of the ozone, she indicated the research has only grown stronger since the last time the epa considered revising the study. Can you explain how the e. P. A. Incorporates changes in the Scientific Understanding into the rulemaking process . Some of the colleagues have claimed that the science epa uses for its ozone regulations is somewhat secret. So can you respond to those claims in your own words . And what policies does epa have in place for public review and comment on the science that epa is considering . And you can have the balance of my three minutes to do that. Thank you. Well, the Science Behind ozone is one of the most robust bodies of science that we have available to us. There are thousands of studies that have been done for decades that have underpin two ozone standards im sorry three that the agency has put out and that will underpin our next review. This science is developed using both our office of research and development and our office of air and radiation who Work Together to present information that they call an independent science assessment that they bring to our clean air sorry, our case act, Clean Air Science Advisory Committee that is a faca that is actually directed this is a process directed by congress to us to do. They are independent and they peer review the science. It is a public process, Public Comments, hearings, telephone calls they can join. Then ksac provides advice to us and we take a look at that and then the staff integrates what our regulatory standards are that are the basis of our judgment of what that science means. Then they actually propose to the administrator, usually a range of standards that i might consider that they would think would be appropriate on the basis of the science, recognizing that i have to look at whats adequate to protect Public Health and safety with a margin of safety. And so i have to look at, also, adding to what they give to add my policy judgment. And so the process is a lengthy one. It takes years to develop. The body of science is robust. It is looked at with Public Comment by independent peerreviewed scientists. In the case of this ozone standard, they clearly articulated they thought the current standard of 75 was not adequate to protect Public Health and welfare and they indicated that i should be thinking about a range of 60 to 70 ppb as the most appropriate on the basis of the science available which, again, is very robust and is well understood and has been commented on. And then they went on to say, but they recognize that i have a policy judgment to make, as well, on this issue of using a margin of safety to make sure its adequately protective. And on the basis of that i develop a rulemaking which is also public, which we proposed last year, late last year, and we will finalize on october 1st or before of this year. And in that, i proposed a look at the standard between 65 and sfenlt, taking comment down to 60, and recognizing that people will want to talk about 75 again. But it was very clear to me on the basis of ksac that this has been a tremendously open and public and credible process. The time thank you very much. I have nine second left by my clock. Mr. Chairman, with unanimous consent, i would ask that i be allowed to enter letters into the record from my constituents including a girl scout troop saying that we need to get on with it. Thank you very much. With that objection, thank you, miss edwards. And the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. Id like to ask you a few questions about the upcoming Climate Change talks in paris. The president is committed to reaching an International Deal there. Do you support International Negotiations on Climate Change and Greenhouse Gas emissions . I support efforts to develop a global plan to move forward to address greenhouse if the global plan ends up resulting in the increase in the price of carbon, are you concerned about the fact that that would disproportionately hurt poor and middle income people rather than people who are in the upper 1 . I believe that the actions we take on Greenhouse Gases will protect all of us, but most importantly, those most vulnerable to changes in climate, which are low income and minority individuals. Well, i think poor and middle income people will be most concerned about what happens to their expenses should the price of gas and electricity and natural gas and anything that is carbon related go up if you guys go along with an increase in the cost of carbon. I dont are you concerned about the Economic Impact on poor people . Absolutely. Im interested in two different ways, to make sure we reduce the Carbon Pollution threatening them, but also do it in a way that continues to allow them to economically grow and to become part of the middle class. That is our and how do you do that by increasing their cost . You know, ive seen economic studies that indicate that the increase in cost on a per family basis would be thousands of dollars. And that would have a much bigger impact on poor people than it would be on the ceos. Sir, congress has designed a process for epa to develop a cost benefit analysis and weve done this with the Clean Power Plan. There is no way that history tells us that we have to sacrifice for peoples income and jobs in order to continue to make improvements environmentally. And carbon is no exception. The way you do it is exactly the way we designed our proposed Clean Power Plan to allow tremendous flexibility in time to make reductions in a way that keeps our electricity reliable and affordable and keeps people working. Thats not what ive seen projecting things out. And, you know, i would ask you to have a preferential option to economically protect poor people that does not result in some goofy, politically designed Redistribution Program where youll collect some money and then taxes and then youll send it back according to what somebody decides is good social engineering. Will you commit to me that you wont do that . Well, sir, i havent proposed yes or no . Yes. I havent proposed any well i know you havent but im looking forward to thats not now, ive got a couple other questions because im going to stay in the five minutes. All right. One of the problems that weve had in these Climate Change negotiations is that china and india and russia dont want to have any reductions in their growth rate. The president kind of went along with reducing our Greenhouse Gas emissions but letting china do business as usual. Would you support an International Agreement that lets china and russia and india off the hook and not have the same reductions in Greenhouse Gasses over the same Accounting Period as the United States . Congressman, im not reading whats happening the same way no, im asking would you support. If it turns out that way, would you support that . So far thats not what i thats not the question i asked. Please answer the question i asked. Would you support it . Well, nobody is suggesting that. The president has suggested Something Like this in the past and maybe we should stop doing that by giving china an opportunity not to reduce its Greenhouse Gasses until 2030 while we have to reduce ours between 26 and 28 by 2025. That doesnt sound to be something to me thats very good for america. Well, i certainly understand that do you think thats good for america . Well, you understand its good or isnt it good . Well, i understand that Everybody Needs to act in clearly both china and the u. S. And other large economies need to move forward to reduce Carbon Pollution. Okay, then i guess i think china then i guess the deal that the president hatched with the chinese when he was in beijing does not fall within your markers that everybody has to step up to the plate, because were there and striking out and theyre sitting in the dugout or some other place. I yield back. Thank you, mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman from oregon is recognized. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman and thank you so much administrator mccarthy for appearing before us today and for the important work you do to protect the health of oregonians and americans. Im an optimistic person and im happy to hear my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are concerned about the needs of low income people. Thats some good news today. I want to start by thanking you for the epas commitment to the cleanup of the Portland Harbor super fund site. I look forward to the feasibility study. We know its been a challenge to find environmentally sound costeffective cleanup methods that will allow the region 10 and local parties to stay on track toward the goal of presenting the public with a proposed cleanup plan in 2016. But after many, many years, were all more than ready to resolve the situation in the Portland Harbor and i look forward to your continued work. Together on this issue. And the state has been a wonderful partner in getting to this stage and we will get this over the finish line. I appreciate that on behalf of a lot of my constituents who have a lot at stake. So i just got back from oregon. I was there last week where it was close to 100 degrees several days and in the high 90s the rest. People are very concerned about Climate Change and warming temperatures, particularly with the risks associated for example, our water temperatures, aquatic habitats, to the extent that core populations of some fish could become extinct. Were dealing with drought. My neighbors to the south a little more seriously, but a lot of regions in oregon. We have a lot of Agricultural Production in eastern oregon. Its going to affect our region and agricultural products. Can you briefly mention how the work that youre doing will help with some of these issues. And i want to save time for another important question. Thank you. Let me be very quick. The work that we are doing is to implement the president s Climate Action plan, which is a series of domestic actions that will also reduce Carbon Pollution, but also maintain the growth in our environment that were all looking forward to continuing. And epa in particular is moving forward in a variety of ways to take action on climate and to reduce Carbon Pollution. The good news is that it was done as a strategy to try to get Global Engagement to happen because it needs a global solution, and in fact that is exactly what is happening. Terrific. Thank you so much. I want to point out there have been a lot of conversations in this committee about the cost of regulation. Last year the omb estimated that rules promulgated by the epa between 2003 and 2013, that deck raid created between 165 billion in benefits at a cost of 38 billion to 46 billion. That sounds like a pretty good number to me. And im glad that youre working on the Clean Power Plant and reducing toxins in our air and water on behalf of not only my constituents, but americans. So some witnesses before this committee offered some opinion thats epa regulations should only be set if environmentally Beneficial Technology is widely commercially available. But others have pointed to a long history of technologyies becoming available after the epa determines that theyre feasible. Does the regulation drive the innovation and the technology to reduce costs, for example, of renewables . So emphasizing that the epa regulations spur innovation, in the absence there is not generally a financial incentive for widespread deployment. So we saw this when we tackled acid rain under the george h. W. Bush administration. Can you comment on the view of the epa regulations such as the Clean Power Plan or proposed ozone rule will reduce Greenhouse Gas emissions and willin sent viez innovation. The Clean Air Act was designed by congress to have sections that were moving technology forward. They were technology spurring. The section that were regulating on power plants under the Carbon Pollution plan is one of those sections. So it does say we need to continue to move forward under our new standard. So what we have done is set a standard thats 30 years away. We have set a standard that allows its an investment signal in order to tell states they have every flexibility to get to that standard, but its also a signal to the market. It will tell people that investments and renewables are not only affordable today, theyre going to get more affordable moving forward. So this is a marketsbased approach to address a confounding problem but in a way that states can drive it and in the way that it works best for them and develops the business they want to have in the jobs they want to take advantage of. Terrific. In our state when we pass the feed in tariff pilot for solar it sold out in the first 15 minutes it was available, so a lot of potential for innovation there. And i yield back. Thank you. The gentleman from california mr. Roybach is recognized for his questions. Thank you very much. Youre obviously a very articulate and hardworking person. We respect that even though we may have differences in policy. Thank you, sir. I just do you know in your background of any example where scientists or people involved with policy were ignoring certain raw data in order to achieve a certain preconceived conclusion . Have you ever come across that . Not individuals that i have worked with. Do you know of examples of that . I cant so you dont know any examples of where people didnt really fulfill their job of being a if you ask me personally, no. Personally, no. I would have to suggest, then, that maybe youre a little naive in that area. Okay. Those of us who have been around a while have seen this on several occasions. So not knowing any examples of that, you then feel totally secure in telling us that we must have trust no, sir. In the outcome no, sir. Without knowing the raw data no, sir. That went youre not asking us to trust that . No, sir. What i am i clearly, i read about instances where science has been manipulated. Correct. And that is why we work through an independent peerreviewed body to be able to provide us advice. They dont have what about us . I mean, we are elected. Your peer review process are not elected by the people to watch out for their interests. We are elected by you just excuse me one moment. I am sorry. We are elected by the people to make sure their interests are being watched out for. You are asking us to trust that someone who is appointed rather than trying to look at whatever data is used for these decision makings yourself. And theres no trust me about it, sir. Youve given me a job that this government has provided the structure by which i do my job, including looking at science. The structure that was set up originally, i believe, was the constitution that Left Congress primarily responsible to watch out directly for the interests of the American People because they vote for us. Let me just point out you are undermining that basic constitutional privilege when you tell us theres information you will not give us. No, sir, you have lost laws that provide ive been giving you Sensitive Information. Well Sensitive Information not given to the people elected by the voters of this country is an insult to the people to our constitution, to everything this country is supposed to be about in terms of freedom, responsibility, openness of government, et cetera. Let me ask you, what percentage of the atmosphere is co2 . What percentage of the atmosphere is co2 . I dont have that calculation for you, sir. Maybe you could tell us what your personal guess is on what percentage is co2. I dont make those guesses, sir. Youre the head of the epa and you dont know you have all of these laws based on, oh, youre going to get your staffer to tell you now. But youre the head of the epa and you did not know what percentage and now you are basing policies that impact dramatically on the American People, and you didnt even know the base what the content of co2 in the atmosphere was, which is the justification for the very policies youre talking about . No, that isnt if youre asking me how much co2 is in the atmosphere, not a percentage, but how much, we have just reached levels of 400 parts per million. I think i was very clear what i was asking and i was very clear you didnt know. Let me ask you, if co2, from what i understand, is only onehalf of onetenth of 1 of the atmosphere. And you believe that this minimal, tiny element and by the way, only 10 of that, as i understand, is actually manmade. And, of course, whatever youre suggesting and is being suggested as the basis for creating these what we consider draconian controls is that onetenth that is man made of the onehalf of oneten1 would have impact on the weather to the point that it will impact peoples health. The gentlemans time has expired. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you mr. Chairman. Thank you, administrator mccarthy. I appreciate you being here, appreciate your testimony. I especially appreciate the correct pronunciation of cobben. I did want to ask you another percentage question. What percentage do you think of low income people in fact, all people in the world would be affected by Climate Change if we do not do something to address it . I believe that everyone, 100 are already being affected and will be much more severely impacted if we dont take action now. And will that impact be felt first, do you believe, by low income people . It usually is and in this case it will as well. I think thats well known across the world and i think youre seeing it play out right away. We need to adapt to the change thats already happening. But people in low income areas do not have the kind of wherewithal to be able to adapt that many of us actually enjoy. And so it is up to us to meet our moral responsibility, not just to them but to our kids future, and take action. We have had a lot of discussion here today about raw data and its role. Could you go into independent peer review and how we actually review and determine what is valid science to base our regulations on. I do not have scientific training. I am an attorney by profession. I dont think i am qualified to look at raw data, even if redacted, to make an assessment of good policy and laws. We need scientists to make that interpretation. Could you go into detail about that for me . Yes. The way it works is we have to have our science independently Peer Reviewed. You need to have an open process thats transparent where you pick experts with the knowledge in that field. Can you have transparency without releasing every bit of raw data . We do have transparency. We have transparency in picking those experts, we have transparency in their discussion of what they think about those documents. We have public review and comment on those documents. And that is before we can really rely on them as the basis of regulatory action. But we almost never just look at one document. We look at a huge robust document, a series of science, in order to underpin our major rule makings. And the way it works is the scientists dont look at the raw data. They can if they want. They can reach an agreement with the researchers who own that data and sometimes own some of the modeling thats used to analyze it, but they dont need to. They look at it within the context of their knowledge of the science and the broad body of knowledge that we look at to see if it is being done correctly, according to the science, if all of the factors that should be discussed are being discussed, and its looked at within that context. Further, if it can be replicated by others. But they dont all sit around and say im going to take another four years, give me the raw data and ill give you a sense of whether this works. That is just not the way that science is done. Thats the way that science cant get done. And do you see other agencies that are also looking at science where that is the process, that they are going back to the raw data . If you name an agency in the United States that is a credible science agency, that is how they do their work. That is what the National Academies is. There is how you do it. And speaking of analysis last month the union of concerned scientists came out with a report that found recent decisions in state laws that predate the Clean Power Plan have resulted in 31 states already making commitments that have put them halfway towards their 2020 benchmarks. Do you think were going to be surprised at how easily and efficiently states are going to be able to meet these benchmarks, even if the plan was not there . I think the challenge for us is to make sure that through our rulemaking we do what the law says, which is to reduce Carbon Pollution. The way in which you can make that affordable is look at how the Energy Transition is already happening and instead of thinking you have to go way in front of it, you go behind it and you keep pushing. Thats how this works. So i will not be at all surprised to see either the utilities or the states go way further than we require. In fact, thats usually exactly what happens. Its called good regulation and rule making and i think this is exactly what we did with this Carbon Pollution plan because we give every state the flexibility to actually design the plan for themselves. All were doing is setting the standard. Its far enough away. The technologies are there. Theyre going to keep Getting Better if we send the right signals and i think well see this be an opportunity for us to continue that Energy Transition to its clean energy and low carbon that people are demanding. Thank you and i yield back. Thank you, miss clark. The gentleman from alabama, mr. Brooks, is recognized for his questions. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Administrator mccarthy, epas Impact Analysis of the proposed ozone regulations admits that the agencys proposed ground level ozone rule costs america at a minimum 3. 9 billion per year at 70 parts per billion and 15 billion per year at 65 parts per billion. In contrast, a study by the National Economic research associates, also known at nera Economic Consulting also estimates that an epa ozone limit of 65 parts per billion would cost americas Gross Domestic Product by 74 billion per year in real dollar terms, totals 1. 7 trillion in lost Gross Domestic Product between 2017 and 204. 2040. Thus denying struggling American Families an average of 1. 4 million jobs per year through 2040. Administrator mccarthy, i hope you will concur that the more damage the epas regulations do to the American Economy, the poorer the American Economy is and the less money america has to pay for and ensure that americans enjoy clean water clean air and proper disposal of hazardous materials. Anecdotally, i would submit that you can look at any number of poor heavily populated regions around the globe that does not have the economic means to pay for pollution resulting in some of the worst polluted areas on the planet. In february, Alabama Governor Robert Bentley sent you a letter emphasizing that the proposed ozone regulations do more damage than good to alabama. Mr. Chairman, at this time id like to submit governor bentleys letter to the epa more specifically the honorable gina mccarthy, dated february 24th, 2015, for the record. Without objection, so ordered. The epa states in its proposed ozone rule that, quote, the administrator notes that the determination of what constitutes an adequate margin of safety is expressly left to the judgment of the epa administrator, end quote. Administrator mccarthy, it appears that your quote adequate margin of safety, end quote, calculation will determine the epas ozone parts per billion standard and what kind of damage will be done to the American Economy and american jobs. Is that accurate . Is that the standard the epa will be going by, adequate margin of safety . Yes, no, or i dont know . That is what the statute requires. Since the epa ozone regulation might be the costliest regulation in epa history, which is saying quite a bit, America Needs and deserves a precise and clear definition of what, quote adequate margin of safety, end quote, means. Administrator mccarthy, what is your precise definition of and what is the specific scientific methodology you intend to use to dwieb adequate margin of safety . It is actually in the statute given as a policy judgment that i would make. And what is your definition, as you try to wrestle with what that phrase means, adequate margin of safety . I assume youre using scientific methodologists, perhaps sound economic analysis, as you try to determine what a vague term adequate margin of safety means. Congressman, you will be able to see in the rules in a very good discussion of what my judgment is and the basis of that. It will not be on the basis of cost. This is a healthbased standard to protect Public Health. Cost is not a consideration. Cost is a consideration how can you say cost is not a consideration for health, because health because the health that we enjoy is a function of what we can pay for. This actual rule when you look at Public Health benefits they far outweigh what we estimate to be the illustrative cost, but cost in terms of how you define the o zone standard is not considered until implementation. The United States only this committee, your definition, your understanding, your methodology of what the phrase adequate margin of safety means. That will be shared with you when you see the final rules sir. That is when i apply my judgment, and i explain it completely and it goes through whatever scrutiny. As of today you are not able to explain it to this committee the United States congress or the American People . There is no specific definition i can offer you. It is a judgement that will be well do you meaned by the science how long has the epa been working on that definition and how long has that definition been in statute . Since we created the program what year . Since the Clean Air Act . What year . When was it . 19 90 . So decades later you still dont have decades later you still dont have that definition with respect to o zone. No, sir, its not applied that way. The gentlemans time has expired. Thank you mr. Brooks the gentleman from virginia is recognized. Madam, i want to thank you at the top for being so patient and gracious this morning despite the rather combative nature of the questioning. My chair, my good friend and distinguished chair, that its damaged our economy, how do you reconcile that with 64 straight months of job growth and 12. 8 million new private sector jobs and the tripling of the stock market and the recent news that we have 5. 3 million job openings now advertised the most in American History and if there is a is it not perhaps better to also look at the infrastructure bills we failed to pass and the budget control act and sequester and our inability to do tax reform for holding back Economic Growth rather than braming it on the epa . I think one of the things to recognize, as well is when you look directly at epa you look at 70 improvement in the air pollution. Its reduced by 70 while the gdp tripled. We know how to do these rules in a way that is is not just not contrary to job growth and the economy, but can fuel it and becomes part of it. I i use Text Messages as a great deal mostly because my children will not return my phone calls. That is exactly i also found out im not allowed to talk on committee and my excellent staff texts me back and forth all day long and i read and delete read and delete. I never imagined doing anything substantive in 140 characters especially with my typing skills. I also discovered if i dont delete the changes get longer and longer and longer with my daughter is there any reason to think that the 6,000 Text Messages are trivial personal and nonconsequential. There were two that i actually saved because they were a record. Other than that, to the best of my recollection, family, friends and ill be late for something and text does not accommodate a substantive conversation but is does accommodate me keeping in touch with my kids when im far away and thats the reason why i started it and we do not and thoroughly discourage the use of text message but when we do use it for government purposes and when we do there is a process and policy in place to make sure that those are preserved. Thats the policy that you see reflected here. Can you get an epa rule to get the children to call their parents . I wish i could. If congress would give me the authority to enforce that i would be out. We are on 70 parts per billion and the chair says that is a 33 improvement and youre only asking for perhaps a five parts per billion decline. Thats 6 2 3 and weve been offering amendments often until midnight or 1 00 in the morning in the last two months and again and again and again we hear we can cut the budget by 10 or 12 and it will not make a difference at all. When 70 parts per billion is what robust science says is needed for our health, why the hysteria about a 6 cut . And weve heard that the conservative think tank projection of job loss. Can you talk about the economic value of the Health Benefits and how that compares to the potential cost . The Health Benefits of this rule dwarf the economic costs that were projecting. Were talking at a level of 76. 4 to 13 billion a year in benefits at 60 at 65 its 19 to 38 billion. So we are talking about significantly more benefits than costs, but the most important benefit of this, sir, if i might, is that youre telling the American People what clean air is supposed to be. So the benefit immediately is that individual ss who have kids that have asthma will know their air quality sorry, let me put another way, they can decide whether their kid can go out and play. The biggest value is that individuals can protect themselves, their kids and their elderly parents make decisions for themselves today while we give states lots of time to think about what other costproductive ways to achieve that over many years. Some of these states wont face these challenges for a long time and you dont worry about the implementation if that means that youre not giving the public the information they need today to protect themselves and their kids. Thats what this is all about. Thank you, madam administrator. Mr. Chairman, i yield back. Thank you, mr. Byer the gentleman from illinois is recognized. I would like to first yield to the chairman. Appreciate the gentleman yielding and i remind the gentleman from virginia Text Messages to staff are official Text Messages and for one or two Text Messages out of 6,000 are personal are simply laughable and the other statistic i wish the gentleman had everyone innoned in his list of statistics is that we have the lowest Labor Participation today in america in 38 years. I thank the gentleman from illinois for yielding and i yield back. Thanks, chairman and thank you, administrator mccarthy, and i do appreciate you being here and i appreciate the job your agency is tasked with, and its important to realize the good work weve already been able to do according to your own data and aggregated emissions for the six common pollutants have decreased 68 since your agencys implementation of the Clean Air Act while we consume 44 and more energy and traveled 168 more miles. We actually are doing well and thats why i have concerns about an agency that many in my community and my constituency is continually moving the goalpost as an activist and not as a regulator. My constituents and i do agree that we need smart, reasonable sciencebased regulations and with the botched mercury rule we saw on display two weeks ago im not sure thats been the case with your agency, and i also expect your agency to work with our states and counties as a partner and not a palpeteen and the epas efforts to work with other federal agencies to be a sham, i can tell you that it does not appear your collaboration with our state agencies are any better. Mr. Charm an i would like to center into the record the National Associations of counties and the National League of cities and the National Association of regional councils. Its dated march 17 2015, where they call on the epa to retain the existing o zone standard set in 2008 which still has not been fully immremed. Without objection, so ordered. I would like it on point out the effect these standards will have on the state of illinois, and the counties that i represent. The center for Regulatory Solutions released a study today that showed how epas proposed o zone regulations, the most expensive regulation in history will cause significant burden to the chicagoarea economy. As you can see from the slides above with 21 counties out of attainment. Im worried about the overall impact and if you change to the second slide youll see how bad this is for the counties that i represent. We are putting 73 of the states already fragile gdp at risk. Last year illinois enrolled twice as many new recipients on s. N. A. P. Benefits than it created jobs. The Illinois Black Chamber of commerce joined by the National Black chamber of commerce hosted a symposium on the economic and employment impacts the o zone proposal would have in chicago and on minority communities. It is clear this rule will have a desperate impact on lowincome communities and communities of minorities and seniors on fixed incomes. Administrator mccarthy, this should be a quick answer, but do you consider your agencys efforts to be better, worse or the same as your efforts to collaborate with other federal agents such as d. O. E. . I believe we collaborate very well with our sister agencies as well as our local communities. Its not what were hearing and in some ways it reminds me of when i was in school and we had Group Projects and there would be one person who wouldnt do work. The teacher would ask how it went and everybody would put in a slip of paper saying this person didnt put in their weight and that person would stand up and say i did all of the work and everyone else is dumb. The studies that youre quoting didnt even do a study of this proposal. The studies im quoting are talking about the impact and that was released today and i dont know if youve seen it, but we can make sure we have it and this is the one that is dealing with the increase of your proposal. Well make sure you have it and you can review it and you can respond later. It was released today and i havent been holding it back from you. We would have gotten it to