We have to get this hearing in before the votes start between 11 3012 00. I think the time for Opening Statements will burn up the time between now and 10 30 so week get the the witnesses. I would like to welcome you to the Judiciary Committee meeting. We are talking about the lack of rules that plays on the issue. Over the past career year the task force has evaluated this subject. Despite the fact it is generally accepted that the federal government doesnt poses a General Police power, recent studies included that the number of federal criminal offenses on the books has grown from less than 20 to nearly 5,000 today which cover many types of conduct tended by the framers to be left to the state. The Congress Passes 500 new crimes every decade and this surge is highlighted by a telling statistics. Nearly 50 of the federal criminal provisions enacted since the civil war have been enacted since the 1970s. It leads to a number of concerns. Issues of notice and fairness to the practitioners and the general public have difficult determining it conduct violates federal law, if so, under which statue. The organization and nature of federal collection of criminal laws needs to be addressed. I have introduced legislation do that. My bill would cut a third of the criminal code, reorganize the code to make it more userfriendly and make title 18 include all major provisions. There are a number of reasons for the rapid expansion of federal criminal law include the fact many criminal statues are drafted from pressure or media in the public and often duplicate offenses are on the book and omit critical elements such as criminal intent or mense ray. Under the house rules, it is possible and not uncommon for new criminal legislation to make its way to the house floor without receiving scrutiny from the Judiciary Committee that is comprised of staff that has the availability to ignore redundancy. In addition to other potential recommendations we should consider an amendment to the rules clarifying the jurisdiction of the committee with respect to criminal Law Enforcement but criminal offense and legislation as well. I would like to thank our witnesses for appearing and the members of the task force for their service over the past year. In the coming months, i hope we can come together to address the concerns of over criminalization that have been identified. Before introducing mr. Scott, i would like to include a mem randem and a crs report entitled updated criminal offenses from 20082013 dated july 7th, 2014 into the record. Without objection is it so order. It is my pleasure to introduce the gentlemen from virginia, mr. Scott. We created this task force to deal with the growth of the prison expansion and the criminal code. Congress has increasingly addressed Society Problems by adding a criminal provision to the code and we have done this in a kneejerk reaction charging with the tough on crime policy instead of legislating with thought fully and through evidencebased research. Only the matters that cant be handle by the state need to be addressed by the federal government. What valid purpose is served if it is at the federal level and duplicate crimes enforced by the state. State and local Law Enforcement investigat investigat investigat investigated carjacking for years before making it a crime. Judge kelly recommended us of the recommendations made in 1995 regarding five types of criminal offenses that deemed appropriate for jurisdiction. Criminal activity with multi state or international aspects, criminal activity involving complex commercial enterprises using federal resources or expertise, high spread local corruption and criminal cases with highly sensitive issues. The library of congress informed us 403 criminal provisions were added between 20082013 for an average of 67 new crimes per year and of the 403 new provisions 39 were not even referred it the Judiciary Committee. The past several years we estimated there were 4500 federal crimes and the new estimate from crs is approximately 5,000. In addition to that, there are 3300 thousand federal regulat n regulations enforced with criminal penalties. Many of the regulations lack adequate criminal intent or mense ray requirement to protect those who dont intend to commit wrongful or criminal acts from prosecution. Ena they are suggested an in actment of mense ray. And we have heard concerns of criminal sanctions. It is time to put an end to that practice and maintain stole discrimination on determining which actions are criminal and what sanctions are appropriate when ones liberty is at stake. They can be enforced with Civil Penalties but when criminal penalties are considered congress should be involved. This has been the growth of the federal prison population from about 25,000 in 1980 to over 200,000 today making the United States the worlds leader in incarceration. About seven times the international average. We esmate the incarceration over 350,000 per 100,000 the crime deduction value deminishes because you have all of the dangerous people locked up. We learned from the collateral consequences that more than 65 million americans are now stigmiatized by the criminal convictions of over 45,000 consequences making reentry and job prospects dim. Over 350,000 per 100,000 shields returns and anything over 500,000 is counter productive. The United States leads at 700 per 100,000. Looking up people could be leading to better used money and we lock up well over 700 per 100,000. The testimony received during the hearings has told us longer sentences are not the answer but we continue to create more crimes, increases sentences and add more mand tory limited. They have been shown to disrupt pattern, discriminate against minorities, waste time and do nothing to help. A code is a systematic compilation of laws classified according to subject matter. Our criminal code isnt a criminal code by that definition. Federal criminal defenses are spread all over the 51 titles of the code making it impossible for practitioners and ordinary citizens to make sense out of t it. It is time to move all of the provision in the one title, title 18, but cleanup and revise it. We need to consider how to proceed and whether or not this should be done by congress or an appointed commission. It is time to look at evidencebased research. We are wasting billions in dollars and it is time to look to a realistic of incarceration and understand that not every offense requires long incarceration. There is still much more to do, mr. Chairman, and i look forward in drafting a report, presenting it to the committee and taking action to improve the committee. Without objection all members Opening Statements will be placed in the record. We have dr. John baker, jr. Who is the visiting professor at georgetown and university of oxford and professor of law at lsu and teaches classes on the federalist society. Dr. Baker previously worked as a federal court clerk and assistant District Attorney in new orleans and served as a consultant to the United States departme department of justice, the Whitehouse Office of planning, usaid. He was full bright specialist in the philippines and chile. He was District Attorney in new orleans before joining lsu in 1975. While a professor, he has been a consultant of the state and dejustice department, he has served on the aba task force that issued the report of the federalization of crime. He received his bachelor from Dallas University and yufrlaw de from the universities universities michigan. Steven benjamin is a member of the professional bar association. Members include private lawyers and defense counsel and law professors and judges commit today preserving fairness within americas criminal Justice System. He has a private practice. He serves as special council to the virginia Justice Committee and a member of the virginia forensic board and indigent organization. I would like to ask each of you to confine your remarks to five minutes. You know what the red, yellow and green lights mean. Without objection, your full written statements will be placed in the record and dr. Baker you are first. Thank you, mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and members of congress. I have testified twice before and you prec thank the Committee Task force for allowing me to come back. I am coming back on the issue started on which was counting federal crimes. I have to conquer with everything i have heard about the problems of federal courts. I begin with the numbers. Numbers are not everything but they tell a story. I want to do three things quickly. Talk about the numbers. Two where we are going with the numbers. And three what is the significance of the numbers. When i testified on november 13th, i mentioned the number of federal crimes and the unknown number of federal reg lor tory offenses. And then the task force asked the Congressional Research service to conduct the count from 20082013. They came up with 403 new federal crimes and that is not counting reglortory offenses. That is just from the United States code. It is important to say the counts from crs, my count, and the department of justice counts used the same methodology and that is important for consistency. What is significant about where we are going is what this says about the average number of crimes and the total number of crimes. When i did the count in 2008, as of 2008, there were 454 crimes at least. Crs noted we have an additional 403 crimes. That is 4, 850 crimes. Almost 5,000 crimes. It means that congress is passing 500 new crimes a decade. In the aba task force i served on back in the 90s, the notation was that since the civil war 40 of all federal crimes since the civil war had been passed since 1970. From 1970 until 1996. When you add what is going on since 1996, we are approaching 50 of all federal crimes ever enacted in this country have been enacted since 1970 and that was the beginning of the war on crime and we have not been winning that war too well. What does this mean for the future . Well, the rate of crimes appears possibly to be increasing. My count was 56. 5 count and the new count shows 67. Something per year. That maybe skewed because in 2008 Congress Passed 195 crimes. What is the significance of all of this . If you talk to an assistant u. S. Attorney, they will tell you that the numbers mean nothing. They dont use all of these crimes. And they are right. In a certain sense they dont mean that much to the prosecutor or judges because the are only so many cases you can bring in federal court. But where they are really important is in Law Enforcement. That we have plenty of Law Enforcement agencies that do searches, seizures and arrest in cases that never get indictment much less trial. Given the broad array of crimes there is virtually nothing you cannot get a bases for probably cause on which is the bases for arrest, search and seizure. There is a lot of concern, rightly, about privacy. But people ought to focus on the fact surveillance isnt privacy, it is a matter of police power. The federal government has no General Police power. In reality de facto it has complete police power. People have been focused on the nsa but think about drones. There is nothing a drone cant search basically because there is every possibility for coming up with the bases of it. Some of the federal agencies will conduct raids that will never result in an indictment or if it does it will not result on those crimes. It is easy to come up with a charge and a Money Laundering charge and going out to see somebodys property. That is the reality of where the real power is. I think that this task force has done an amazing job of bipartisan in coming together and identifying the problem. Now it is necessarily i am Steven Benjamin and i am the past lawyer of criminal defense lawyers and ad vancing the goals and due process for people accused of crime. I commend you for creating the Overcriminalization Task force and congrats you on the work over the past year. 4800 at last count with 439 new enactments since 2008 competes only with the number of prisoners, a number greater than any other number on earth, is a representation of the overcriminalization. One such consequence is the difficulty of being a lawabiding citizen. Criminal law is enforced by punishment, fairness and reason require adequate notets of conduct. Adequate notice of conduct permits people to conform to the law. For punishing someone breaking the law we should make sure the law is knowable. This is true when the conduct accept wrongful. Criminal laws must be accessible to lay person and the lawyers whose job it is to identify the laws and advice their clients. The problem, however, is that the federal statutory crimes in the 10,000 regulations that can be enforced are scattered throughout 50 chapters of the cfr. Nacdl doesnt have a position on whether all criminal statues should be categorized. Common since would say most should reside in an order unless belongs else where. Within the code, it included clarity in drafting precise definition in scope. The government shouldnt have to punish a person without proving she acted with criminal intent. When the average citizen cant constitute what is unlawful activity in order to confirm her conduct to the law that is unfairness. When legislating criminal offenses, congress has failed to speak clearly and determine the necessity of criminal provisions and failed to assess targeted conduct. The cause of the failures are not clear but the solutions are. We should move forward with caution and make sure the drafting and review of criminal regulations is done by precision and by those with special expertise. Given the quality of the council, which alone poses a Broad Perspective designed to draft criminal laws, this congressional evaluation should include Judiciary Committee approval prior to practice. It would require that every bill that adds criminal offenses to be subject to referral to the Judiciary Committee committee. The members of this committee are better to take on this criminal role and seek out this committee to modify bills. Hopefully such oversight would stem the tide of criminalization and result in clearer criminal offenses with meaningful criminal intent requirements and reduce the number of Time Authority is delegated to people. These comments are limited to the issues i was invited to address. The problems are provasive and the measures necessary to reform go further than reorganization and committee oversight. Further discussion is in my written testimony. I thank you for ensuring our nations laws are not a threat to liberty. We will continue to assist and support you however week. Thank you, mr. Benjamin. The chair is reserving his questions until the end assuming we have time. The chair recognizes the gentlemen from alabama, mr. Bachus. I think we are to the point where we are ready to act, hopefully. We know the problem. It has been reinforced several times. We have gotten the message. I think the key is what do we do. And on page 9 of your testimony, mr. Benjamin, you suggest at least four things i hear, and i think congressman scott has mentioned one or two of these. One is by changing congressional rules to require every bill that would add or modify criminal offenses or penalties be subject to automatic referral to the relevant Judiciary Committee. I think that is very important because as you say this is the committee with the expertise. Two, an act of statutory law requires a limit to be read into any criminal defense that lacks one. Three, and it says this requirement should be protective to all existing laws. I know that is a radical idea but i believe in that. I think there ought to be something where you can go before a judge and present evidence or before a board particularly some of the environmental crimes. I had mentioned several cases of where people discovered Hazardous Waste on their property but couldnt afford to dispose of it fast enough and a lot of these cases i talked to a former congressman and energy and commerce was dealing with this and said we had cases like this in the 80s and 90s and were trying to figure out what to do but couldnt. And maybe that is because it wasnt Judiciary Committee. The next thing, and i will ask your reaction, on strict liability, your Association Urges strict liability not be imposed where strict liability is deemed necessarily the body only employ it after full deliberation and then only if explicit in the statute. I think that we ought to say if it isnt explicit in the statute there is no strict liability. And the fourth one is that, i didnt know this, but and i will say this to the members of the panel, the bottom of the page, you say spring court has cautioned against the imposcission against strict liability and criminal law and stated all but minor penalties maybe able to go on without intent requirement. We had in the deliberations and witnesses have that without an intent requirement, you know, i can see a minor fine, but when you are talking about putting someone in jail for a year and a day that is pretty scary. I would ask both of you to give us five or six specific statutes that we can do or your associations draft some as a model and we could look at them. I think that mind be particularly helpful. I really appreciate your testimony and dr. Baker you have been here before and this to me is such an important thing because i think we have seen travisty aof justice. And ingovernment can use the power to force things to be done just with the tlechlt. It could be used to put people in jail that stand in the way of whatever their goal is. Even today most cases the overwhelming numbers are prosecuted at the state level. It is more or less on a state bases that prosecutors pick cases. Sometimes there is conflict with local Law Enforcement in terms of where the jurisdiction is fighting over high profile cases. Other time it is based on money. When i was prosecuting in new orleans we had longer offenses than the federal. So the federal drug cases, the federal agents would steer into our courts because of the longer sentences. Some states, the drug people will steer the case still into state court if there is a tougher i am not sure what you are trying to do. Would it overwhelm the state . Is that what you are talking about . So we want to defer to the state as a general matter. One of the previous witnesses said in ascertaining and you go through the list ofthi things you consider the penalties wasnt on their list of things that were legitimate to consider. Do you agree with that . No. That you can pick and chose your jurisdiction . Absolutely. We did it. Well, yeah. And we did it in richmond and people brag about the project exile worked i have an article against project exile. I will show it to you. Without pointing out the crime rate went down because of project exile but in other cities without project exile the crime rate went down more. Exactly. I pointed that out in my article. Mr. Benjamin, you mentioned notice, how do you if you have mens ray you had criminal intent, but how else do you get notice so the people know they are committing a crime . Well, you make the laws accessible. Now, if someone wants to determine in advance whether their conduct is criminal, they have to hire a lawyer to answer that question and then the lawyer has to find the statute within the 51 titles of the code. It is nearly an Impossible Task and that is why we hedge our bets. Few lawyers are going to say you can do that. It is because the law permits such uncertainty. It is so ambigously written that it is impossible to know whether proposed conduct is lawful or unlawful. Is that why the rule of linty is so important . That is exactly why. Can you say a word about the overlapping crimes in state and federal and what it does for the socalled trial penalty . I certainly can. The trial penalty is the penalty for going to trial. Meaning that if you let me back up. Because i think it is a unique and cherished American Value consistent with freedom and liberty that if the government accuses itself of a crime and threatens to take away our freedom we have the right to stand up to the government and not only deny it but make them prove it to say, oh, yeah, prove it. But we have completely lost that right because if we go to trial, either because we want to make the government prove their allegation or challenge their constitutionality of a dubious statute or because we are innocent, we can no longer do that, because if we lose our bid to challenge the government, then we face staggering mandatory mim me sentences that stack against us and beat us into guilty pleas. Are there problems in consolidating all of the codes in the title 18 or would it be better to have them spread around where the crime goes with the subject matter like the agriculture code . Well, first of all, when the proposed federal criminal code came before the Judiciary Committee committee the real problem was in organize the code, people didnt Pay Attention to the many provisions. In one sense it was a code but in another sense the federal government shouldnt have a code. A code is a comprehensive statement of federal law. If you believe that congress has only limited powers and has to justify it on familiar anumerated powers than it is difficult to create a code without expanding federal power. My main concern is even with an attempt to limit power it would end up expanding power. Mr. Conyers. Your time is now. This is our 10th hearing and both of you have been here before. This is a good place and a good point to begin with and that is how do you see the cumulative effect and impression and understanding that we have gleamed from the ten hearing this year and last year. Dr. Baker, why dont you start us off than that. If i compare back to trials from when i was a law clerk and federal trials now the shift of power is what stands out and how the power shifted toward federal Law Enforcement to the point where, not everyone, but there is a certain arrogance that prevades the prosecutors. And it goes with the territory unfortunately. When you give anybody too much power they will use it. And i dont mean they are using it for what they perceive to be bad things. They believe what they are doing is the right thing. When they resign and become criminal Defense Attorneys they get a different perspective and they realize maybe we were too aggressive. I have been on panels with former asas and they have said that. There are three perspectives the prosecutor, the defense, and the judge jury and they are not the same perspectives and there has to be a balance and i think the balance is too much in favor of federal prosecution. But state crimes are far more Numero Numero numerous than federal. Here is the difference. You know from detroit i can tell you people trying to arrest people are running around dealing with crimes they have to. You have the target and figure out what you can nail them on. That is not the way local federal prosecutors work. Attorney benjamin, would you weigh in on this decision, please. I agree with dr. Baker. The most striking facet of the current state of the criminal Justice System and the most dramatic change when i first began 35 years ago to defend criminal cases is the overbalance of power. Federal criminal defense now is all about negotiating a resolution. That is all it is. It is no longer about guilt or innocence. Guilt is presumed by the prosecution at least. And they have the tools available to compel the guilty plea so that is not a question even. It is all about snitching out, cooperating, doing whatever you have to to get the leniencey and fair treatment that you seek. So what then do we bring to our full Judiciary Committee and had house of representatives in terms of these ten hearing that we have had this your and last year . I mean, what can we take and i want to commend the chairman and Ranking Members for having put this together as they have. But where do we go from here . I think the immediate thing is reform of the mens raya problem. The immediate band aid that is necessary is a default rule where none appear in criminal statute and a rule of construction that applies this to all material elements. A single mens ray standard . No, uniform standards. Clearly defined across the board. And what would you add, dr. Baker . I have been trying to draft the statute and it isnt easy because of the way federal crimes are drafted and how differently they are. I would add to those two things i endorse cheer definitions of crime. What is a felony and misdemeanor and noncriminal offense is a way to deal with this. This is the in the model penal code but not many states adopted it. You have a provision for noncriminal offenses and that strict liability is limited to those. If you thing they need to be prosecuted, fine, but the stigma of crime isnt on there. The gentlemen from georgia mr. Johnson. As i listen to the testimony and did reading, i was impressed with the fact that dr. Baker in your paper you site statistics showing that in 1983 it was estimated there were 3,000 criminal offenses in the code. And in 1998, you cited doj figures of 3,000. One was by doj, the first one. And the other involved the same person but different methods were use and that is why the different numbers. I see. But it doesnt indicate there was no growth in the number there was growth but it may or may not have been 300. It was more than that. That is a modest assessment. 3300 as of 98. And between 19982008 that 10year period saw a rise for 44, 050. The 1998 figure isnt reliable because it didnt follow the method you think it was higher . It was much higher. The doj i used by email told to me by the person who conducted it. We explained that method to crs and they followed that. But in the 1998, they didnt break particular statutes down into the various crimes within one statute. They simply counted the statutes. I see. And between 20082013 you say there is an addition 303. It puts us according to the report close to 5,000. And it looks like 19832008 was an ex explosion in the number of human beings we have implies in the country. And at the same time we have had the growth of the conservative movement in the country calling for Less Government and taxes. When you put on top of that the fact that you are needing more prisons, more jail space and prisons, you have seen a growth in the private prison industry. In fact, 1983, 3,000 and 2013 close to 5,000. 1984 it should be noted is when the Corrections Corporation of america, which is the largest private prison forprofit corporation, that is the year that was founded. 1984. And since that time they have experienced exponential growth to the point where they, along with another big one i forget the name. Gpc or Something Like that. Those corporations are publically held corporations selling stock on wall street. What connection do you see between the growth of the private prison industry and the amount of contributions they make to legislators, including on the federal level, and the growth in the prison industry. The growth in the prison industry and lobbying and the growth in statutes putting people in prison. What connection do you see . I can draw a connection between the growth and certain things. I represented a sheriff in louisiana who built the largest public prison system and the whole thing was funded by federal dollars. He took in federal prisoners because the federal rate was much higher than the state rate. There is a connection in terms of the growth of prisons but on the conservative side, especially in texas and louisiana, they are understanding this is bankrupting the states. So you have some conservatives flipping and calling for a reducti reduction in state criminal penalties even because they realize the growth of and the expenses are unsustainable. Mr. Chairman the gentlemen has expired. Can i make one last statement . I would imagine we will see a rise in lobbying cost that are incurred by the private prison industry. The gentlemen from new york mr. Jeffries. Thank you, mr. Chairman and let me thank the witnesses for your presence and continued contributions to the efforts of this panel. Attorney benjamin you mentioned something that was troubling and dr. Baker you agreeed. Federal criminal defense has simply become negotiations efforts toward resolution. That seems inconsistent with the notions that have served to underguard our criminal justest system with the presumtion of incense. It seems once someone is investigated or indicted by our government that the only real option available to someone who in theory should be presumed innocent, is to negotiate the most favorable resolution which likely results in a sanctions and or jail time. So the question is how do we unpack this dynamic in a way that allows this task force, the house, this congress, to make a meaningful impact . I would suggest, and i would like to get the observations of both of you, that it seems to me there has to be a way to rein in the inappropriate exercise of prosecution Decision Making. You referenced the term arrogance that exist and perhaps among prosecutors and i believe the majority are operating in good faith. But who has the capacity to oversee the prosecution behavior and the Decision Making and what consequences are there when inappropriate Public Policy is being made . The power of oversight and rein in federal prosecution presides with the doj or the u. S. Attorney for a given district. The reality however is that rarely will these individuals want to interfere with career prosecutors who are on the line. To make take a look at the tools being used to produce the result and the biggest problem is the existence and the expansion of m mandatory sentence. They can in their charging decision threaten 10, 20, 30 lifetime mandatory sentences. If someone is convicted, we say i understand you are innocent and maybe you have a triable case but if you lose you will get a life sentence. Dr. Baker, i want you to respond but i want to add this observations. Federal prosecutors have absolutely immunity in the context as long as they are not getting out of prosecution. Sometimes they get involved in the investigation. In the context of the prosecution they have absolute immunity. Law enforcement has qualified immunity. Is that something we should explore . I guess as a former prosecutor i liked absolute immunity when i had it. I have not given it enough thought. I think that there is a reason for immunitimmunity. The assumption is that a prosecutor is under the control, to some extent, of the judge in the way Law Enforcement is not. That is the assumption but the testimony we received is that is no longer the case. Article three federal judges even lost control. But the real responsibility is with the president and the attorney general. The political reality is i dont care what party you are talking about it depends on the particular u. S. Attorney and how they got appointed and whether they have a senator protecting them. One last observation. The problem we confont is to rectify the damage done but also how we can return to a cycle that isnt endless statute being added to the book. It is often the case elected officials react to the public and that is the constitutional charge to the house of representati representatives. But when you rerespond to the public, that results in perhaps doingthi things that are not in our best interest. And i would encourage all of us to think about that dynamic as we move forward. Thank you very much. The time of the gentlemen expired. Let me recognize byself for five minutes to wrap up and this is more comments of looking at the last year and what we have been able to discover. First of all, i want to thank the witnesses for appearing. The two authorizations have scratched the surface of what needs to be done. The congress and agencies have been putting more and more layers on the onion and we are beginning to peel off the ones on the outside and that just asks more questions. Looking at how we got to this i think in order to stop this from getting worse we have to very figerously pursue a change in house rules. And some of the lapses that allowed other communities that dont know much about the criminal law to make criminal law is the fact that the Judiciary Committee hasnt been very figerous in asserts its jurisdiction and that has to stop. Once we lose jurisdiction because we didnt claim it then it is much harded to get it back and they will forget us about when they refer bills. Exchanges of letters and further legislation is necessarily. We will need help in developing a default statute. That means when there is not a specific criminal intent there will be one. If there is a specific one, the default statute doesnt apply. And you have to have a criminal intent as one of the elements in terms of obtaining an inindictment or conviction. In order to get at the proliferation of criminal penalties some of them are statutory and some are done administratively. I would like to see the Judiciary Committee draft and get past and enact into law a s sunset provision of all administration criminal penalties. The committee could then ask each agency to come in and justify which of the criminal penalties they wish to have continued on the statute books and why. And if they can not justify that in order to get a reenactment through the congress then those administrative penalties would vanish and we would not have to worry about them anymore. I think a way to stop on the antiduplication provisions of of the code is to start scrubbing the bills of this congress and the two proceeding congresss which were designed to reorganize the code and put sense into it so you can see what activities were criminal in nature without having to go to a lawyer who can never give them a definitive answers because no matter how hard the lawyer tries they will never be able to find what statutes are involved in that. And i know that in the few days we have left in the Congress None of this is going to be accomplished. However, i would hope as we prepare to start the next congress we will be able to, in a bipartisan manner, which is certainly permiated this task force to pick up each of the areas to figure out what we can do and get enacted into law. I think while the American Public will not see an immediate change in how we approach criminal issues, that there will be something that will be longterm that will deal with many of the results of our over criminalization. I want to thank the witnesses and the members of the task force for putting in a lot of time and doing a lot of good work. We have probably the first to two layers off the onion but there are many more we have to go. So without objection this subcommittee hearing is adjourned. Dhttp www. Okcupid. Com profile philomath28 . Cf search overlay dot d [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] good morning everybody this oversight hearing is over the critically important step of the Obama Administration is taking to address Climate Change by dressing Carbon Pollution may will focus on the proposal to reduce pollution from power plants the biggest source. Just last week when i recognize the of miners glad to see you here. End all Carbon Pollution into the air there are no limits on the amount power plants can release into the air by in my view this is a winwin for the American People because by addressing Climate Change through Carbon Pollution reduction we can cut many types of air pollutants that also threaten Health Advisor temperatures will lead to increase of the ozone and smog which could worsen illnesses like asthma and flood related deaths. With the power plant proposal at the Childrens Medical Center in washington he visited with patients to highlight the Health Impacts to underscore how important addressing dangerous Carbon Pollution is to our Childrens Health and will play a vital role to protect Public Health and save thousands of lives and avoid 3700 cases of bronchitis and children, 150,000 asthma attacks 6600 premature death and 490,000 miss days of school and work. Of people cannot agree they cannot go to work or school. 1 of children are already living with as much as the third leading cause of hospitalization for children but we all benefit from having clean air to breathe. We need to take action now to prevent communities from the impact of Climate Change and Carbon Pollution recent congressional required National Climate assessment report tells us we could see at 10degree rise of temperatures if we dont add to limit pollution now. It or mottling protect Public Health and save lives but unable america to avert Climate Change such as Sea Level Rises and economic disruption. For our children and grandchildren the president said the have a moral obligation to leave our children a planet that is not polluted or damage. The administration and get set in and so do the people of these recent Washington Post poll said a bipartisan majority of the American People want limits on Carbon Pollution 70 percent say they should require limits from existing power plants 60 70 require states to limit that amount within their borders. Just last month the Committee Heard from four former epa illustrators serving under a republican president from nixon through bushes and they agreed it requires action now and should not be a partisan issue. The president s plan relies on the authorities of the bipartisan consensus in the 1976 Clean Air Act passed 73 zero and 375 one. I do not know who that one was a and signed into law by president nixon in 1990 the revisions pass the senate by 89 11 and the house by 401 21 signed into law by president george h. W. Bush it is a proven track record of success. The emissions of pollutants have dropped 72 while the u. S. Gdp has grown by 219 of total private sector jobs have increased by 101 so while the police have dropped by 72 percent private sector jobs have increased by 101 percent and the gdp increase by 219 . So all the of fear mongering is this proven every time if you match this with the quotes when nixon signed it and also george h. W. Bush the president s proposal i believe creates thousands of jobs while insuring polluters reduce the dangerous contributions to Climate Change i want to think the administration for being with us today and of the forward to your testimony of one to mention the hub of floats at 11 00. We have two options to work as hard as we can and then when it hits 1115 to take a break or wait until evidence. Either way is fine with me. Thank you chairman boxer for convening todays hearing i will forward to hearing from administrator mccarthy on the proposed existence source rule that is truly unprecedented out of sense of regulations to have major negative impacts of the nations images of the system and i hope we talk about this very directly. The epa proposal does a number of things but fundamentally and hijacks the electricity system in the name of flexibility in the reality with the public utility commissions as well as other federal agencies that do have the authority over expertise of Electricity Generation issues but unfortunately it is not directly under the jurisdiction in changing dispatch rules requiring the most expensive power delivered first mandating efficiency with removals led intrastate generation and distribution matters reserved to a the states more over the intense to dump the politically unpopular Decision Making on the state regulators and legislators the epa proposed rules will turn the states either into hostages were unwilling accomplices to impoverished families and businesses and a and communities with the existing source epa goes beyond the plain reading of the Clean Air Act directing states to achieve a reduction targets from a limited menu was a damaging and questionable options. Electricity prices of the Initiative States and california are 45 percent higher than in my home state of parisienne up yet 56 percent of louisiana family is already spend an average joe 21 of aftertax income on energy in simply cannot afford higher electricity bills to result from this rule. Is also setting of states that fail in our local economies to deliver on the president s promise that electricity prices will skyrocket to for the measurable climate benefits it is all pain and no gain we need to look to our friends and austria to just last week appealed the carbon tax in recognition of this sort of lawsuit. Lead is also noteworthy it is similar to the nrdc to implement porfolio standards to replace fossil fuel energy if they like it or not with states in louisiana was when they and solar are not feasible for practical be will lead to divert timber for a generation that is a very expensive feedstock and in defense of attacks by the New York Times the administrator to readily admits her agency must revisit Nuclear Energy as of right now encourages the closure of Nuclear Plants so basically the epa is insisting states ration electricity and limit choice especially if it involves using more electricity. Has 40 of my Republican Senate colleagues and i have stated in the june 3rd letter the proposed rule would increase cost for schools and businesses and hospitals and will hit the pork, elderly those with a fixed in, not hard is it is a federal takeover of the system and i am not at all comfortable with the of 88 takeover the dramatic expansion of the epa rule and neither are the people of louisiana is is very important there are important stakes on the of wind. Thank you madam chair. According to a rifle we will proceed. Thank you for posting this important hearing and think you for being here for your continued leadership the obviously my state has the different points of view from expressed from the Ranking Member we are losing with pollution and with that mission to protect human health and the environment is one of the most fundamental responsibilities of the federal government and there is no greater threat to dave and Climate Change. The epa has a duty to respond and also a mandate. It took a critical step in the fight when it exercised the existing Clean Air Act authority by affirmed by the Supreme Court to propose a Carbon Pollution standards than the proposal based on the engagement the stake holders of all kinds across the political spectrum epaulets states in the drivers seat to come up with their own best plans to meet specific targets those of have a wide friday of options like Global Energy establishing targets in efficiency, joining one of the existing capntrade programs in states can develop plans to create jobs cut electricity costs by boosting efficiency and have major pollution reductions and by a having 93 billion of Public Benefits to 93 billion by 2013. A recent Washington Post news poll found the of support federal standards to limit Carbon Pollution and also released a poll the twothirdsj . Kr support presidt obama is new Carbon Pollution standard that it should address even if it means higher electricity bills but it wont even if the cost goes up. The epa proposal from faith organizations Public Health groups like the American Lung association also from corporations mike marrs and nike and starbucks seven by unanimous consent to enter mention if there are babies who are talking it is important you consider we have an open floor room. Because it is hard to hear over the the wonderful sound we hear from the back. We do have room. We have for republican administrators whose testified on a clue in here in Nuclear Safety that agreed the rule is a reasonable way to reduce Carbon Pollution and industry has a history to overstate the compliance cost of regulations the benefits of the Clean Air Act will ill wave of cost over ratio 30 one for every 1 they have to pay of cleanup cost that is a good deal for america and the administrator mccarthy the standards will lead to tremendous Economic Health benefits to not be deterred by the polluters and their allies in congress. There fighting to end protect the status quo polluters polluting at will and profiting at their expense in your wray more popular they have far more confidence in states are already achieving greater efficiency from the proposed standards. And to raise the bar like cement and refineries administrator mccarthy were counting epa to stand strong and stand up for the American People to go forward with those standards in the months ahead we will judge your efforts favorably. Thank you very much. We have an opportunity do discuss the implications of the unilateral move to execute the suppressive climate with my friends on the other side to speak of Carbon Pollution would suggest to some people talking about particular it emissions we know what is talked about with this proposed rule is Carbon Dioxide emissions from existing power plants. These regulations for the co2 negatively impacts on every single american the president was to launch a war on call but over the past 10 years consumption has soared by 65 that exports have skyrocketed by more than 200 in a reliable and economical ways so although the coal consumption has soared global average temperatures have stagnated over the past 17 years in the fact worth repeating no rise of collapsible average temperatures over the past 17 years but did rouge rationing continues to defend the heavyhanded tactics that temperatures are wrong but arrives it is the epa most blatant overreach thus far the agency has proposed a mandate that are far outside the of Regulatory Authority not just to reduce emissions of existing plans the first time the epa has gone beyond with the regulation and that reaches up to and including the power meter it relies on the talking points that allows states to create their own plans this will not be mentioned today but it is fiction the rule is a regulatory noose for providers and we are punished by the epa to have a diversified portfolio of electrical generation it will be forced to be closed down under this rule. Emplace of coal is just the increase of Renewable Energy resources to more than 250 and its own tactical support documents shows zero potential for this type of Renewable Energy resource what good is flexibility if there is no chance of flexibility . Lowcost is that the core of Economic Growth many have been experiencing and manufacturing renaissance due to the Great Success of American Energy and innovation with the shale revolution unfortunately the rules cannot account for future Economic Development and could forge new growth the flexible regulation puts co2 emissions above all else if the proposed rules move forward and i hope they do not in our economy would be put at the economic disadvantage we would be handcuffed because they have to rely on economical resources to power of americas homeless to increase the cost for everyone that rule would be disastrous for the economy and we have minuscule impact on the environment so in summary the riposte rule is a breathtaking Regulatory Overreach a job killer based on science a dubious legality under the Clean Air Act is inflexible with no effect on the climate and is pointless and punitive to name a few. Think you. That was very effective in manchester trying to bite some of the atmosphere. [laughter] senator . Administrator mccarthy thank you very much for the work you are doing. We are in a remarkable moment in American History and in fact, will history and that is for the first time to the best of my knowledge that by and large is rejecting what the Scientific Community is saying that and we could disagree about funding for education and all that stuff but if we cannot accept what the overwhelming but scientists are taking the of what theyre saying the change is real, it is caused by human activity it is already causing devastating problems around the world and if we do not get our act together by a significantly reducing carbon and with a and conditions that situation will only get worse. That is not a debate in the more we have a party rejecting that is frightening the evidence is overwhelming with that National Climate assessment that average global temperature were the 1. 5 degrees fahrenheit between 1880 in 2012 and temperatures in my state of vermont have increased fahrenheit just over the last 30 years. We could be as much as 10 degrees higher. That is not the debate we should be having it would be important because nobody has all the answers have to reach work with these countries around the world to transform . That is tough nobody has a magical answer but that should be the debate the idea we are still debating whether or not this is a real issue the Community Tells us it is a planetary crisis of our time that is extremely distressing. Causing sea levels to rise and it is reported that low average sea level has increased 8 inches since 1880 several locations along the east coast have experienced more than 8 inches of Sea Level Rise of the past 50 years. What were talking about is major cities in the United States and countries around the world being under water. As a result of rising sea levels the storm surge has ben rising i will remind my colleagues of this government alone over 60 billion and all over the world there are rejections we will spend trillions of dollars. Trillions of dollars to deal with rising sea levels and other manifestations of clannish change. I would remind my colleagues that in a certain sense lead debates taking place that is different from 50 or 60 years ago. We had the Tobacco Industry lobbyist come in here to say tobacco causes cancer . No. That cannot be the case and they would put ads on television and spending huge amounts of money to convince the American People that tobacco had nothing to do with cancer or other serious illnesses but finally the truce came out and it will on this debate as well. Our job is to transform the Energy System is to have a habitable nation in years to come. Chairman boxers thank you for holding the hearing today and i want to welcome administrator teeeighteen it is a pleasure to see you. We all share in the goal of cleaner air to be proud of the improvements we have made of air quality over the past several decades their emissions decrease as the population has increased on the roads even as the end economy has grown. To make significant investments and even a cleaner source of the lowcost energy in this state. And being pursued under the authority of the Clean Air Act as significant departure is this administration is seeking to reduce u. S. Emissions of Carbon Dioxide the ostensibly to control temperatures and changes to cap card been in america is negligible at best with those consequences are unconscionably a devastating the president is so foreign to electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket under a plan to control carbon more than 80 of the needs are met him last year coal and natural gas provided 66 of u. S. Electricity generation as the epa enforces carbon reduction it inflects Higher Energy cost in and it is the poorest families that would be hit the hardest and with energy costs low income families. States like nebraska that receive the majority of electricity from coalfired generation enough end of guidelines with force premature environment generation with the potential loss of billions cleaner and with replacement generation and gas prices. Also troubling is those that are not at the affected source of Electricity Generating with the mandates that should not come from regulation. I do not have enough time to list all the concerns from this proposal i believe there are many the issues are complex and the impacts are far reaching while i appreciate the 120 day Comment Period granted the challenge presented to the states and the stakeholders to analyze and assess the enormous range of issues is beyond expectation. The level of complexity of documents released require the of magnitude energy i bovet foreign say 60 day extension of that public Comment Period and i hope to visit with you about that. And what the administration is doing the impact of Climate Changes well understood so we recognize the risks involved as a result of Climate Change 70 percent of the population is in coastal areas times. The Property Owners are at risk of losing their properties and making a financial impact. The people of maryland a way of life is at risk the economics are at risk from the industry that depends upon the reasonable price for corn to know the weather conditions make corn more expensive to make it more difficult. To understand the loss of that population due to the sea grass and it affects all the of produce snowden of Chesapeake Bay with that economic charts of the state the clinic change rising sea levels makes it more it difficult all the more economically it has an impact with the military installations. To the southern part of the estate to the capital of the Naval Academy all impacted by Climate Change and as my colleagues have pointed out science is indisputable the activities here need Climate Change. Congress should have acted with the freemarket for the way to deal with Climate Change. We tried that we wanted to use the marketbased solutions to make it more available for private companies to invest but no we were stopped with those efforts. The administration is doing what they were required with the responsibility to act with the Supreme Court decisions to make it clear you are acting within that authority from Justice Scalia whose said recently if there is a mention the epa is getting almost everything it wanted in this case responsible for 86 percent of all Greenhouse Gas emissions under our holding the epa can be responsible for 83 percent of those investments including those from the Clean Air Act with performance it standards to talk about achieving a reduction of Carbon Pollution at the baseline by 23. And thank you for the of flexibility were providing to put the states in charge to give the power they need to do is write for their community. That is what you have allowed and i thank you for that no Energy Companies have that the constellation and exxon have taken the challenge to do it in a costeffective way. Madam chair i hope it does not take another coyote referred to catch on fire before we enact the Clean Air Act or to breathe air from the people of los angeles for the Clean Air Act torrey hope doesnt take anything in maryland or the everglades or dust bowls to become regular in the breadbasket before we act on the critical issue i think the administration the Hope Congress will take action to make their reality of leadership of Climate Change that is desperately needed. Ag for being here and it is nice to see you. With that existing source it is hard to know whether to begin to replace the power plants and that is compliant. The takeover the entire religious the market in the black box. That said, there are a few things that are pretty clear. We know the rule will cause electricity prices to go up. Another is from the epa all logic to save the 6 of Nuclear Generators will that have become economically marginal. How would the epa do this . Increasing electricity prices. The only way to keep a marginal Nuclear Plant in business is for it to be paid more for its power, and the only way to do that is the person the president. The second thing that we know is that this rule will end up with the United States looking like germany with the Business Community reeling from high electricity prices now three times what they are in the United States. Something the administration is doing even though the American People really dont care about this the talk about all of the people that are joining in and saying that Global Warming is happening in science is over. Theres nothing else they can say. We have had this on the floor of the United States senate many times. By a larger margin each time becomes up. It has come up for times. That is the trend line that is there. We know a recent gallup poll when Global Warming was a number one or number two concern. As of to be sealed 14 of the 15. According to the p Research Center parking. Americans to believe Global Warming is happening influence people to try to believe and tried to resurrect the whole Global Warming thing. He put his hand and will raise the other they arent coming to the party either. This rule will have no impact on Global Temperatures which is the very reason. That is ultimately what the rule is supposed to do. According to one analysis, a model and develop by the epa, the sps rule will reduce global temperature using their analysis by zero to degrees celsius cooked puree hardly measurable. Combine that with dinner with senator mathias or renew happens to be here in the country from australia. They guy that was leading the cause after he had at one time supported the idea of taxing carbon to repeal it. They repealed it in austria. So you stop and think about it, china, russia, other states, even if he believed all this dough the once youre sitting back saying it was carbon so that there would be able to draw on our base. The last things as we are running out of time of want to mention is there is a study that is floating around. Since this will will enhance natural gas you can give an argument that it would. But what they are forgetting to mentioned is the war on fossil fuels. Natural gas is a fossil fuel. They would be next. Fossil fuels will come right after natural gas and coal. That is what is behind all thing i appreciate the your holding this hearing. We will see what happens. Thank you very much, madam chairman. On july 6th of this year the New York Times wrote a piece about the outsize role that the National Resources defense council, the nrdc had been developing the epa and regulations to curb power plant emissions. The article focused on three key senior nrdc officials to say that have been described as washingtons best paid lobbyists would above the cooler of the epa plan. Washingtons best paid lobbyists to of the core of the plan. President obama propose a new environmental protections the agency will the curve power plant emissions that use as its corporate the work of three men in their teen, the article says it was a remarkable victory for the Natural Resources defense council. Now, for those outside the beltway the nrdc is water under 20 million a year lobbying machine backed by hollywood elites. It is absolutely shameful to me that the epa under the direction here of the administrator will allow this powerful group of lawyers and lobbyists to draft their regulations. Yet this same administration refuses to actually listen to the people whose lives and jobs are severely impacted by these regulations drawn up by wealthy employers and lobbyists. The administrator refuses to listen to the thousands of americans will be impacted by this will. The epa minister has refused to go out and visit folks in coal country whose lives the agency is up pending. Will not hold a public hearing in wyoming, kentucky. Epa administrator has lately gone out of her way, and the epa has gone out of its way to avoid hearing from unemployed families who have lost our will lose everything, job cmon, Retirement Savings to weigh issues relating to their health of because of the epa decided to push all rule drafted behind closed doors by a powerful, wealthy washington lawyers and lobbyists at the nrdc. The nrdc is a wealthy elite powerful lobby machine with more then influence over Decision Making in washington that any ordinary american citizen. They have millions, which gives them access. The epa has turned a deaf ear on those who dont. It should come as no surprise that this is how the epa regulations for new and existing power plant was hatched. In fact, the times article argues that the nrdc employs the very same tactic used during the bush and administration to craft their comprehensive Energy Strategy. When the bush Energy Strategy was released at the time the nrdc issued the following statement about how it was crafted. If the conclusions of the cheney taskforce are a product of an undemocratic process. When nrdc filed a plan to some affirmation act request for documents identifying members of the task force on the calendars a Task Force Members the board of energy denied the request. I would say that this is quite a change of heart by his crew of of the washington lobbyists and lawyers. If im wrong then the nrdc and the epa and its administrator should provide all records and documents that are requested by members of this committee in my house colleagues on how these new regulations for coldfired power plants were crafted because right now is sure looks like the epa led a trio of highpowered washington lobbyists right there. If what the times is reporting is what the epa administrator has called preposterous than the epa must comply with any committee and freedom of the information act request for these documents. Complies said that we can know the truth. But the answer is no war that there are more recordkeeping mess caps, broken are dressed lost files, then we will know the truth about this agency as well. Thank you. Here is where we stand because were trying to move on. We will accommodate the senators you are here. We will move through closing with senator barkley. The colleagues that come later can have an extra minutes to do a little bit of an opening if thats okay with everybody. We will go now to senator clapper. Thank you, madam chairman. Welcome administrator currency. Nice to see you. For a number of years i served as the Ranking Member the chair of the subcommittee on clean air and Nuclear Safety pin will remember early in those days, we were meeting with the number of utility ceos around the country. Chilly with oxide mercury. Co2. After about on hourandahalf one ceo, kind of a curmudgeon like i said the end of our hourlong conversation, this is what he should do with respect to multi pollutant expectation, tell us what the rules will be, give us a reasonable amount of time to implement those rules, give us a little bit of flexibility and get out of the way. That is what he said. Tell us what the rule is going to be coming give us a reasonable amount of flexibility , reasonable amount of time and get out of the way. That was ten years ago. Well, my hope and my belief is that epa is saying these are with the rules will be utilities, Coal Companies, environmental groups this is what we think the rules should be. In doing so they put out a draft of what they think the rules should be. A lot of response, of input from people around the country. That is where we are. Great that the administrators are here. Epa does not mandate what will happen. Updated input from all kinds. That would make sense. I hope to get input from utility. That would make sense. Put from the Coal Companies would make sense. Out im glad we have an opportunity here. I am glad that we will have an opportunity to provide input from that. Delaware and other states clearly impacts. Places to reduce the local power plant. Unfortunately few states like us cannot tackle this issue alone. If were going to make an impact thickly power actinides are kutcher working to take on the largest source of Carbon Emissions together. I want to thank the administrator and the president for his leader in moving. We have to choose between having a Clean Environment and a stronger economy. That is a false choice. We can have both that will have both and have done it time and time again. We know the inaction of Climate Change only cost us money in the long run. In fact, it Government Accountability of this is already listed climb the change is one of the biggest fiscal risks clammy air nation. They are not making this stuff up. That is why i believe you need to move forward. Protect public house and grow our economy which is finally growing quite nicely. We need a rule that does not pick winners and losers between great energy. We need a rule that is flexible and legally defensible. I believe that epa is trying to strike the right balance. God knows it is not easy. Hearings are over 300 stakeholders develop the proposal that builds on what states rally to end reviews current plant combinations. They recognize that what might work for delaware may not work for california, may not work for a, or alabama or mississippi. Rather your proposal allows each state the flexibility as my father would say, god rest his soul, that was common sense to me. The epa decision to set card targets that are meaningful, flexible, and feasible. Bankers say epa to continue to listen and make adjustments as needed to insure that we get this ready. It is important that we do. L. A. For todays discussion on this rule. Welcome and thank you. Thank you, senator. Senator sessions followed by senator murphy. Thank you, madam share. The American Economy is important. I know you know that. 55,000 to 50. We have an employment rate among the working age population as well as the 1970s and has been declining steadily. The energy has been a decline helping the American Academy in recent years. The gasoline bill does weaken the economy. It does little benefit. We have to ask that. We can reach an accord on a lot of these issues. Things that are costeffective, clean, the efficiency of programs, things that probably are done and do to make america healthier and a stronger economy. Last month to come the epa in Supreme Court said this, when an agency plans to discover in a long a state statute and an inherited power to regulate a significant portion of the American Economy, we typically greet this announcement with a measure of skepticism. Well, we know economists have never voted exclusively to regulate co2 and would not close today of given the opportunity. But through old statutes and interpretation of a you know as an ally to the official are impacting the economy in extraordinary ways. I just think that we ought not to forget that. Co2 emission targets for alabama our rejection of 27 . A space like arkansas and georgia with 44 percent reduction really hammered harder the 51 percent reduction, 39 percent reduction. Those are huge economically impractical regulations the u. S. Putting out that we dont get to vote on. The American People and that given a voice. Of what he to know we are concerned about the problem the you were concerned about, trying to make this environment healthy and positive, we have to ask, what is a realworld impact . We know germany is backing off. We consider some of its issues. Of australia recently scrapped its carbon tax. As a matter that we need to concern ourselves with. Additionally i am worried about the nuclear industry. We only have a few plants that are going toward no. The Valley Authority which handles most if not all of alabama. Theyre doing in nuclear plan. Under your regulation they will send millions of dollars and bring that planned online. It will get no credit whatsoever it will be even more burdensome from them. Theyre penalized for investing now to reduce Carbon Emissions to Nuclear Power. They have done it already. They reduced Carbon Emissions by 17 percent since 2005. There are leveled to achieve a 40 reduction. There will be unfairly impacted by the weight you are calculating that Nuclear Power car and free Power Generation that could occur. Madam president , i will wrap up and take you for the average into the to be here. Thank you very much. Last but not least. Thanks you at administrator mccarthy for coming in addressing the clean power plant to date. There is no question that Carbon Dioxide is having a profound impact spirit greece see it on the ground or in in multitudinous ways. We see it in terms of the expansion, bark beetle, pine beetle destroying vast swaths of forest. Not cold enough and wanted to kill them off. We see it in terms of of moisture to industry having great difficulty with the reproduction of voice is because the water is 30 percent more acidic. Three worst ever dross that occur in less than a decade and half. Thus it kara backside is waging an assault. Under the Clean Air Act we seek to control and reduces pollutants having such vicious consequences across rural america. Thank you for coming in addressing the details of the plan. Looking forward to the commentary, and i look forward to an understanding of how many jobs can be created by addressing it non carbon sources of power is clear that already exist in solar world there are twice as many jobs as the coal world not counting other forms of Renewable Energy. As we take this this is a tech general america. I really want to say, i thought each of you made your points very well and to appoint perry returned to you, administrator mccarthy epas regional recently issued clean power plant proposal. One of raise challenges of our time that already challenges human health and welfare in the economy. Devastating impacts of the United States and the planet. The science is clear, the risk is clear, and the high cost of plant in action is clear. We must act. That is what president obama layout clear action plan and why i signed. Leading the world in our Global Climate fight. Power plants are the largest source of Carbon Dioxide emissions in the United States accounting for roughly onethird of all domestic Greenhouse Gas emissions of the United States has limits in place for levels of arsenic, mercury, sulfur taxes to one nitrogen oxide a particle pollution that power plants can inmate