tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN October 28, 2015 12:00am-2:01am EDT
there is a compelling rationale for doing this. requiring donations take action to detect and intercept shipments of illicit nuclear radiological materials. we have the rationale. secondly, the us government must focus on the active participation of private industry that owns and operates the terminals. this is a significant business continuity enterprise.
a public-sector responsibility to work this, but the private sector as a has a critical role to play. the foiled october 2010 bomb plot makes the case. we saw the air cargo industry working to significantly step of scrutiny of air cargo. the maritime transportation system is a highly concentrated system with a few large terminal operators and carriers responsible for handling the vast majority of cargo. the zombies could potentially take on a leadership role for deploying technologies and tools on a global scale by providing near real-time visibility and accountability for content and location of all cargo. whatwhat they would need is a means to cover the cost. the estimated cost ranges
from three to $5 billion. given that there are millions of containers moving, we are talking about ten to $15 per box a less than the security surcharge i had flying from boston to washington for this hearing today. the risk of an adversary exploiting remains clear and present. the disruption of such an attack would generate and goes well beyond the local port rippling through the entire maritime transportation system. accordingly the stakes for the us national security and economic security could not be higher. there is no urgent need to bolster and build upon the many initiatives which aim to bring and improve the security of maritime transportation systems. these global networks required for us to operate. we must work on ensuring we can survive that in the
event of a dirty bomb going off in port. thank you so much. >> thank you. i will ask a quick question and pass it off. i guess the question is this, if you're going to have a nuclear weapon come into majority are not commit will be shielded. if it is not, i would recommend recommend to our enemies that they shielded, otherwise it will be easier to see. the smart people would shielded. can you still see it? >> that is a good question which i covered a little bit in my testimony. the -- bombs are not easily shielded from inspection by
neutrons. as is said, if you keep the neutrons fast enough, that is, high enough energy, they are not affected by absorbers and other -- i mean, neutronsi mean, neutrons can go through a whole ship without hardly slowing down. the tricky part is what are called moderators, things that reduce the energy of the neutrons. if a bomb was packed and a bunch of moderator material, carbon or something like that that can slow neutrons, enough of it could slow the neutrons down to where not enough of them would penetrate into the core to give you a good nuclear signature. that -- it is not a precise number, but 1 foot or so of carbon outside the device could maybe affect that sort of slowing down, but there are two things that you must consider. one, by the time that you have a few feet of carbon on either side of the device, you have blocked the whole ceu, the container that is
in, and that in itself would be a signal that someone had tried to do this. it is not an easy thing to do. the other thing is a technical point, but when neutrons bound -- bounce off of moderator like carbon, they produce a spectrum of bands of energy that pop out that i easily detectable, and the spacing of the energy bands are a good indicator of what kind of moderator the person is using to try to beat you and the number of those bands tell you how thick the moderator is. so it is -- that is the game that they would play. it is not an easy game for the adversary. >> there is a company called decision sciences that is able to test nuclear stuff with really thick lead. you must be in their system.
it has to be within basically one of those drive-through systems to do this, and it takes more than a drive-through. >> if i might quickly, neutrons like to go through anything, particularly steel and led and stuff like that. ordinary shielding, which is very effective for dirty bombs and even uranium and its natural state as it is just emanating gamma rays, all of those things which are effective otherwise are not very effective against the approach that i am using with neutrons. someone has to really go out of their way with a lot of wanting to try to knock the signal down too much. >> it would take an actual scanning system to do that.
>> no, sir. the trick with neutron detection of any kind is that you put a signal and the neutrons come out. and so you are stimulating very gently the fissile material to produce a signal that would not be there in the case if you did not stimulated. >> another way to do that would be these drive-through systems. none of this will happen by a handheld device that someone is holding walking around or a bell device. >> no, sir. >> all of this comes like a drive-through scanning system where you can spray with neutrons and have the right on the other side. >> that's right. there is no free lunch.
you have to produce the neutrons, but the fact is the neutrons are not hard to produce. the trick is knowing that you have to put them where you want them and collect them in a smart way. >> and i will yield because i am out of time. >> the bomb line ofbottom line of your testimony is that a compact fast neutron inspection can't work. we are not deploying those. >> i'm sorry. we went off on a tangent thata tangent that was not productive. it has only been sitting around scratching her head they gave me the idea. as doctor teller used to tell me, the hardest thing about doing something as a learning what you thought you were.
>> you seem to think that domestic steps need to be taken. cesium's fluoride specifically. >> national academy study was done some years ago pointing out the need to protect fluoride sources throughout the united states. >> wouldwe do our attention to that issue and presumably we will avoid dealing with the problem. which is not a good solution. finally, dr. lawless comes down to money, doesn't it? or mr. lawless. who is going to pay for the detectors. domestically with cesium chloride, how much money do you need to put these detectors and to maintain?
we are working with the indio and a company to develop a state-of-the-art detection system in the port of boston. but there is money needed to fund the program, clarity. federally mandated systems. and they believe the federal government should be paying cbp and the indio to fund projects. >> willing to put $10-$15 on ten to $15 on each container. i assume you have an opinion on that. >> yes, no? >> yes. >> all right. and i would just go back to why i started this. we make choices around here and are looking to spend three and a
half billion dollars for a missile defense system for the scarcity with uranium exclusion. which presumably will be available for some decades. thank you command i yield. >> the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you for being here. i have followed your work and read a lot of what you have written. i am always very concerned. the container security initiative scans less than 1 pe. you believe scanning at the point of origin is 100 percent effective, or should we be investing more in scanning at our domestic ports? >> this is an issue with the stakes being so high that we
should be looking at dealing with this across the board. relative to where we split resources this ranks right up there given the consequence relate up which is many good bit of time in the port of la and long beach and you get the sense of scale and with the problem would be in this dirty bomb scenario, how would you work in that port as well as neighbors who live in san pedro and so forth. in the face of this, there is opportunity at the port of loading, even at the largest terminals to scan cargo. what that would do if he should be baked into the terminal operations just as the variation portals are here. we would like to have that when people drive into the terminal command you can do it for just the us. that is where there is counter proliferation value going out to the united states but around command to the extent that is a national security imperative
trying to get visibility should be key. so let's be clear right now of the numbers, 2,013, the numbers of cbp inspections overseas and the than 50 gave ports around the world was 103,000.103,000. if you divide that by 365 days and 58 ports are talking five containers purport per day being examined overseas under the csi system. five a day. singapore, shanghai, others, it may be up a little bit because the current approaches, we will identify the risk and pump the box and take it to a government inspection facility. if you bake into the operation of the terminal you would collect this in real time. it does not mean you have to look at images. you get those that have a much greater degree of confidence about deterring this risk but also ultimately finding these when they go wrong or worst
case even isolating the incident after the word so that you do not shut down the whole system. there is so much that can be done, should be done, it is not is not being done. >> thank you command i appreciate the morning. the threat to our global economy is significant, particularly if something happened at long beach and los angeles. we knowangeles. we know what that impact would have a not just the national but global economy. i'm just going to ask one more. the biggest issue that everyone tells me is that in some way that would impede, slowdown commerce and we just cannot afford that. i was going -- by the way, i do have a bill that would provide grants to two ports in this country that would voluntarily decides to implement 100 percent
scanning with the technology that we have available just to prove everybody that we can do this and not impede commerce in a way that would really impact the economy. is there technology that you spoke about, which one of those technologies could work and also not impede commerce? >> there are -- there is one technology that i talk about. interrogation would neutrons. i think that it would fill the requirements you are sort of setting. i always like, they have these big cranes that move things around. i would like to put my source on one line -- one leg of the thing in the detector on the other. it's plenty of time. it does it inspection and seconds or milliseconds, very fast. the other thing, what i
mentioned briefly in his mouth a little source and detector on the balkans of the ship. one per canister so that you can keep track of what happens to the canister the whole time it is odyssey. sure, you can do that. i have not proved it. i have it. i have tried to tell you that the physics is okay. >> thank you very much. >> ms. miss brown is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. your points and testimony are well taken that it is not an attack just on us soil, but an attack on trade and interrupting the goods movement in our country. and i am just wondering why if you have very specific recommendations for how
individual ports and the businesses within the sports can really prepare for or prepare for a contingency plan in the event that we did have an attack and also specific recommendations for our governmental agencies and what they should be doing for contingency as well. >> i mean come i really applaud the question in the focus. unlessfocus. unless we assume there is a zero chance that this will happen, we should have a plan. that is something that we can do. the heavy coordination and collaboration issue. the court challenges that this is a global system running on steroids. if you disrupted increasingly it cascades across the system.
it is a lot of choreography. right now the us government has no plan for how to deal with this beyond the borders there isthere is a global strategy the president put out, the world's thinnest strategy california have pages. we should have a plan, but what he actually has executed on. thinking through that, specifics, clearly raising the awareness about what this event would look like and then mechanics about how we deal with the immediacy of the dirty bomb, what is safe? this is something a community cannot solve because the us government has to set what standards are for safety.safety. the coordination is heavily between the industry runs a system in the port authorities on the local authorities and the governmental authorities. we have limited visibility. a unique and challenging issue for critical infrastructure is that 90+
percent of it is internationally known, not us owned. we have to we have to coordinate with those key players, but the opportunity is a concentrated industry, five operators that move 80% of all the goods in the us imports all over the world. he ought to go to 180 nations. they're basically 20 open -- ocean carriers that matter. but we have been doing is looking at this as a government to government issue or local government issue when it really is an international private system in our financial meltdown we had central bankers who can manage the morning after. it was messy, but we had a system. we have no such system for managing a major distributor of that which is which is something that i think transcends anything that these agencies here who are here this morning their jobs could do but it is a high order national security and economic security issue for us to wrestle with.
>> you had mentioned that we have been listening to industry and businesses clearly in terms of what they believe or the right -- what is the right direction and plan for contingency. do you have any idea what they would suggest? in earlier testimony they said, if we had an incident the industry would just respond and that would be the contingency plan. >> i worked closely on that end of talk to the ceos. if there is a plan they are willing to engage. a business continuity issue. if there is a cost recovery mechanism, i had to colleagues and other work. the one that we have right now where we would select a box out of the container and send it to be inspected and very small percentages command one where you scan all of them. it is easy for me to scan them all in for you to come
into my art,art, pack six high, and get to to take around. in some cases it turns out doing more is easier. the economics are better. in other places you will not have the same level and then use an approach. it will not be one side fits all. but he comes out different than the one you have when you do a government to government one , and here it is an engineering problem, and operational problem with technical complexity that it is not insoluble. this just hope it never happens. shame on us when it does happen. >> thank you, and i yield back. >> thank the gentle lady. we have run out of members. this was not a bad showing for today. at least we had some people, but thank you for what you do for the country and for industry and thank you for being here. with that, the hearing is adjourned.
>> aa signature feature of book tv is all they coverage a book fairs and festivals across the country with top nonfiction authors. here is our schedule beginning this weekend. >> 49 senators support a measure challenging and obama administration regulation which cuts carbon emission from power plants. the resolution disapproves
of the epa new clean power plan. sinner republicans and democrats came to the senate floor to talk about epa regulations. ly needs and dees with >>dent? >> mr. president. >> mr. pres. >> the sen. from west virginia. >> thank you,you, mr. president. i rise on behalf of workers, families command communities and all hard-working americans who will bear the burden. the bipartisan resolution of disapproval that i have introduced of my colleague and 47 other cosponsors will block the epa greenhouse gas regulations targeting existing power sources. i also strongly support leader mcconnell's mcconnell'smcconnell's companion resolution to block the resolutions targeting new power plants.
as i was thinking about the speech and as i rise to give the speech,speech, i realize i have said many of the same word so many times before, express the same frustrations and sound off similar statistics. what is the difference? well, we have already seen the devastating effects and the callous nature of regulatory overreach. we know what the new reality would be. the new reality would be what we are facing with knew carbon regulations. the reality of the families, faces, and hardships that we have already endured over the thousands of layoffs in my state of west virginia that have already been issued, the jobs that have been lost and that will never come back. just this morning, just this morning nearly 200 west virginia200 west virginia coal miners in randolph county were informed that their jobs will be gone by christmas. think about how those families will spend their
christmas holiday. and then consider how those realities would be magnified it felt throughout many households across the country that these carbon mandates could move forward. higher electricity bills that would result, the squeeze already squeezing the struggling middle-class families who live on fixed incomes and those who live on fixed incomes with the squeeze that they will feel. for most vulnerable will bear the burden. consider the far-reaching effects regulations will have on schools that are now seeing budgets shrink while values that, home values that are now on the decline command fewer dollars available for public safety and law enforcement. reality, it is the reality are causing instruction. this is not a fiscal crisis, not an uncontrollable event.
it's carefully crafted, precise, and very meditated assault on certain areas of the country. policies that help some states and really hurt others. policies that target states like west virginia for north dakota where we produce all the most affordable and reliable energy. policies that are ripping the american dream away from families and my sitting communities. the families want and deserve healthy and clean air, water, and they want to live in a great environment. the policies for washington that penn one state against another and prioritize certain communities and jobs over others are bringing the livelihoods of many to a halt. many have the opportunity to express those concerns. we have an opportunity to weigh in.
i believe they understand the need for affordable and reliable energy. american economic future. but the international climate negotiations scheduled for december the world is watching whether they will move forward with regulations that will do nothing to protect the environment and tie one hand behind our back economically. economic catastrophic regulations.
i ask consent to engage in a colloquy with my colleagues front 30 minutes. >> without objection. >> objection. >> thank you, mr. president and to migrate colleagues from the state of west virginia, estate that has been powering america for a lot of years. migrate thanks tomigrate thanks to all of the great workers and call minors interstate have added to the economic opportunity, not justopportunity, not just the people of west virginia but the people of an entire region. that is one thing we forget. thisthis great miracle happens. we turn on a switch and the lights come on command if that does not happen or if it is too expensive to turn on lights which we will not be the country that we are. with this regulation i think what we have done is seated the all-important role of
electrical security and energy security to an environmental agency does not have the experience or expertise to understand what it takes to get an electron in the wire. i am proud to stand with my colleague and introduce a bill to roll back the epa rule on carbon emissions which threatens the supply of abundant, affordable, and reliable electricity and north dakota. i pledge to register my pleasures are multiple challenge and this legislation as those public way of expressing not just my frustration but the frustration a concern of my state regulators in my state utilities. this rule, although having dramatic consequences across the country, this targus north dakota utilities. during the original draft role north dakota's allocation was 11 percent.
people started rolling up their sleeves saying if we have to reduce by 11 percent how are we going to do it and meet this challenge? that is the north dakota way it went from 11 percent to a 45 percent reduction in the final rule which was the straw that broke the camels back. i am trying to do everything i can to push back against the burden some power plan rules to find workable solutions so north dakotans can continue to have no cost reliable electricity. this is just one of the many different avenues to make sure north dakota is treated fairly. i want to talk about what is unique. a lot of the generation that happens is generations that are in fact generated by
rural electric co-ops which are in operate about 90% of the states coal-based generation facilities and provide electricity to rural areas than in the past other utilities would not serve, not just rural areas of north dakota but all through the region. the people at the end of the line, the very people this rule will most impact they have failed to consider when they have made this final rule. north dakota utilities are heavily based on heavily invested in coal -based generation, and it is an important point to make. you can fuel switch, but at switch, but at the time that our electric co-ops built these generation facilities, they used coal because it was against federal law to use natural gas. the fuel use act made it
illegal to use natural gas for power generation, forcing these power companies to make the investment that they made in this fuel source of coal. now after making billions of dollars of investment to meet the mandates under the fuel use back and submit the numerous emission standards that have been put forth by epa, the administration once again is straining assets, causing them in many cases to be stranded. if the administration were willing to pay fair market value to the value that maybe we could have a discussion, buta discussion, but i do not see that deal the table. these utilities buildbuilt, modified command retrofitted at great cost and according to federal law the time, and now there threatening the very existence of this generation.
these assets are not just critical to north dakota. this provides dependable, affordable, reliable, affordable, reliable, baseload electricity to millions of people in the great plains with roughly 55% of55 percent of the electric power generated in north dakota being shipped outside the border. when this final rule came out i simply said, it was a a slap in the face tower utilities and regulators. this final rule is so vastly different than the rule that was proposed, it was almost laughable that epa said it was in any way informed by any real input or any real comment. how can you take utility thatsuitable a visit to 45 percent and not reissued that. i think the final rule is that jeopardizes 17,000 good paying jobs providing power for rural communities that
otherwise would struggle. we have some of the lowest power cost in the country because we have some of the best utilities in the country who are always looking out for that consumer at the end new line north dakota has never stepped out from a tough challenge command with the challenges there and the goals attainable in the timeline is achievable, but that is not this rule. they go is not fair, the challenge is not fair, the goal is unattainable, and the timeline is unachievable. unachievable. that is not anything that the clean air act ever anticipated. that we would set a goal with no feasible or possible way of meeting the goal given current technology. yet, that is the position we are in.
at the end of the day, what matters most is making sure our utilities can do there job, making sure what a north dakota norse out the code in or someone from wyoming or colorado where we deliver power and certainly those in minnesota reach over to turn on that light switch regardless of the time of day, that that light comes on. that is called baseload power. people who think that this is easy, just switch fuels or switch technology have ever sat in a boardroom as i have and listen to the challenges of putting that electron on that wire. andand so i stand with my colleague from west virginia and my colleagues, joe mansion come on our side of the aisle saying enough is enough. this is a problem we need to address an issue that we can tackle and achieve results over time, but this rule is wrong, wrongheaded and will cause huge disruption to the economy of my state and the
economy of the middle of this country. i yield the floor. there is a war on: america. a number of us were in the senate back in 2009 and 2010 in the administration cannot pass to the senate. and try proposal. sixty votes in the senate. they cannot pass the and trade proposal through this body. they decided they will do it anyway. they decided that they will do it anyway.
and so we have an oppression and central appalachia as the two senators from west virginia can attest created not because of anything we did here in congress, but because of the president's zeal to have an impact worldwide on the issue of climate. ii suspect, mr. president, that even if we follow this path to the end this effort by the united states would have about as much impact as dropping a pebble in the ocean. andand yet we are paying a price for here at home. eastern kentucky looks like the dust bowl during the 30s. no jobs, no opportunity, no future.
not as a result ofa result of anything that we have passed through the people's elected representatives, but by this sort of arrogant single-handed messianic goal to deal with worldwide climate. our options to stop it are quite limited. but we do have the possibility of the congressional review act as a weakness of that even though we can pass it here with a simple majority, he is likely to veto it. though we are here today to stand up for people, the ratepayers of america and not only the ratepayers, 90 percent of the electricity in kentucky comes from coal, but the communities that have been devastated by this.
i've never seen anything like it.it. i heard my parents talk about the depression was like. it sounds and looks a lot like the stories that they told me. so this is a venture that will have no impact on the issue for which it is being pursued but is having a devastating and current adverse impact on the people that we represent. now, we have representatives from both parties on the floor today. working toward overturning the administration's deeply regressive energy regulations. these regulations will ship more middle-class jobs overseas. the question is does it have a future in this country? the indians and chinese are not going to give up their
future. by not using this cheap, abundant source of power. call has a future. it did not have a future here after this administration. my folks can't even put food on the table. the ones who can find a job somewhere leaving. population continues to decline. it will not have much of an impact. this is not going to do anything meaningful to affect global carbon levels. it just seems that some want to be able to pat themselves on the back for doing something even if they have
accomplished hardly anything at all. shelter a lot of americans. lost jobs, maybe trivial. some folks on the political left, not there jobs, they don't care. but it is a different story for the middle class kentuckians are present. assigned to take on the ideological blinders and instead think about those who have suffered enough the past few years. we worked together to file bipartisan measures that would overturn the administrations to pond regulation. i have joined the senator high camp center tell on a measure that would address one of those problems, the
one that pertains to existing energy sources. senator mansion is here on the floor and joined me as i introduced a measure that would introduce the other prong that pertains to new sources. these bipartisan measures together represent a comprehensive solution, and i am pleased to be joined on the floor by senators from west virginia, north dakota, senator banks are montana is here, the chairman of our energy committee, environment committee is, some have already spoken, andspoken, and someone speak after me, but i am proud and pleased to be here on the floor with all of you standing up for our agreed constituents. have been mightily abused by this administration. i yield the floor.
>> the sen. from west virginia. >> ii want to thank my colleagues, senator mcconnell, patel, sen. gains command off command my good friend, senator high camp, this is a bipartisan approach. it should be because we all have the same interest, how we provide affordable, dependable, and reliable energy which this country was built on. resources come from what the good lord gave us commands call has been an abundance. we have fought every war, defended, energized, built a middle-class unlike any time in the history of this world so it comes to the point where there is aa group that wants an ideological pathway to say we can do it differently. if someone came to me and
says, we have this new, great energy and i am sorry, west virginia, north dakota, oklahoma, montana comeau we have this new energy and maybe it is commercial hydrogen which would be water vapor. that is wonderful. we will figure away to make it. we will do something. that is not the case. the case is simply this country has depended and will depend even by its own administrations of mission that this country will defend -- depend on fossil fuels for at least the next three decades. there going to have to have it. baseload is simply something that will give you power 24/seven. there arethere are only two things in the world that can, coal and nuclear. gas is coming on and will be a base for the distribution lines and pipelines are there to provide it. so just look no further than japan.
japan was mostly moving toward nuclear. fukushima happens. japan had to change. what did they do? they changed to call, but they decided the new plans would be ultra- supercritical which means 40 pen at the highest levels to reduce admissions. they are moving in technology ways. the plan that we are about, our colleagues are talking about existing sources which means they cannot continue with what we have today and knew source which means any new plan has to be built a certain standards. carbon capture and sequestration has not been proven, yet these roles are based upon using carbon capture sequestration. all we have said, some of us have said, why don't you at least demonstrate that you can have that type of commercial operation, and it can withstand one year under commercial load and show as those of the new limits you
want us to meet. that, to me, is reasonable. if you are in the business of producing power and desire not to do that even though we had technology you would have to close your plant. i understand that. that is not the case. that is not the case. they can show us technology and show us that it has the commercial feasible pathway to be able to perform and provide the energy that we need. there is no way you can do it.it. if it is unattainable, it is unreasonable. that is all. don't expect me to do something that has never been done. the federal government says, we are going to have with $8 billion playing at the department of energy, 8 billion, does that not tell you something? the private sector has not stepped up to take those types of loans command to use those types to find the new technology for the future because they don't believe the administration wants you to find any new technology that might be able to adhere to the standards set. so we sit back and have done
nothing. and they expect these plans 30 years from now, if they are expecting to get commercial power, electricity, fill the grid with power coming from call for the next 30 years most plants average 50 years of age and cannot produce the power they will produce the 30 more years. that means that they come off of the line come off of the grid. for that comes off the grid we call dependable, reliable, and affordable energy goes away. someone needs to ask respectfully our president, this administration committee epa, doe if for the next 90 days not another ton of coal was delivered to planet america, not another ton of coal, and i have said this to the administration
who have been eloquent in telling the american people we don't like coal or want coal. if those were the facts and make sure you tell the american people they didn't have call for 90 days what with the united states of america look like? ask anyone early. 130 million people's lives of be in jeopardy. the system could collapse. the east coast goes dark. tell me how you fill that in , and if you're not willing to be honest and tell them that. don't make them believe there is something out there that you can run this off of wind and solar. we have a lot of wind that we are proud of. the hottest day this past summer, we have 17 acres of wind farm on top of a beautiful mountain in west virginia, coal-fired plan on
mount storm, 1600storm, 1600 me. guess how many megawatts of power the wind produced during the hottest times of the summer? to megawatts. two. the wind did not blow. that was giving everything it had money at 100 percent to try to produce the power of the nation needed. the facts are the facts with you like it or not. with this plan comes out and says any new coal-fired plan , you can basically be assured that they will not build any. they won't invest to try to hit a moving target. for the 35 to 40 percent of the power targeting the united states of america, don't, don't worry, we will take care of you, they are not going to have it. well, we will not stand by and not fight. we arewe are not only fighting for a way of life for west virginia but the country which depends on the energy we have been able to
produce. north dakota, one of the best energy producing states in the country, montana, wyoming, oklahoma. we have been the heavy lifters and will continue to work. wewe just need help which is all we are asking for. ask the question, what would the country look like tomorrow? the standards they are setting are unreasonable because their unattainable. the impact will be devastating. the system will be to the point you cannot depend upon it and we do not have the power of the future yet. maybe your children or grandchildren might see that , but until that time comes make sure that it is a smooth transition, one that is dependable, one that keeps this country the superpower of the world. if you don't, i guarantee you, we will be the last generation that stands before you as a superpower
saying we are energy independent, not fighting wars around the world for energy this country needs and have the ability to basically take care of ourselves and be totally independent energy, but it must be realistic. this is not, which is why i oppose this new power plan. itit is a shame we have to rely on the courts. it is a shame that the courts have to step in and protect us. i yield the floor and think my colleagues for being here on this important issue. >> the senator from oklahoma >> first of all, i appreciate the fact that our colleagues are getting together on this on a bipartisan way. it isit is worth repeating to make sure everyone understands what a cra is. congressional review act
that allows and the elected person who is answerable to the public to weigh in on decisions that are made by the president who cannot running in for office, like the unelected bureaucrats destroying this country. as pointed out by the senator from kentucky, i chairkentucky, i chair the community called the environment and public works committee in which we deal with these regulations and have jurisdiction over the epa. it is interesting that we say that. we tried to get them to come in and testify as witnesses. the percentage of power that is going to be generated by the year 2030 by renewables.
we like the ideas of having the regulators run our lives and would love to go home when people are complaining about the cost of all these things. they can say don't blame us. this forces accountability. they would much prefer to go home and said no we are over regulated and it is destroying our states, but it was not me, don't look at me. now who is responsible? now what will happen is we will have a vote that will take place and then of course the senator from our leader is correct when he says the president would probably veto this. then it comes back for a veto override, and people will no who is for and against.
a cra has another great value, forcing accountability the people who are answerable to the public. the interesting and consistent patterns is that what this president does is he gets the things they tried to do to legislation and those things that have failed to legislation he tries meant to do regulation. .. and sent another issue is the waters and the united states except for navigable waters. so by years ago a bill was introduced but essentially with the federal government would have control over all the waters over all-america
so they introduced a bill one was the senator from wisconsin and a house member was from one of the northern states power cord zero remember which but not only did we overwhelmingly defeat the legislation but the public defeated them in the next election now the president is trying to do what they cannot do through legislation and regulation. the senator from western union is right because it is very interesting talk about
the ignitions the first was 2002 and then the lieberman bill in 2008 bin the waxman bill that we never even got to vote on. so what they're trying to do before legislatively is now it doesn't force accountability. so one other statement this thing that will take place place, that united asian imports:every year i can remember when they did it in 2009 that would be copenhagen several people
went over there hillary and policy and john kerry to tell the 100 and 92 countries that are meeting in copenhagen to tell them we would pass after given their testimony and then to come back on the next flight. that was the most enjoyable three hours i never had i could talk to the 192 countries to tell them they have been lied to and we will not pass that. now the same thing in december this year they will go over. by the way one thing that has not been set. people of this thing to west right now that actually believe this that the world will come to an end because
of the man-made gases. this is something we have been listening to for a long period of time. right before went to copenhagen in 2009 the director at the epa was lee said jackson appointed by president obama i ask the question of life on television for the record, if any regulations have an effect to lower the co2 worldwide? might do this is the obama appointee and he was president at that time, she said no it would not reduce emissions worldwide because it just pertains to the united states. but the problem is an india and china and mexico.
so the problem there is me lower our emissions in the united states however those other countries won't so that would have the effect of increasing or not decreasing to have the effect of increasing for us to make the necessary efforts to make people accountable and it might surprise a lot of people who changes their mind who can cast their vote to be accountable. certainly my friends from west virginia in those that are involved that this is the right thing to do. without maximum achievable
control technology was the first to put cool under and at that time we did the cia and came within four votes when republicans were not in the majority of lead for good things to happen and we're doing the right and responsible thing. >> have a bike additional times of the senator from montana can join us. as the largest recoverable tonnage of coal in the nation. this administration is shutting down coal-fired power plants and i have to think that senator from west virginia and for those of
what is going on with coal-fired car plants here is what is happening is killing good paying jobs for pipefitters and boilermakers in a tribal members of the state at the same time it is stifling investment to make coal cleaner here in the u.s. as a travel across montana i heard them describe the epa as it stands for eliminate production of agriculture. or that employment prevention in agency. president obama and his employer and prevention agency continues to wage war on american energy, american families and american jobs.
this so-called clean power plan is an all-out assault on good paying union in tribal jobs this leaves and directly responsible for bills for schools and teachers and unemployment of thousands of hard-working americans to ignore the fact that more than half of montana's electricity comes from coal in fact, 40 percent of the nation's energy comes from coal. when they plug in the smart phone most likely it is charged by kohl in my a hometown we have a test
letter charging stationed at one of our hotels. when they plug them into the chargers the tesla vehicles in montana are likely powered by coal. the fact is that coal production is less carbon intensive from other nations and much safer it is the globe will challenge we have one of the cleanest in the world even cleaner than indonesia. shutting down u.s. coal has a negligible impact that makes it advanced the u.s. consumes about 10% so
90 percent of the coal consumption occurs outside the u.s. even if the u.s. was shut down every last coal mine or coal-fired plant been not to the facts facts:use has grown four times faster 1200'' plants are planned across 59 countries in three-quarters are tight end in india they consume forward billion tons per year. and that is projected to last for the next 10 years. my degree was in chemical engineering i remember the
big earthquake that stock -- that struck abbacy do they build 43 coal-fired power plants and may ask tuna halftimes more than with the u.s. is about to use. it will devastate to raise energy prices to destroy union jobs and we see that already in montana. in the month of october into shutdown two units. because the crow tribe relies on coal-fired midwest utilities and for good
paying jobs in the unemployment rate on the crow reservation in today's and the high 40% and without these coal mining jobs would go at 80 or 85% ironic read the first impacted by the obama administration are those who can least afford it. solyndra the final rule the power plant in montana will likely be shattered to put thousands of jobs at risk we must take action i joined the attorney-general that 23 states filed a lawsuit against the government because of the recent decision there 26 states the majority through three
different lawsuits and as leader mcconnell mentioned congress cannot pass these regulations that now president of bombing and the epa air moving forward. i am thankful to partner with my colleagues to speak out and i am proud to stand here to be a co-sponsor of to a bipartisan resolutions to impose the anti-called regulations it is the lifeblood it charges the phone and continues to power the world for decades to come to dismiss the reality the united states should be on the cutting edge of advances of energy development we should be the
[chanting] [applause] >> i was telling some of the folks backstage i never thought i dothis wel [chanting] [chanting] >> i said i never thought we'd do that well that fast. it has been incredible. we had a meeting results and they continue to come amid. a little shake up. >> somebody city going straight to new hampshire? >> we have great numbers 30
at one dash 38 / 12. we felt a little behind in iowa and some people say how can it be? we have the biggest and most enthusiastic crowds and it is true. but everybody said without question in every poll that the people that are with drawbar with trump they are not going anywhere. they are staying. [cheers and applause] we have seen it. i say that could be the end then they do something it is the greatest thing. we will make it. but we have the most loyal people. the other is the leadership. that is very important.
and the economy without question number one by a lot. is great. and i want to take some question and answer we have all the cameras going and it is always tough with live television we have 10 topics me just want to get it done that when you were on live television all the time when the cameras are on dead you talk about immigration and the wall because we will have a wall. [cheers and applause] talk about trade it repealing obamacare you have these points to talk about
in different forms and different ways but in the end it is about results. you can only talk about the same subjects on live television so many different ways. i talk about industry, commerce, how we're losing jobs with the different countries we talk about the amendments that second amendment they want to take away from rio it will not happen. at least with me it will not but i want to do some questions and answers.
so a few new subjects immigration will the was strong number. it is killing us and bad for the economy and all this illegal immigration. legal, you come in and you will do great maybe there are cases we will make the economy much stronger but also get jobs for people that are here. so i've made by the termination because it takes
courage to set will run for president. there really does. we'll get the properties in miami and may never see again. lenovo although the british open i may never see again all these incredible places that i have but more than that it takes courage. because you put yourself out there. even for politicians so not to leave it is getting ridiculous. i wish we had more time for this debate space in terms
of three hours because who wants that? but the debate essentially lasted an hour and a half and i could not watching a. with the socialist slavish communist. and honestly she will not win just so you understand that neither will he. long-term. because that very she should not even be allowed to run. it is a tough game is that nasty game she is totally protected did you still have one more and of value will
be a quick. what are they doing when they have zero? but some of them have treated me so nasty. because they want to stir controversy to pick up some points but everybody that has hit me has gone down. but one of them has a zero with the arrow pointing to the left that means less than zero and i don't understand. [laughter] if you look at what is happening with every country not just china the numbers
are astronomical almost $400 billion per year. with a sense stuff over here but we cannot send stuff over there. a friend of mine cannot give his staff over the taxes are so big. from china, here, he bought a beautiful plate but cannot get it over there because the taxes are so massive so now he is selling it here. it is so astronomical i don't even believe it myself. i can just tell you is a massive tax. don't buy the planes year you cannot get them back in here.
guest: the $400 billion trade imbalance with the $70 billion trade imbalance. bid if you have a destroyer. relatively small. i don't know if i want to be a captive of the ship right now. we have an agreement with the japan and china. but they're killing guests. though leaders of mexico are killing as. i never eating oreo.
and then they're moving the big plant to mexico. but nobody came into it like i do it. honestly. [applause] i am not saying imperfect because nobody is perfect. but carl icahn endorsed media the day one of the great deal makers. he doesn't just do it. he wants somebody who knows what they are doing he'll understands corporate inversion and what is going on many of the company's in this country have trillions of dollars committal a plea.
overseas right now. and everybody agrees the democrats and the republicans. isn't like we disagree on obamacare i unfriendly with all of them. they say i will be a unifier i am the greatest unifier at all. many of those democrats and then what do i do? twenty-eight times. it turned out to be a different -- july 20 different times. look at what is happening with corporations.
so these are great companies. and the reason it is bureaucracy? it is very hard and also the taxes are too high. to pay $350,000 tax. ted to bring it back he will be using it to invest in the country and good things will happen. it is more than into a half trillion. here is the thing is not controversial. and now glutted happening companies are leading the united states for lower
taxes but also a to get their money. billions of dollars overseas and ordered to pay a lower tax but talk about 6,000 jobs for one company. and i say that in the old old-- companies that moved down to florida. and they move to another location. now they leave their country ago to other countries in the world of the internet. and some light to go back to
the country to bring the executives from ireland and other places. so my tax plan is a big a very proud of to talk about corporate inversions if i'm elected president that money will be taxed so fast nobody else could do that. [cheers and applause] honestly nobody else even knows about it. it's not there fame. their thing is to get reelected. and they make promises all talking no action it is always the same with the politicians. and what i have done with my tax plan that i've very
proud of we brought it down into a few groups because those are not doing well to help the with their tax plans to pay $500 or $1,000 to make it nice and simple. but i don't care. the big percentage will not pay any tax at all. but they say we want everybody to pay something. i said i agree. from the standpoint of
bookkeeping or bureaucracy with billions of returns making the ira's bigger and it is a monster. i want to cut it down that money is far less than the administrative cost. but from a practical standpoint what i want to do is break in the jobs back from china reagan back from mexico. [cheers and applause] to bring fairness to the deals with japan. in the balance is so bad but
>> i can tell you in the short period of time that it will be to our benefit. think of it if we lose that kind of money that balance if it's that kind of the balance are even if we lost $100 billion per year that is a lot of money. so get ready to be in four years. if we bring it back at the borough -- the road you know, the type of monday? lots of good deeds would happen.
may be to have 75 percent. to be manufactured here. they feel like they have lost their way a little bit but self korea, a samsung i would love to. they would say where they? it is good to have a good name. if they pay a fortune for a hotel room it pays to have a good name. but i would love it. but what nobody ever talked the bauhaus he has nuclear
weapons and we don't talk about him the worst deal ever made with iran. [applause] these people are incompetent. there is something going long that we don't know about. played after point we lost everything $150 billion middle have to develop but they can buy it. why should they develop it? now it is so much money they
go to all of these different places but yet we make a deal. our prisoners, we want them back. we don't want them over there. and all we have to do is if you have the right message i have gotten to a point that i cannot be so nice that people kid do this kind of stuff. and i said i guarantee you'll have people come through or they will come through with a visa. [applause]
it and we want people to come through. but we have the least 11 million. they have no idea. it could also be 32 million. it will be closer than anybody else but it is harsh. we all like dwight eisenhower. i like ike. he was a nicer general bin macarthur per our liking as the president but i love patent -- patton. we will find ourselves one because we have a lot of
smart guys and women in the military right here. [laughter] we will find them will find a great people. they shouldn't be talking but they should be doing. what's he doing on television? when i saw this is very tough, they are spread out by the way you remember i said take the wheel? but it turned out to be another benefits we should
not have been in iraq in the first place. to destabilize the middle east. but we were there. then obama announces we're leaving on a certain day. i could not believe it. did he really say that? we will have all troops out by a certain day. right? and i said no no. i know lot of smart guys who would not pick that up. if a guy will be the best in the military. i always say i will be the greatest president that god ever created.
but everybody knows that. but i will be great at the military. i will build them so strong and tough and incredible. we will never have to use it. [cheers and applause] and i will take care of our beds. and take care of them as well as illegal immigrants. the word is unpredictable. it is a beautiful thing. is like a picture. it is like a painting.
do you know, why? why do we have to be killed? and then to say what is the date? we will have all the troops out. limit where president what do we have to be shot at? maybe he will change his mind to say he had a great victory with the surge. what happened is everybody pulled back. now we leave because of a lack of leadership. that is what happened.
others say trump does not know. exactly. and now exactly what we will do. ice and i don't give the user i will not win. it is so incredibly negative side and give the answer i will not win. they don't know what his strategy year and predictability for a period of time i would say i don't want to tell you but from the time i have announced i have but at the top of the poll. iowa get your numbers up please. [applause]
they will have numbers header so good. we don't win the more. to think about it we liz with the military. really is with trade. when will we come back to say we'd be tied in a? everybody says japan has so much power over us to say they go out of business. china isn't even doing that well. but they have so many other problems too big a to get
to be in a live. look at those numbers we have 100 million people it is not 5.3% how is that with 100 million people? that's right time talking about you. but if he comes into work force if he does well after months you give up. we have tremendous tens of millions of people. they are good people who want to work.
but it is it reflected because the politicians. i will talk about something i have never talked about on stage it is called the super pac is a great ski in the fall time. [applause] it isn't me people set them on maybe they set them up. i don't talk to them we don't even know. trump. the money comes where about the money? i don't know so we write a the gold letter to say we don't want the money, send a
back what do they do with it? is simply has a hard time now there's $2 billion in the super pac? maybe he will vote for trump or maybe not it is a ischium. it is the disgrace. finigan is paying almost $0.80 on the dollar to raise money so he has all the money he pays a lot of money that isn't reflected yet. the number i heard a 79 but but you know, it is a lot. to raise the money they take
$0.79? sova these are making a fortune. it is better than a real-estate broker. it is ischium. is ischium. the super pac is running iowa the people that are running that super pac even with small donations in the case of jeb bush it was in "the wall street journal" he has a super pac fund-raiser in a hotel right next to the v had his campaign. to rooms right next to each
other by coincidence of course, there is not supposed to be coordination there right next to each other. that is nothing compared to what some of them are doing. it is ischium. it should be stopped it is not fair to somebody like me that this spending my own money. [cheers and applause] what happens is horrible what is going on but it was a wall. but i'm sure they never talk.
only a foolish person would say no. but they're not supposed to they put whoever it in some cases but had walker deadness he had no money in the super pac. that is why he is out of the race. but the whole thing with a super pac is a horrible horrible sodium. so we sent letters to as many as we could find, we want you to close the super pac, we don't want the money don't advertise in go home. they don't even have to give the money back.
the campaign? i know everyone. a horrible thing that is taking place. now they don't even go through the motions. when i have to negotiate companies to build their plants here in their factories here into offices here john deere i paid them tens of millions of dollars to set want an endorsement. they are not so smart. i've got more than $10 million and a love it because iowa. iowa. i love it.
i cannot afford much you don't need it but here is $50 because it is so important what you say about the country. i have seen beautiful letters. there is no letter that i can write that is not insulting. i don't need your money. thanks a lot. if i got that bad guy would say who the hell does he the key is? so we take that we with a deficit by saying i don't consider that finding the right of self funding my campaign. >> something in very proud of it hasn't got much
publicity but i have spent less money than any other candidate by far. maybe a couple of guys have nothing so now and tell iowa came along what the hell are you people doing to me? [laughter] [cheers and applause] they say skip i a lot. skip the iowa. all the political geniuses but he is a great reporter to say skip iowa goes
straight to new hampshire you should see their rallies there you go to nevada and the sec. i have such a believable relationship with the people from maya well i think we will win. i really do. i don't want to skip the iowa we will do great and we will do great with the evangelicals. i am the real deal. i am the real deal. [applause] i knew all these political people and i hate to say it
put the person in i allied did not get the nomination. please do me a favor. let me win iowa then we will wind new hampshire in south carolina but we will go out in and win. but one of the pundits is said he will never run. but one said if trump women's iowa it is over. because everywhere else it is so great. so that is the end of that.
and refused to say get your ass in gear. i will not say that i know what to say anything that is a little bit off. [laughter] so please do me a favor to work with people and go out and vote to give us the victory. [cheers and applause] and if we win iowa we will run the table make great deals to have such a great military and take care of health care without that crazy obamacare that is a nightmare. [cheers and applause] . . it is time