captioning sponsored by macneil/lehrer productions >> ifill: the first waves of elation have given way to mounting criticism over the deal with the taliban to free an american prisoner of war, and scrutiny over how he came to be captured. good evening, i'm gwen ifill. judy woodruff is away. also ahead this monday, the obama administration's ambitious new plan to cut down on carbon

pollution by reducing coal plant emissions. tonight, we hear from the head of the environmental protection agency, gina mccarthy. and from mississippi to iowa, primary campaigns are hitting the home stretch. we look at what's at stake ahead of tomorrow's voting. those are just some of the stories we're covering on tonight's pbs newshour. >> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: >> i've been around long enough to recognize the people who are out there owning it. the ones getting involved, staying engaged. they are not afraid to question the path they're on. because the one question they never want to ask is, "how did i end up here?" i started schwab with those people. people who want to take ownership of their investments, like they do in every other aspect of their lives. >> when i was pregnant, i got more advice than i knew what to do with. what i needed was information i could trust, on how to take care of me and my baby. united healthcare has a simple program that helps moms stay on track with their doctors and get care and guidance they can use before and after the baby is born.

simple is what i need right now. >> that's health in numbers, united healthcare >> supported by the john d. and catherine t. macarthur foundation. committed to building a more just, verdant and peaceful world. more information at macfound.org >> and with the ongoing support of these institutions and... >> this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. >> ifill: russia convened an emergency session of the u.n. security council today to press for an immediate cease-fire in ukraine. the draft proposal also demands a start to peace talks, and the creation of humanitarian

corridors so civilians can safely flee. hours before the u.n. gathering, hundreds of pro-russian rebels attacked a border guard camp in eastern ukraine. amateur video showed flames and heavy black smoke rising from the base at luhansk. at least five rebels were reported killed, but one of their commanders said the battle would continue. >> ( translated ): valeri bulatov, the people's governor of luhansk, gave the government troops an ultimatum and they have time to surrender their weapons and go home from the luhansk people's republic. they refused to do that. that is why we launched special operations against them. >> ifill: later, the separatists said a government air strike killed two people. the military denied it, and blamed the explosion on a rebel rocket that misfired. in libya, at least 20 people were killed in the latest fighting between islamist militants and forces of a renegade general. almost 70 others were wounded in battles in benghazi as helicopter gun-ships attacked the militants' camps.

palestinian president mahmoud abbas swore in a new unity government today. the new cabinet has the support of both fatah, from the west bank, and the islamist militant group hamas, which controls gaza. the two factions have been divided for nearly seven years. israel considers hamas a terrorist organization, and has condemned the unity move. the king of spain, juan carlos, has announced he's abdicating after nearly 40 years in power. he's credited with leading the country from dictatorship to democracy. matt frei of independent television news has our report. >> reporter: "i come to you this morning," he declared, his face bloated by medication. his voice frail beyond his 76 years. "with profound emotion and after deep thought to tell you that it is time for me to step down."

>> he returns spain to the fashest dictator who became his political god father and groomed him to become a successor. (speaking in foreign language) >> reporter: a young and nervous looking juan carlos decided to take spain in a different direction, to democracy. not everyone agreed. in 1981, remnants of the franco regime stormed parliament and tried to strangle democracy. it didn't work. the king stepped in and stopped the coup. it was his finest hour. the one that the cold eye of

history will remember whatever happened later, much later. at home, juan carlos was just as popular until 2012 when a lot of things went wrong all at the same time. the king was caught in flagrante delicto on an elephant hunt in botswana with a german mistress. he had to be flown home after breaking his hip. all this while spain was mired in the deepest recession in living memory. they never really forgave him. his approval ratings plummeted and today's abdication seemed like the honorable way out. what has rescued the monarchy is the man who takes over, crown prince felipe. tall, handsome, competent and married to a journalist. his job will be to preserve spain's brittle unity and heal the wounds of recession. spain's >> ifill: the king said he wants the handover to take place early next year. first, the spanish parliament has to pass a law setting up the legal mechanism for abdication and royal succession. a brutal rape and murder in india sparked new protests by women today in uttar pradesh

state. but police blasted the women with water cannons in a bid to disperse the crowd. the protesters were demanding the state government be dismissed. five suspects have been arrested in the attack and killing of two teen-age girls. their bodies were found hanging from a tree. the justice department today charged a russian man in a hacking operation that stole more than $100 million worldwide. evgenny bogachev allegedly orchestrated a ring that infected thousands of computers with malware to get passwords and account numbers. bogachev is described as one of the world's leading cyber- criminals. he remains at large. the government may be able to force a "new york times" reporter to reveal his sources in a c.i.a. leak case. the supreme court declined today to hear james risen's appeal of a lower court order. his reporting is at the center of criminal charges against jeffrey sterling. the former c.i.a. officer is accused of leaking classified information.

on wall street today, the dow jones industrial average gained 26 points to close at 16,743. the nasdaq fell five points to close at 4,237. and the s-and-p 500 added a point, to finish just under 1,925. still to come on the newshour: mounting questions over the deal that freed an american prisoner of war; the white house plan to cut down on carbon pollution; we talk with e.p.a. head gina mccarthy and a representative of the energy industry; plus, what's at stake as voters head to the polls in iowa and mississippi. >> ifill: it's been two days since the emotional announcement of sergeant bowe bergdahl's release from his taliban captors. criticism of the deal, which includes the transfer of five guantanamo prisoners to qatar, came soon after and is intensifying. jeffrey brown reports. >> brown: sergeant bowe bergdahl

remained today at the u.s. military hospital at landstuhl germany, undergoing evaluation and debriefing after five years in captivity. but questions swirled in washington and in kabul, especially about the five senior taliban leaders swapped for bergdahl. they'd been held at the guantanamo bay prison and were flown to qatar on sunday. the afghan government complained today that it was never consulted. >> ( translated ): the recent release of five afghan citizens in exchange for american army sergeant bowe bergdahl goes against the agreement we have had with the u.s. government and their transfer to the qatar government was not agreed upon by the afghan government. >> brown: the released men are all in their mid-to-late forties. the most senior is khirullah said wali khairkhwa, a founding member of the taliban, former interior minister, and an associate of osama bin laden's; he was handed over to the u.s. by pakistan in 2002. mullah mohammad fazl was the

taliban army chief of staff, he is wanted by the u.n. for possible war crimes against shia afghans prior to 9/11 abdul haq wasiq was taliban deputy minister of intelligence, and helped run the group's alliances with al-qaida and other groups mullah norullah noori was a provincial governor. and mohammad nabi omari was a communications official who helped al qaida members escape to pakistan. qatar has agreed to keep them there, under supervision, for a year. but arizona senator john mccain and other republicans warned of what happens later. >> the big issue here is what's going to happen to these five individuals. if they re-enter the fight, then it is going to put american lives at risk, and none of us want that to happen, not secretary hagel or anybody. there were also questions today about whether the president breached a longstanding protocol against negotiating with terror groups.

white house press secretary jay carney... >> although, as you know, we dealt with the qataris in order to secure his release, it was absolutely the right thing to do because he was a uniformed member of the u.s. military who was in captivity as a prisoner, not as a hostage and so we sought his recovery and succeeded in recovering him. >> brown: meanwhile, the circumstances of bergdahl's capture in june 2009 remain murky. he gave this explanation on a video released by the taliban, shortly after his capture. >> what were you doing? >> i was behind a patrol, i was lagging behind the patrol and was captured. >> brown: men who served in bergdahl's unit say that is untrue. writing today in the "daily beast," former soldier nathan bradley bethea wrote: "there was no patrol that night. bergdahl was relieved from guard duty, and instead of going to sleep, he fled the outpost on foot. he deserted."

>> brown: bethea said several soldiers were killed in the ensuing search. nonetheless, he wrote, he's glad bergdahl was released on his way to afghanistan yesterday, secretary of defense chuck hagel declined to discuss claims that bergdahl had deserted. instead, he said: "other circumstances that may develop, they will be dealt with later" and in his saturday announcement, with bergdahl's parents at his side, president obama focused not on the capture, but the release. >> we also made an iron-clad commitment to bring our prisoners of war home. that's who we are as americans. there is a profound obligation within our military and today, at least in this instance, it's a promise we've been able to keep. >> brown: the white house has acknowledged that in arranging the exchange, it did not give the congressionally-mandated 30- day notice before prisoner transfers from guantanamo. but national security adviser susan rice said sunday, the priority was bergdahl's health.

>> we had reason to be concerned that this was an urgent and an acute situation, that his life could have been at risk. we did not have 30 days to wait. >> brown: the administration has also disputed the requirement of 30-days notice to congress. it argues the mandate infringes on executive branch powers. >> ifill: we pick up on all of this now with vikram singh. he held a number of senior jobs in the defense and state departments focusing on afghanistan and south asia in the obama administration. he's now vice president for national security and international policy at the "center for american progress." and james kirchick is a fellow at the "foreign policy initiative," another non-profit policy organization. welcome to both of you. vikram, to you, is this in the best interest of the united states? >> yes, and most importantly in the best interest of bowe bergdahl and his family. when somebody puts on the uniform to fight for america,

that's a sacred commitment and obligation. our obligation is to look for those people and bring them home. anybody who has a p.o.w./m.i.a. flag should be cheering for bergdahl and their family and their opportunity to be reunited. >> brown: james? i think everybody should be happy he's coming home, but the circumstances of his being captured in the first place are now very much in question. we have many of the men who served with him saying that he deserted. six people died trying to save him and then, in response to that, we gave up five of the most highly valued terrorists in guantanamo bay. these are not low level men we gave back to the taliban. so i think it's a much more ambiguous story. >> brown: and those are the two key issues. start about the fairness of the exchange and the taliban leaders. >> there's a lot that's been made about giving back senior

taliban leaders in afghanistan in exchange for bergdahl. i would say this is a very good deal if you look at what was going to happen with the taliban leaders in any case. this war is ending. this will be the afghan battle to take forward or peace process to look forward, should the taliban decide to reintegrate into afghan society. these are leaders of the former taliban government, the government we went to war with because they harbored al quaida. they were eventually going home home in any case. guantanamo will close, we got an american soldier back and guarantees that will prevent them from going back and fighting against the afghan government. >> brown: there's no worry they may always come back into the fray? >> i think there is always reason to worry when you have people that are enemies of the united states or a part nare that they will do things detrimental to your interest. i just don't think those would

override getting bowe bergdahl home and moving to the conclusion of the afghan war. >> brown: and you. wars don't say they end because you say they end and the president gives a deadline of how to pull the troops out. that's not how the world works. if your enemy wants to keep fighting, the war is still going on. so i'm not so sang win that guantanamo is shut down in two years' time. i think it's possible it could be open indefinitely. >> brown: what about the other issue james brought up at the beginning, the circumstances of his capture. does it matter? >> no, i don't think it matters at all. you put on the uniform, these things happen. we don't know the circumstances or the facts around what happened to bowe bergdahl. we've heard a lot of accusations and things coming out and we'll learn about that in time as he comes back, but i think it's important to focus on getting our men and women in uniform home should they be captured. he was captured, missing in

combat, thought to be captured and it's good we're getting him home. i think it's important that the afghan war come to an end. we achieved the core objective, get core al quaida, get osama bin laden, help the afghan government to function and be stable and build their own society. they've had a successful election, held with us in the background, and it's time for us to trab digs and help them continue going forward. >> brown: what is the larger context? >> i think it matters if someone deserts, then the amount of resources you will expend to get that person back is not the same as if he had been captured fighting in the open. certainly you won't ask young men and women to risk their lives to rescue someone who knowingly left the fight to wander off. i think that should absolutely play the role not only in the amount of force used to return him but also what we were willing to give up. >> brown: do you want to come

back on that? >> i think if and a american soldier is captured, it is unlikely you know the exact circumstances. i think it is extraordinarily risky for people to say somehow we should not have worried about bowe bergdahl because of the way he might have been lost to the taliban. did he stray off from patrol and get captured? did he desert, wander off his post, was he in emotional distress? suffering from dehydration to just excessive stress? i think the first obligation is to get our people back, and then we can figure out what actually happened. >> brown: what about the issue that's been raised about negotiating with the taliban? the administration says it went through using the third party from qatar, but what does it look like to you in terms of how the u.s. conducted itself that way? >> well, the united states has often negotiated with bad guys. we've done that throughout our history. that's not what bothered me as

much as we kept our afghan allies in the dark. they are the ones that will deal with the brunt of this and this was a total surprise to them 57bd not only them but members of kong. the obama administration did completely keep congress in the dark, when he's supposed to give them 30 days' notice. >> brown: but we heard the explanation from susan rice. >> yes, and i don't know if it's a good pattern that the president decide which statutes 4e79s to acknowledge and which ones he wants to ignore. he criticized president bush on that. >> brown: what do you think? i'm sure there's a legal argument that could be made and the administration has protested it. in this case, the keyis issue is you were trying to do a prisoner release and you couldn't afford having it leaked and i think they have a rational reason for the circumstances in this

particular case. >> brown: getting back to the wider consequences we raised about the afghan war coming to an end. -- does this have larger implications? >> i think this is reflective of the obama administration foreign policy which is, one, of retreat, coming back from afghanistan, basically leaving all the responsibilities we have in that country. so we kind of clean up as we move out. so i think it's part of that broader story. >> brown: and last word for you. >> my two last words are, one, losing afghan prisoners we've had so long, we no longer have s

is part of a bigger process and not just a prisoner exchange. >> brown: thank you both very much. >> ifill: from the night he was re-elected, president obama has made clear that cutting greenhouse gas emissions was a centerpiece of his second-term agenda. today, his administration unveiled it's biggest effort yet to tackle the issue of climate change, one loaded with political landmines and plenty of opposition about it's ultimate impact. >> this is not just about disappearing polar bears or melting ice caps, although i like polar bears and know about melting ice. this is about protecting our health and our homes. this is about protecting local economies and jobs.

>> ifill: e.p.a. administrator gina mccarthy laid out the carbon-cutting plan, arguing it's good for both the environment and the economy. the 645-page proposal requires existing coal-powered plants to reduce carbon dioxide emissions 30% overall, by 2030, from 2005 levels. and allows states to meet the target by shifting to wind and solar energy or joining creating regional anti-pollution initiatives. >> this plan is all about flexibility. that's what makes it ambitious, but achievable. that's how we can keep our energy affordable and reliable. >> ifill: some coal-producing states might be allowed extra time to meet the new standards, even until as long as 2018, well after president obama has left office. the president made his case saturday in his weekly radio address, shifting the argument

from science to health. >> we don't have to choose between the health of our economy and the health of our children. the old rules may say we can't protect our environment and promote economic growth at the same time, but in america, we've always used new technology to break the old rules. >> ifill: coal and natural gas plants are responsible for nearly 40% of u.s. carbon dioxide emissions. but those emissions had already dropped nearly 13% since 2005, due in part to increased use of natural gas and more stringent vehicle efficiency standards. but the national association of manufacturers warned today the new rules will threaten american jobs and investments. jay timmons is the group's president. >> so the president's unilateral action could shift production to china and india and that would mean a rise in global greenhouse gas emissions. a better strategy would be to promote policies that support manufacturers in the united

states because we have demonstrated a commitment, a commitment to protecting the environment. >> ifill: and in a statement, house speaker john boehner said: >> ifill: environmental groups generally welcomed the plan, although some said it does not go far enough. at the same time, two west virginia congressmen, democrat nick rahall and republican david mckinley announced they'll introduce legislation to block the e.p.a. from ever putting the plan into effect. >> ifill: e.p.a. administrator gina mccarthy joins me now for the administration view. welcome. >> thank you. >> ifill: so what is the cost here that we're talking about? we've heard a lot of numbers and there are a lot of accusations about the cost in not only electricity bills -- our bills -- but also in jobs. >> well, we paid special attention to both achieving some

significant reductions in harmful carbon pollution in protecting public health, but we also looked at the economic implications, and it's all in the package. we are talking about ala louing creative and -- allowing creative and flexible by building renewable energies, they can look at energy strabltion. ton whole we'll get significant reductions of bashen pollution and other it mr.ents that impact public health. this package can deliver up to $90 billion in benefits by 2030. >> ifill: are you suggesting the jobs that might be lost by plants closing would be gained by the creation of other things, renewables? >> our analysis does show that there's going to be job growth throughout the united states as a result of this package, and it also shows that states have the ability to protect their coal industry, if that's most important to them, and to shift other strategies into the market

that will achieve the carbon reductions we're looking for. >> ifill: your research also shows electricity rates would go up 4 to 6% by, i think it's 2020. is that not -- the prices increasing, is that short-term? >> that is a short-term hit and represents about $4 to $7 on a family's budget every month, but it is very clear that that all depends on what states want to do. so they can look at developing efficiency programs that will reduce and we see that as a most cost effective strategy for most states. so by 2030 we are actually looking at electricity bills for families going down by 8%. there is a short investment opportunity where bills could go up a slight amount, but that's normal fluctuations we see in bills every day and, in the end, you will get a cleaner, more efficient energy industry across the u.s., and that's going to benefit everybody. it's going to benefit public health, it's going to benefit the climate and it's going to

benefit jobs and local economy. >> ifill: if you let states basically do what they can do to adjust dpnding on how much of a carbon footprint they've, how do you hold them accountable? >> we'll treat it as any other rule under the clean air act. they have to submit a plan, track it and if they fall short they have to make it up. we have ways of working with our states. our states in this instance are partners. we're giving them maximum flicksability to design a plan that works for them, for the diverse fuel system, for the direction they want to head in renewables and efficienty, we're allowing them maximum flexibility, knowing they're going to have to come to the digital cable and hopefully that flexibility will allow them to design a plan that's meaningful for them both environmentally and the the economy. we'll work it through. we always do. >> ifill: you've had some success, you're halfway toward the goal. a lot of states say they've done

all the easy stuff to allow the cuts and the hard stuff lies ahead. >> we don't disagree states are in difficult places. in the development of the plan, we looked at we have ristate was, what the diversity of their fuel mix was, how many renewables, what their intent was with renewables, what is the opportunity for efficiency, and we designed individual state goals that we thought were reasonable, but that's the reason for a comment period. we have a 120-day comment period and we'll expect states to comment on that, but we think it's more appropriate for us to set individual state goals that are sensitive to the state's individual circumstance and look for opportunities for reductions which remain in some states you can get more and other states have done a lot, they get credit for that and they don't do quite as much. >> ifill: normally it's all about the science of climate change. this time there seems to be a shift in benefits. we're talking about health and

economic benefits. is that on purpose? >> i think normally when we talk about science, we're talking about just the science and not the actions. now the president is interested in make sure we all go beyond the science, listen to what it says and put that into action. e.p.a.'s rules are all about protecting public health and the environment. climate impacts public health, and you also get reducks in direct pollutants that directly impact public health. this is really beneficial for the health and well being of the american families. >> ifill: we'll talk to a critic in a moment, but what about the environmentalists who say you could have pushed this even more? >> i think we want to be cognizant of the fact this is a clean air act initiative where we're looking at reducing carbon in a reasonable, practical, cost effective way. this is what we've done. this is a long-term strategy that will move us to a better place for clean energy all the way around and a more sustainable, effective and

efficient supply. what's most important is we didn't go outside the boundaries of the clean air act. this is not a climate strategy. this is a significant step forward that actually shows great presidential in the country's leadership so we can have the international discussion to get us to a global solution. >> ifill: you have been traveling the country as this was coming down the track. what do you say to democrats like landrieu in louisiana or allison grimes running in kentucky or virginia, what do you say to the senators from coal states who say you're hurting us? >> i think we need to work through the rule. it's complicated, but we did the best job we could to recognize that coal is in the mix today and it is going to be in the mix almost at the same levels in 2030, but what you're going to see in 2030 is more efficient plants and you will see a lot more fuel diversity with renewables and energy efficiency

investments being made. this on the whole is great for the economy and -- >> ifill: but you don't expect democrats from coal states being willing to make that case? >> i think they should look at it. we gave every state the opportunity to say where they want the investments to happen. some will invest in the coal units to get them more efficient and they'll stay a long time. we see the shift in coal from about 37% of electricity being generated by coal today to 30% to 31% in 2030. that is not a large shift, and we'll have facilities who know where they stand in a carbon constrained world. >world. >> ifill: do you worry the supreme court or congress could shut you down on this? >> the supreme court spoke to us on this issue a number of times and told us it's appropriate and our responsibility to look at carbon in the potential polluting in the clean air act.

it's been asked and answered and we're pretty safe in that regard. congress has the ability to look and speak to tissue. but i'm staying in my lane. this is an act congress passed and gave to the e.p.a. and gave us the responsibility and authority to address pollution that endangers public health. carbon pollution is that. >> ifill: e.p.a. administrator gina mccarthy, thank you very much. >> thank you. >> ifill: we get a dissenting view on all of this, from a leading voice for many of the power companies opposed to this proposal. jeff holmstead represents the electric reliability coordinating council, which is made up of major electric utilities that operate coal- fired power plants. he's a former assistant e.p.a. administrator during president george w. bush's tenure. he's also a lobbyist and partner with the firm of bracewell and giuliani. so what did you think of this plan today? >> well, i think it's important for e.p.a. and the administration to be honest about what this is. it will significantly increase

the cost for u.s. rate payers, for people who have to pay electricity bills. e.p.a.'s argument is, well, the rates will go up but your bills will go down because our program will require you to use less electricity. that is just not very credible and it will be expensive to reduce carbon and the real question is what do we get from that? and the answer is essentially nothing, except for something the president can take credit for politically. >> ifill: assume for a moment this will be more costly. do you see another solution that doesn't involve cost or that you just don't see a problem that needs to be fixed? >> i don't think there's any way to reduce carbon emissions without imposing costs. i think any economist would agree with that. but i think there is reason, and we should be thinking about reducing carbon emissions, but it doesn't make any sense for the united states to disadvantage ourselves unilaterally unless we get other major economies to go along with this, and that's a big problem

with the president's approach, and there's some concern especially in the industrial sector that, as we increase the cost for industries, they will have no choice but to go to places that have lower energy costs. so ultimately we could lose jobs and potentially increase emissions by shifting them to other countries. >> ifill: the administration presents this as a line from more if you feel-efficient cars to other steps toward this. they say this is a natural next step. if it's not, what should it be or should there be any next step? >> it's hard to know if it's the natural next step why they need aan aggressive regulation. if this is the way the world is going there is no reason for the e.p.a. to have a regulation to compel states to do things they don't want to co. >> ifill: i mean the next natural regulatory step. >> but how much cost should be imposed on u.s. rate payers and businesses while economic

competitors continue to use low-cost sources of energy? so i think the approach that i believe in and that i think many analysts do is we really need to look at this as a global problem and it needs to be addressed by working with our economic competitors in china and india, around the rest of the world that are continuing to build new coal fired power plants because that's the lowest cost electricity. >> ifill: and the argument is u.s. should be the one leading the countries around the world and they will follow. >> i've never seen an example where that worked. if you look at the history of the international environmental agreements or other international agreements, i can't think of a case where somebody dade, okay, we are going to disadvantage ourselves, please come along and do the same thing. the way it always worked is the united states sits down with other countries, we figure out collectively what we should all do at the same time and then we do it. but it doesn't make any sense environmentally for us to do this unless other countries are

willing to do the same thing. >> administrator mccarthy says when you do something like this you spur new technology and innovation and, in fact, provide the kind of certainty that a lot of businesses say they long for. >> businesses certainly do want certainty, but they don't want necessarily a very costly expensive certainty. and that's one of the big problems with the regulatory approach. i have a great deal of respect for administrator mccarthy and i think she would acknowledge that there's enormous uncertainty here, what e.p.a. is doing stretches the clean air act beyond what it ever accomplished before, so this creates a lot of uncertainty for people because the whole system is untested and untried. and the way to get uncertainty is to come together politically and have congress decide on a way forward that can be mandated in statute and that's the way we would have certainty here. >> ifill: can you manage

congress coming together on something like this? >> i think it's hard in this congress with this president. i think there is an opportunity for people to come together and develop a system going forward, but i do think it would have to include the rest of the world as well because as i said several times, this is truly a global issue. what e.p.a. proposed today will essentially do nothing to address global climate change except symbolically. >> ifill: speaking of symbols, why do you thinthe administration focused so heavily today on health concerns, asthma, children and focusing so much on those issues? >> i think they believe that doing things to address climate change is not a very high priority politically, so they emphasize these other things that, in fact, the rule won't do. these other pollutantents that administrator mccarthy refers to are already subject to many other regulatory programs. e.p.a. by law sets standards that, by law, are required to

protect everyone, even the most sensitive people. so to somehow say that this will add to that is just nonsensical. there are other programs that deal with those issues. >> ifill: well, e.p.a. is empowered to set the law and, in fact, that's what the supreme court said they ought to do, so they're doing it, but you still have a problem with that? >> well, i agree that epi-- e.p.a. has authority under the clean air act to regulate carbon emissions, i don't think there is a question about that after the supreme court has spoken. but the they they've done it here is to require all 50 states to come up with cap and trade program. the e.p.a. says, well, states can do it in any way they want to, but if you look at e.p.a.'s analysis -- >> they didn't say all states have to do it. >> all states have to have their own program or be a part of a regional cap and trade program. that's the only way to accomplish the reductions. the idea that the e.p.a. would

mandate something by regulation that's axe i been rejected by the u.s. congress is troubling and unconstitutional. >> ifill: you don't think there's a way of allowing certain states with a bigger carbon footprint to meet these goals in different ways than others? >> i do think there is some flexibility allowed into the clean air act. e.p.a. has emphasized flexibility while not paying attention the ultimate goals. flexibility in reaching an aggressive goal is enormously expensive and i don't think e.p.a. can do that. >> ifill: how does someone at home make sense of the numbers and know what to believe? >> i think it's hard. i think most people are skeptical when the e.p.a. says here's this regulation that will save you money by incliew creasing your electricity rate, we'll bring down your power bills by making you use less electricity. i think people are skeptical of that. i think as a party of add

government the idea that e.p.a. would discover the new authority in the clean air act to mandate a cap and trade program or carbon tax is not:assistant with the way our government normally works. >> jeff holmstead of the electric reliability coordinating council. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> ifill: we'll be back with a preview of tomorrow's primaries with political editor domenico montanaro, but first, it's pledge week on p.b.s. this break allows your public television station to ask for your support.

>> ifill: we turn to politics now, with a preview of two of tomorrow's closely watched primaries. voters will be heading to the polls in eight states.

among them mississippi and iowa, where republicans are battling for their party's nomination. joining us to look at these latest midterm tests, is newshour political editor domenico montanaro. okay. march us through it again, domenico, starting in mississippi, thad cochran, member of the senate, well known, pop marks in a tight fight. >> that may be the reason. first and foremost, the white hair, somebody who's been around 40 years in congress, the second most senior republican in the senate and that's part of the problem. he spent as many years in congress as his opponent is old. he's 42, running against them, been in there in congress the same amount of time. a lot of conservatives don't like the vote thad has taken by mostly it's an issue of style. he's about bringing home the bacon and also working with democrats. part of the old structure of the senate, the club, everybody gets

along being civil. they want somebody who's more of a lighter and state senator chris mcdaniel who runs against him provides that. >> ifill: he's 76. yes. >> ifill: how is chris mcdaniel making this work? >> he's a state senator but also outspoken conservative radio talk show host in the state who said a lot of controversial things. this is one of the things where republican establishment types in washington are a little worried. again, picked up steam in the last couple of weeks. if he were to win, they are equating him to a possible todd akin like in the last election cycle.

the democrats has childers, correction congressman running there. the republican members are going to have to wind up answering for some of mcdaniel's past statements. >> let's talk about mcdaniels, he's not had an unblemished campaign. >> that's true and the big scandal that happened in the state is four mcdaniel supporters were arrested for illegally taking pictures allegedly of cochran's wife who was bed ridden in the nursing home and has been there for years. they say he should be more by her side and he lives in virginia and washington, d.c. instead of being home with his wife. a lot of people didn't think that went over so well. a lot of people thought that would be the final thing for cochran to win but polls have shown a tighter race. >> ifill: in iowa, joni ernst.

she picked up steam mostly because of an ad she's running this time around. >> ifill: we have a little bit of it. >> i'm joni ernst, i grew up castrating hogs on an iowa farm so when i get to washington, i'll know how to cut pork. washington is full of big spenders, let's make them squeal. >> ifill: i just don't know what to say to that. >> nobody knew who she was, frankly, before this, mark jacobs is a wealthy businessman. republicans in d.c. loved him because he could fund his own campaign. joni knocks it to the top with this ad. she's 30% of gold standard polls in iowa, 18 for jacobs. 35% is what the candidate has to have to move past nomination. if she doesn't clear 36%, it would go to a state convention

where 2,000 activists would pick the nominee, so forget the campaign and the millions spent, it would come down to the activists. >> ifill: harper appeal is her appeal to people with national figures in the party. sarah palin, when she endorsed joni ernst, that's the first time i heard her name. >> when someone looks like a winner, everybody gets on board. >> ifill: mitt romney is there. >> she's one of the rare who has tea party support and the chamber of commerce. >> ifill: there's democrat in this. >> bruce. this is open because tom harkin is retiring, one of the architects of president obama's healthcare law, he's leaving the senate and bruce bray who is a congressman from the state and also a former trial lawyer, he's favored by a few points, but a

lot of people are saying ernst could bring some of the energy to the race that could make it difficult for brailey to run against someone like her. senator chuck grassley, the other iowa senator, a farmer who would chair the judiciary ricommittee, what does he know? well, here comes ernst with her let's make them squeal add. >> ifill: "just a farmer" isn't considered to be an insult. >> no, it isn't. >> ifill: thank you. >> ifill: again, the major developments of the day. president obama faced growing criticism over trading five top taliban inmates at guantanamo for the weekend release of army sergeant bowe bergdahl. the administration rolled out a major effort to cut carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. some coal-state lawmakers and

industry groups said they'd try to block the plan. and the seattle city council passed a measure that would phase in a $15 minimum wage, the highest in the nation. on the newshour online right now, should government ban the use of food stamps for sugary drinks? researchers at stanford have found that could reduce cases of type-two diabetes and obesity. read about the report, which was published today in health affairs, on our health page. all that and more is on our web site, newshour.pbs.org. and again, to our honor roll of american service personnel killed in the afghanistan conflict. we add them as their deaths are made official and photographs become available. here, in silence, is one more. and that's the newshour for tonight. i'm gwen ifill. we'll see you on-line and again

here tomorrow evening, with a look at the politics of coal. for all of us here at the pbs newshour, thank you and good night. >> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: ♪ ♪ moving our economy for 160 years. bnsf, the engine that connects us.

>> united healthcare-- online at uhc.com. >> and with the ongoing support of these institutions and... >> this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. captioning sponsored by macneil/lehrer productions captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org

this is "nightly business report." fuelling the firestorm the white house unveils an ambitious plan to slash power plant solutions. the controversial new regulations could have a big impact on companies and consumers. in the spotlight, apple unveils new features for its 60 product, iphones, ipads and macs, but were investors proud neighborhood, showing promise, investigating the new cancer treatments and the companies getting to work them to market. we have all that and more tonight on "nightly business report" for monday, june 2nd. >> good evening, welcome. not everyone believes in global warming or climate change, if it exists, is largely caused by