constitutional avoidance and therefore avoiding the whole le monde delegation problem. the answer to that from the supreme court is no. that is the epitome of the violation of the non-delegation doctrine and you have so much power to begin with. what justice scalia does say is permissible and in fact is necessary. as i read it is to read the statute as a whole rather than just a language that sounds really ambiguous. >> all 1300 pages? >> all 1300 pages. that is real work but somebody has to do it. and then to see if the statute written as a whole provides barbour framework that limits the power of use. >> okay, well gillian you said something that really made my ears pop up, which was he mentioned that in this mix of institutional reformation and creation, there was her role for the states in regulating and one of the hot issues that we are dealing with every day, whether

it has to do with commerce or with a state of arizona is the question of preemption. hour.

[applause] >> this is wonderful. this is the 48 anniversary of the epa, and we are kicking off

the epa, the environmental protection agency, taking a week to talk about how it is one of the greatest movements in american history which is the environmental protection movement itself. lisa jackson happens to be a long time and your friend, if i may say, who grew up in new orleans to get there. she is a graduate of tulane, an engineering, chemical engineering graduate of tulane, went off to -- >> go great way. >> yes, and a graduate school in new jersey and among other things, besides being the head of the epa, president obama has asked you to work with all of the people in the gulf south about how to restore the coast line after the bp problem so your political skill as well as your engineering skill. it is a great pleasure to have you. thanks for coming, lisa.

>> thanks for all of you guys have done to begin the celebration. >> you have a full week. spec with the employees will be at the epa on their stand we are having an open house in fighting some local kids would that be used for the employees to reflect on what the agency is able to do and then friday we will be at harvard university. >> and you are leaving after this. a busy week. the epa started four years ago -- 40 years ago. maybe you can start with clean air and clean water many forget that 40 years ago it was really smoggy and if he went fishing in the louisianan it was a mess, and the rivers in the water was a mess, so that would be i will say we have this brochure which everybody will see which is the

sort of the ten most important things the epa did, so maybe that is the first and most important, right? >> i think that's right. it's back to basics in that respect. i would like to think anyone in the room had anything to do with that work. 40 years and ten significant things epa has been a part of for the american people, and we do, we forget that the cuyahoga river burned, and i'm sure you remember, we go down to places like the gulf border and it didn't look like water because there really weren't any restrictions on what you could dump in the water. we were using our waterways as disposal. and it was the epa and more important the federal clean water act the change all that when it comes to cities, the expert all the way west to los

angeles. while we still have significant air quality problems, we've made enormous progress and we've got into the point now where we don't see the pollution as often as we do -- we did, and in some ways that make so our job a little bit harder because it is pollution that is less easy to photograph and get people riled up about. >> i think it's actually interesting for us to think we don't think the world is getting that much better, the world has got an enormously better in 40 years when it comes to clean air and clean water, right? >> absolutely. we now have a pretty rigorous -- and i can tell you a world program for control of water pollution, our challenge is to the on water or from runoff, from what we call the pollution what happens when it rains, when the rain water runs through the cities and fields and rural areas and all the rain water picks up sediments and loads the rivers that way.

the big problem, as you know in the gulf of mexico, we end up with zones the verso full of nutrients and fertilizer and waste, that they actually become low on oxygen and become did sones. speaking of the low oxygen levels because of fertilizers and pesticides and other things, that 40 years ago when of a great week of calls for the environmental movement, correct me if i'm wrong, is rachel carson's bouck. gdp was up there is one of the great actors, is the right? >> that's right. the first administrator decided it was time to billion ddp after looking at numerous studies and inspired certainly greatly by rachel carson's book called silent spring at the effect of the pesticide on the numerous types of bugs including the louisiana [inaudible] , absolutely, and you know, we

take for granted the fact those birds, including the bald eagle are back because of the decision to ban every use of ddp in this country. >> pelicans are all over the place and you see eagles now, whether from alaska to the rocky mountain west. how much of that resurgence, eagles and the great birds, comes from banning ddp? >> certainly a large part of it. i don't think i can and attach a number. there was a lot of biologists. it has to do with habitat preservation as well as making sure ddt was down. it was affecting the reproductive cycle of the birds, so even if you didn't have the habitat you would have seen the problem and the populations we think it is both, but i don't think you could see the resurgence without ddt petraeus mix of the habitat preservation,

you are involved in the coastline, the gulf coast generally. how is that affecting every person on the gulf coast? how was it not just a pelican issue? >> first i would say it affects every person in the country. i really do believe that. i think most people, whether you've lived there or not, we watched the bp still, and it gave a real understanding of how many people in that region me to live in some way from the gulf whether it's the tourism or whether its fishing there is an extraordinary fishing industry. most people know of louisiana's license plate says -- >> will we from cuba to galveston you have fishing in sports fishing and commercial fishing almost intertwined. >> absolutely. and duck hunting and birdwatching. but then it becomes even broader than that. you know, literally one of the things i kept coming back to when i was down during this bill

is how much of that theory is really intertwined with the resource that is the gulf? and we take it for granted. whether it is a variety of species, whether it is used in culture based on the seafood and it's part of what people come to the region to see, and it is no less a treasured and say our great lakes and great ocean. >> so how can we put the script so to speak and get the bp oil spill -- how can we find a silver lining and use several of what we learned and some of the money that will be coming from those funds in order to restore the coast land for all of america? >> well, i feel we have to follow a couple of weak points. first is if we know that the polling shows people in that region in the country, and people in general believe overwhelming feel that there needs to be an effort to restore the coast, to restore the gulf coast and the gulf coast ecosystem. that is incredible to take out

of the tragedy the believe that what we owe back is a better golf, and then we have the president from the oval office saying exactly that. but ultimately what his vision was is the tragedy would turn into a better goals, better than it was the day before the explosion of the mcconnell bill will. and then we take that and combine that with efforts we see now in capitol hill and in different states to take the money from the fines beebee will pay for the queen moderate violation back to the cold water act again and put back into the coastal restoration's and letting all of those things together combined with the people of the gulf coast region who are saying this is what will ultimately provide to move the process forward. >> i hate to get off topic but use it to make the gulf better than it was before this bill and it reminds me a little bit of katrina, which is your

neighborhood which is let's rebuild but make things better than it was before. do you think there has been a silver lining in some ways with every tragedy we said years how we can make things better? what's happened environmentally because of katrina and bp that we've learned from? >> i.t. it's one of the extraordinary outcomes of the horrors of katrina and rita where an entire coastline of people turn back to the coast and evaluate again and were reminded that a person who lives in new orleans has a connection to the wetlands that is just as strong as a person who shrimps there and that is important when a city person makes a connection to natural environment and ecosystem and says without the ecosystem i don't have flood protection, without the ecosystem i don't have protection from pollution, i don't have resilience in case of

sea level rise. those connections have been made and were live tv to organic level and other is whether it's education or housing or energy efficiency and i think that has happened all along the coast and that is truly american. that is an american ethic to take something that happened and say okay, now that we have experienced this horrible tragedy, what comes out of it should make us stronger as the people. and i think that's where we stand on the environmental side as well. >> yeah, coming out of that it's interesting that the environmental movement, whether republican or democrat, whether it was bill reilly and roel house and the early republican administrators for the democratic one, sometimes it is perceived as an elite movement and yet environmental justice, this notion that there's a connection between the person on the lower ninth quarter and the person who wants coastal restoration can be a good thing to come out of the in front of

movement. the notion that we are all in this together. how is environmental justice or the notion of environmentally call the help and for the work of the epa? >> with its very proud of the fact that it was one of the places that notion from the home in the federal government as we look across the history of environmental justice movement that is clearly where it started. we didn't start with in the epa or the government will body. it was people saying i want clean water, too. there were studies done by united church of christ and others that said hey, you know, we can demonstrate statistically that certain neighborhoods, if they are poor and minority have more pollution in them and that's causing problems in that neighborhood. what epa did is take that concept and help institutionalize it in an office of environmental justice. there are tremendous challenges ahead, and one of the things -- you know, my dad was a postal

man, a mail carrier and c2 people we really do have an obligation now to use the moment where to reach out to every person in america and say this isn't about whether you have a home with a beautiful view, this isn't about whether you can afford a waterside home, whether it is on the gulf coast and new jersey or new york or whether it's on the beach somewhere, work with your you just want to make sure that the air your child leaves wherever you live is clean and but you're not missing days of work and he or she isn't missing days of school because of asthma. or maybe you're concerned about water quality. whatever your issue is, if you breathe and drink water coming clean about eight -- care about it when firemen and is one of the blessings in the country we can almost take for granted. >> how does the community have a right to know concept of into that? >> that's all about transparency. when people less me about what i think is the strongest law i see the community right to know act

because all the other laws leather is the clean water act or the clean air act are in power by the right to know, why americans ability to find out where pollution might be minted in their neighborhoods were what concerns there or whether they're is i want to buy a house, what's your my child's school or place of warship. whatever it is you can find it on line, and i just got back from china, and one of the things, the thing i know the most proud of is they are just beginning to do what they call air now international which is based on our monitoring here. people have the right to know what is being emitted in their neighborhood, and once people know that inspires them to action, so helps us do our job. >> what other things to you look back at in 40 years and think is important and what we are going to be doing for the next? >> i think we have to realize we have a system of environmental governance in this country that

is indeed around the world, certainly in developing countries but often times in the developed countries. it is a system that says yes, we want prosperity and economic prosperity and growth, but we also expect that doesn't come at the expense of clean air, doesn't come at the expense of clean water. the toxic chemicals are going to be evaluated and the are not in to end of the products until we know like the pesticides that are actually crucial to the rapid growth are protected and demonstrated and controlled in their use and the residue that is on our food, all those things we take for granted. and i think for us, the government, the structure of government, the believe that you need an independent regulator, somebody not beholden to anybody except congress and the president, because i'm actually be holding to both, those things are very, very important. in this country, americans feel as though it's not possible for

the private-sector to control our natural resources. >> i know so many people here have been involved in the movement. why don't we open it up for discussion or comments, questions? i hate to think that people involved in the environmental movement are far shyer than those in middle east politics which when we talk about the middle east people jump up right away like a rhetorical question. jason. >> nice to see you, madam administrator. so over the four years of the epa's life the relationship between the agency and congress has gone through a curse of affection and in some cases kind about right hostility. and i think as we see the broad partisanship and the anger that is part of our congressional discussion right now, a lot of it is being directed towards the epa, and i know you work hard to convince congress the agency is working for everybody so what idea this the administration

have to try to make environmental stewardship in a bipartisan part of a work subculture? >> let me give a shout all, jason is a part of the by partisan sensor and among other things do this wonderful project release on issue after issue of bipartisan policy center really does find common ground and environment a specialty. >> indeed. well, you know, first, things for giving me a chance on something i truly believe, that the environment isn't a bipartisan issue, that it shouldn't be. it doesn't matter the color of the state or the community, red or blue, people care about the environment. some people call with conservation, some people call it opened states, where some pla says it is all about a year and water, it depends on the issues you face in your community. i have a couple thoughts. first, this comes back to public

health care and it's important for the epa to base decisions on the best science, to be in concert with the law. and so, we gain our credibility by being able to show people that we are open to getting and using the the best science, that our books are open and we try to do things to come to the increase transparency. that isn't new to me, that started with the first fishable memos from oracle house when he returned to the epa. so i think transparency is an important thing and the american people will get a were agency. the second is to be able to correlate anything we do back to public health or ecological health and talk about something like the gulf coast, where we may not be able to demonstrate lives lost when you choose the ecosystem but certainly demonstrate what you've done to an entire region and the country and the spectrum of our economy. and i also think that one of the things that always in the and

helps the epa is to be community-focused. we have ten offices around the country, and the work of environmental protection happens there. we make grand policies here and pass extraordinary laws that we're the rubber meets the road is in the regional offices of the state. the work in the communities that raises their hand and says i'm worried about a problem in my community. and every member of congress, have stepped on my desk every day letters that come from congress asking me to help with a problem in their community and that is where we try to find the ground. whether it is the middle or not, we find common ground where we work to address that. >> good. >> good morning. nrdc and former epa alumni. >> that's an understatement. >> i have never left in my

heart. this is a fought similar to jason's question. one of the dates this year and started last year is the role of the federal government, and ensure it has occurred to you that this is an issue where the epa ought to be doubled to win this argument by pointing out what the epa has actually done to deliver to the public benefits that could not happen without an active program. my question relates to the use of television, because like it or not, most americans get their information from television. and so i wonder if there are thoughts you have about using television, getting on and basically making this issue of what the epa has done for the public almost unavoidable both in cable and broadcast and public broadcasting, you know, in the year and two years ahead.

>> thanks, david. it's a great question. i think we have to be very careful about appropriations. we don't really have a budget. unlike the military, where you have money where we can go out and recruit or tell people one of our work. we certainly are proud of not what epa is perce. i'm very proud of epa and the people who work there. extraordinarily talented people. you know, the highest rate of scientists and engineers in the government i would say argue except for maybe nasa but we have an incredibly talented workforce and lawyers, too, by the way. [laughter] because i see a lot of you all out there. [laughter] but and i feel we do need to tell the story in ways that this country can be very proud of. there's an interesting poll recently. they asked americans who do you think -- what should government have a role in? and when it came to protecting the environment, there were all

kind of answers about other things. 95% of americans say government should have a role in protecting the environment. 50% of americans said government should be the only protector of environment, indicating a lack of trust, if you will come in the private sector, not because the private sector is bad. the private sector is us, it? but because the private sector is motivated by profit and oftentimes without regulatory restrictions, there is no -- there is no guidelines, there is no post, and so you get what you see in some developing countries right now, which is decreasing levels of air quality and water quality that in general hurt the country. so yes, we have felt a lot about it if we had a budget. we do have an environmental and education foundation that has been doing a lot of work to raise americans' awareness on various issues. but around the 40 years and as we start planning for 50 and the next administrator i think there

is really an opportunity to remind americans, especially young americans of what we take for granted which is the rule of the government, not just the federal but and but certainly the epa. we are proud of a seminal role in protecting public health and insuring air quality and water quality and clean land for americans. >> right behind you. yes, you first and then right in front of you. >> al qaim gordon, i was a staffer for four years. the challenge of the nonpoint source religion. you're engaged in sitting particles for the chesapeake bay and there are holes coming from the farmers and the real-estate and home builders. what is your thinking how to go forward in tackling these? what is the path forward? >> great question. the path forward is going to be multiple paths, but they are past the end. the agricultural community needs clean water.

the country and the community want clean water, and i think over and over again clean water often pose is like the number one environmental issue for americans. so there is the impetus to do it. the problem is all of those sectors are worried about cost and how to roll out the cost. what's going to have to happen is just constant high level on the ground work, which may have been in chesapeake, is showing states by partnering with them how the programs are already implementing through their own state agricultural departments and others if they are implemented in a way they can be influenced, and where you can demonstrate that you're really doing it, whether it is a cover crop planting or voluntary buffers can have a real impact. and i think that that's hard work because it's on the ground work. it would be much easier to pass a regulation and say now you must do it, but it's not

enforceable. so what we are trying to do it chesapeake is learn some lessons there and work with other states in a fairly well publicized discussion about how to deal with nutrients in florida. we have a stake in wisconsin that's trying to step up folks in iowa who are trying to step up police is in the mississippi watershed. it's we to be that kind of work, over and over showing people where it can happen, and it's going to take time. but i think it's extremely important work because the other side of that is where we have leaks -- i want in the states because the government did mad -- close because we see over and over again and not just recreation and drinking water supplies that were severely impacted, not just because it's coming out of the pipe but because what happens when it rains and that is going to take a lot of time because it is going to require americans to change their habits, and it's easier to worry about the pipe and ourselves. >> right in front of you.

yes, right there. >> greetings from kent gaddy and amy goldsmith new jersey, environmental federation. my name is paul schwartz in d.c. with clean water action. you made a bold statement about one of the three's that we have had, which is a lot of cleanup of direct discharges of pollutants, and yet 85% of the people in the united states live in cities and towns with collapsing water infrastructure, as we have a nineteenth-century platform and 20th century science that is incapable of meeting 21st century challenges. a really stark example of that is on keep caught where only 15% of the population is a sewer and we have phalanx septicsv and a

lawsuit filed by the epa and the question is what is happening on the cape is de russia on a 3 billion to 8 billion per household to the cape, and arguably we are not solving the problems the folks on the cape have. is there a way that the epa can encourage and to a leadership role of encouraging signs based adaptive management, demonstration projects and pilot projects, and really look any more holistic and integrated way in water planning and in natural resource planning advancement and get better benefits for less cost? >> that's a great question. >> first, but keep is a beautiful place, it's very special.

but that story is happening all over the country. certainly new jersey, where i was before i came here. huge areas where the septic system detailing wouldn't be under the world but now you have more and more homes with more and more septics put their sometimes i hate to say to avoid rules that come with putting in sanitary sewers, so people within septics because they didn't want to deal with trying to get discharge permits for using sewers. if you put your finger on one of the solutions. there's a couple solutions. if you have to go out that problem from various ways. the first you can't ignore the fact that these combined -- the combined influence of the skeptics is having a huge impact on water quality of there. and the cape is such a special place. a wonderful place is that if you don't address it you were going to see the degradation of the ecosystem of the quality-of-life that may be a really tragic.

so you have to look at it as a regulator and say okay, there is a whole pipe but there is a sector of the pipe of pollution that is from this upticks, how best to deal with them and i agree with you. the problem is going back to the old days of re-engineering and sewer system from scratch and the flood area is incredibly expensive and holistically just on from global. people don't want to deal with the roads dugout. they did that in boston once. and we have to look at green infrastructure to the extent we can. green infrastructure i've said over and over again as one of the sort of transformational innovations that i think this country is coming to a leadership role. anything around water green infrastructure, the idea that wherever you can use doctors, you use individual septics but try to make sure they are effective. and you also use engineering to determine there are areas you can't have the into the and if you were over a kent septics tht

might be a good deal to look at the regional solution, not maybe a full sue were systems solution to the i don't want to see more about cape cod because i'm probably speaking out of ignorance, but the picture is broader than that. there might be some places they have to put in sewers or some other places where opportunities exist, but it does give me a chance to give a shout out to the green infrastructure on the waterside because we at the epa are looking at is one of the places we think the epa in ten years that might be on our list, this idea that -- mary landrieu is a lot of this, too, thinking about water and how to manage water in a way that's actually beneficial, rather than sort of something to be treated and gotten rid of. it's a cycle. the same waters on the earth that was on the earth when it was formed pretty much, as we have to think about water that may ..

i could not make it without him. who else is here? larry ellsworth, cynthia. there is a bunch. [laughter] so that is why they are all looking very happily. >> yes, back there. >> you evan very eloquent in your conversations. [inaudible]

the balance between public housing and all of the political decisions that have to be made and then the challenge, the balance between policy and political decision-making, because of the basics of the clean air act being protecting public health at the core value. it is and always shared in the same or seen the same way that i think we see it and that i think you have described that you see it. i would like you to talk a little bit how that ellen says, maybe you see more differences or understand the complexity of that letter and i also want to make sure that i ask about if -- will be out by december 31? >> well you know, thank you janice. good to see you and thank you for your hard work of the american lung is facing -- lung

association and the benefits of good air quality. every year the white house does a study of all the rules of the federal government has put out that year and they do it on the cross benefit basis. what most people don't know and you certainly wouldn't know if you read some of the rhetoric that is coming out in this town is that every year the benefits of rules greatly exceed the cost of rules and the agency that usually is the turning point in that analysis is epa. and a law that is usually the reason for that is the clean air act. the clean air act historically has the rules under the clean air act benefits the cost. that helps benefits so yes the private sector generally. there is another study coming out that shows it closer to 321 recently, so 30 to one. everybody almost always hands

down in terms of cost and benefits and the clean air act is absolutely bar none the strongest of the laws in terms of costs and benefits because it is so easy to look at something like articulate and so didn't realize those are -- doubts. not sicknesses, does. people die. a look at mercury and realize that is a neurotoxin and it is persistent and once emitted is there forever. or relook at smog and ozone and realize the impact on asthma, sick days on hospitalization all those costs avoided and there is a great body of literature out there about those. you now i remain committed to making very clear again back to jason's point is well that those public health benefits are for all americans regardless of where you live. we are seeing areas of our country now but have levels of those on that are unhealthy even by the outdated standards that we are looking to mend and they are very -- because air doesn't

respect boundaries and air disrespect geographic issues like mountains that pull air in, so we need to be honest and sort of have a square shoulder conversation with the american people about where we still have challenges under the clean air act but i don't think you can do that without acknowledging how far we have, and the cost benefits associated with that and yes we are still working hard on the ozone standard for the industry. >> right behind you. >> good morning. jen peterson environmental integrity project. administrator jackson you have made environmental quality one of your top issues, and i know that epa has issued recent guidance or preliminary guidance about consideration of social justice and environmental justice issues in major rulemaking, but we can have the most beautiful environmental laws and if you don't have strong permits -- permits and

enforcement we really aren't addressing the heart of the inequality and pollution issues in certain communities and i'm wondering what the epa plans or if epa has plans to address social justice and environmental justice issues, cumulative effects in the permitting context? >> thanks. the answer is yes but there are a couple of things to remember. 90% or so of permits are issued by states, not epa and they are issued by state to operate programs under the same laws that i was talking about before so a state might have its own clean air act but it is basically in place to help implement the federal clean air act or the federal clean water act in the case of water. so i think it is the challenge of environmental justice, i prefer environmental justice as a way to talk about it because the challenge of that movement is to find a way within first

the regulatory process which i think epa worked really hard on in the last two years to think about and frame those issues so that they are considered when you are putting a rule together. too often our rules in the past, you know what? it will make the air cleaner so everybody benefits but doesn't consider a community that might already be overburdened. very tough analyses to do but very important to at least consider and i think we are in good shape there for putting the agency on a path to systematically do that. in the permitting process, that will be harder but not unheard of and actually some states have been leaders in thinking about it and what we need to do is show people that when an environmental justice issue comes up in the permitting context, doesn't mean there will be no permits. it doesn't mean this cannot happen because oftentimes the community of course once the economic development but all it is asking is that economic development not come at the expense of public health.

we have seen some lovely examples of places where mitigation or additional consideration of that community, everybody wins and i think we need to try to change the environmental justice framework with absolute respect for a lot of the attorneys who got us to the point where environmental justice did mean i've got to stop this project at all costs. it is that bad. now i think we need to build with industry who understand and want to be good corporate neighborhoods and examples of how environmental ustice can bring good things into community and that is going to be harder but i think we can do it. so yes we can do that work and should do it. we will have to do in conjunction with the states and i think that is where you want to find leaders and lead them where they are. >> yes, this row here starting with you. that way we can get the microphone to move move back and forth. >> good morning administrator jackson, nice to see you here. i am richard ayers and although i've never been at epa, as a

staff member i have been at epa for a very long time. i wanted to pick up on something that you commented on earlier because i brought it up to your predecessor who needed to hear it much more. the cost-benefit ratio of the clean air act is often cited and rightfully so as justifying the program, but there is an implication in the 321 or 15 to one that rarely seems to be picked up, which is that we are not doing enough. we are under investing in clean air. we would get to the economist perfect equilibrium if we invested 1 dollar for every dollar we got back, not one for every 15, so as issues come up, for example the likely campaign that you are probably already feeling of all the old power

plants coming in to tell you once again we need another 10 years. i would think this would be an argument that you might want to make within the white house and other executive branch agencies and i just wanted to kind of point that out to you. >> thanks. well, you know, think that is a great point. i would also say that you heard i am an engineer by training. the reason it is one to 15 are one to 30 is because of technological innovation that happens in this country because of an entire industry whether it is dealt around scrubbers or particular to elders or cleaner cars, anybody seen the new gm commercials? they are very cool. all of these industries whose based on innovations that came to be only because it was the epa setting regulations that said we want to be here. here is our vision for air quality. here is our vision for what cars should and me may he met and

then as an issue that, quickly and oftentimes much more quickly than the doomsday folks would have you believe, innovation exit much much cheaper to get there than anyone ever thought. that is absolutely the history of not only the clean air act that the clean water act as well and that is what people need to understand, that these aren't high in the sky numbers that are thrown out there willy-nilly. they are numbers that are developing in conjunction with a pollution control industry, the sector because we can get there. one of the beauties of the clean air act is you now under the emissions, the carcinogen standards, and is based on what industry demonstrates he can do itself so it rewards the folks who rushed to the tap and say everybody else you need to get there too because we wanted to be fair for this industry that stepped up and control their mercury. you need to control your stem that her go so i will do that

but i will say i don't think that number will change because i think no matter what we set out to do from the standpoint of the regulatory standard, the engineers and a technologist and the scientist always beat our expectations and then they sell those projects, not just here but around the world. >> david farmer report. two years ago, the administration was talking about passing on climate change bill with a cap-and-trade program and now it seems like perhaps the most likely measure to move forward is something to suspend your authority over greenhouse gases for two years. so my question is, what is the way forward for you and for epa and for the administration on greenhouse gas emissions? >> well, they way forward is that we are going to continue to do what i started to say two

years ago, which is that we are going to use the clean air act as we were ordered to do by the u.s. supreme court, to make determinations first on whether greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health and welfare. we believe they do and that is the determination we made and then to implement sensible, common sense, stepwise, many cases moderate rules that together add up to measurable reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. they also added to measurable reductions in other pollutants as well so we are going to continue that work. obviously if the law changes the first thing we do is to follow the law. so if we are not able to do that under law, then we are not going to try to not do that. we are going to do with what the law says, but i think you know the president has called for moving the pieces of the agenda that makes sense. and i think one of the things that is missing is overwhelmingly americans believe

that clean energy is a factor we should be investing in. they do look at the world at large and see tremendous opportunity. in general, businesses know that if you can get your energy sector right, keep bringing the cost of energy down, not have it skyrocket that is a huge competitive advantage for us here in this country. so all those opportunities are still right where they were. they are not being discussed in the legislative context. my hope is that over time the country will turn back and say legislation again but in the meantime we will continue to do what we have been doing, whether it is the clean cars program which was widely embraced, so much so that we are going to do another clean cars program. the clean trucks program which was as poor by the trucking industry so they could have a set of rules so they could make their next generations of trucks and not have to worry that at some point in the future the rules would change on them. regulatory certainty is what i hear over and over again that businesses need, and right now

legislative certainty would have been great. we will try to keep moving forward with regulation, and business rightfully points out that oftentimes those regulations are subject to litigation but that has been part of epa's 40 year history as well. yes, sir. >> bill blake markham abc news. could you expand on that a little bit further? there is a certain amount of confusion apparently still the public's mind about emissions that are clean as opposed to those that are invisible because greenhouse gas is by definition invisible. could you talk in a slightly larger sense about the degree to which you feel that epa and our governmental system really is the place for global warming to be confronted, or maybe above what you hope might happen in a years time. >> goodness. well, first let me say i don't want to leave the impression that epa is the only place where greenhouse gas emissions can be

addressed. i think investment from the department of energy have been very important. i think a unified government approach, for example the department of transportation as they look at the next generation of the transportation investments in infrastructure and the transportation bill will be very important along with congress in addition to the work and investments they have already made under the stimulus act. what i'm saying is that the clean air act has a wonderful history of being able to address pollutants in a cost effective way, right? in a way that is positive from a cost-benefit if you look at it through that lens, either right or wrong. it also is extremely popular because of its ability to deal with pollution. that worries americans greatly. and so all i am saying and i don't have the answer here, is that it is a law that has a proven history of being able to work in a way that doesn't upset

the entire economic applecart, that doesn't cause armageddon, that doesn't have the ability to cause, to wreak havoc on our economic system. but it has to be done carefully, and that is what we will continue to do. now, i think that the other piece of that equation is that oftentimes the same steps that are the biggest emitters of greenhouse gas are huge emitters of pollution still, to this day. many of those stacks don't have mercury controls. many of the stacks don't have controls for acid gases or particulate matter. don't have controls for the precursors to smog and so i think there are still huge opportunities to clean up our ngugi. you asked what clean means. i always say epa's the cleaning clean energy many times. is the emissions that people worry about them whether they have public health implications so i don't think it is an accident that is people look at

the landscape they say, well, if you are still going to regulate mercury isn't that going to affect our energy sector? yes, it is but we have always regulated mercury and we should continue to regulate mercury. mercury is almost ubiquitous in our fish now. we tell pregnant women they can eat fish even though it is a healthy meal because mercury. we have to continue on with our public health and their opportunities to combine it with benefits from the greenhouse gas sector. >> is that what you wanted or do you want to follow up? >> i think it is huge in the public's mind about the word cleaned, because all of these -- the were pollutant if i'm not mistaken you use it in two different ways, pollutants meaning that things like mercure clean carbon carbon dioxide that of course we need in the air anyway. is there something about, something that epa can do to help clarify this for the

public's mind perhaps? you spoke about a unified government approach. this is often called the biggest, hardest problem, too big to see because obviously all of the other things you worry about me not get, going to be degraded in any case. the overriding problem that people are still having a hard time looking at. >> let me tell you this. i'm not sure it will help. greenhouse gas in those emissions will take a long time, decades for us to continue to see the impact that they have on our planet and they are global emissions, right? so there is a need to look at them, at least look at our actions in the context of the larger globe where as many of the pollutants that epa has tackled over its 40 year history are much more immediate than that. so i think the difference is in timeline and horizon and this isn't my idea.

i've borrowed it from bill ruckles. it is much easier for people to focus on and be politically or sort of community, community motivated to see action on something like acid rain or mercury or smog, because -- or so that. because it is impacting them right now. the challenge with greenhouse gases despite definition are actually at pollutant that the reason most people can't make that connection is that it is such a longtime friend and sort of a flow and hard to prove line. it may not always move straight in terms of effects, right? so if there is a huge flood was that global warming or was that the weather? we generally say that is the weather bad weather over decades is climate and climate change is what can produce sort of some of the worst impacts in terms of flooding or crop damage or changes. and so, i see the issue but i

think what we are dealing with here is the immediacy of some pollutants that are sort of people acknowledge our concern, and trying to link back to a much longer-term, sometimes more subtle changes that happen with greenhouse gas emissions. >> i am sorry, you just said that greenhouse gases are by definition a pollutant. what do you mean by that? >> actually the supreme court, in the decision it said listen, greenhouse gases or pollutants. >> co2 is a pollutant? >> under the definition of the clean air act, now epa it is up to you to determine whether this pollutants endanger public health or welfare and epa determined that they do but much of the concerns that you will hear, not, are about being able to make that finding definitively. overwhelmingly sciences say that the emissions of global warming gases are building up in

atmosphere. that much he can prove and because those gases are building up in the atmosphere and they stay there for such a long time it is claimed -- changing our climate. that that is going to lead to sea level change, some areas colder in some areas plumber. that is where going out to say 2050 or even 2030 and i think americans still have some level of insecurity. >> way back there. >> i served in the clinton administration as a new england administrator which was great fun. i hope you are having fun too. i wanted to just thank you for your leadership and the leadership of a terrific team. but also to ask you if you could speak a little bit about the agency's agenda for developing nations and the good work you are doing internationally. >> thanks, john and thanks for all your time at epa.

we don't have an agenda for developing nations, but we do have an international office. if a starter, i'm actually not sure, one of my chief historians here will know. that is right. what am i thinking? build still kind of hounds me that it is not one of our seven priorities that it is embedded in all of our work. and, the idea there is again, it goes back to the fact that when developing countries look at it, our system of governance, they are impious of our system of laws. they are envious of our permit program even though it doesn't quite always give the results we would like it too. it is still something they don't have so one of our main interactions in the developing world at their request, we do it when they requested, is in governing. in training and helping them to set up a system of governance that works for them. those are the discussions we are having with a number of countries that have had

progress. there are countries, when i go to international meetings, that i just want to thank thank your staff because i want to, without their help, without them being willing to share what they already know we would be 30 or 40 years behind. we were able to take a quantum leap forward and they learned stuff not to do because we don't do everything right the first time. we have also talked a lot -- we have six international priorities and i'm not going to be able to rattle them off because i'm nervous. but i would like to highlight electronic waste. the idea that our blackberries, cell phones, computers, our tv said we have to replace every so often end up somewhere and although we are hoping and one of my great hopes is that the electronic industry and all of our friends in that space will start to build equipment that comes apart, that allows us to reuse all of those rare earth metals and components that are

in them. right now what happens too often is it legally that equipment ends up in a developing country in asia or africa and people you know, do some pretty not nice things in order to get those rare medals back. there is gold, there is over. there are a lot of elements that and -- and those things they burn. i lived in an area in china that has 24,000 i think parts per million in the ground, huge dioxin levels because people often children are recovering that lead and gold and silver. so we as a country i think have an obligation to first manage that waste sustainably. we as the innovators and the manufacturers, the world leaders in those technologies need to think real hard about how to build the next-generation, one that can come apart and there is actually a national security reason to do it because we all watched the little dust-up

recently over rare earth minerals in china and the fact that if any one country corners the market on those minerals it affects everything from our electronic to solar panels, two and manufacturing. so we need to be able to be more independent even with respect to those feedstocks, so that is a huge one for us as well. we just had a really cool initiative on stilts with the clinton global initiative and the u.n. foundation. we announced that there. we have a goal of 100,000 homes by 2020 with clean cooking technology. most people don't realize that the act of cooking in the developing world usually it is a woman. may be her children inside are in an area burning materials. no ventilation. that act kills more people than malaria as many people have hiv/aids so we have an initiative to work with women in

that culture to come up with a culturally and principle technology. you can't take a cookstove the works in india and use it in parts of africa. you have defined what that technology will embrace. that is a really neat one for us as well. then we continue to want to work on other global warming pollution. this one is easy, bill. methane. methane is 20 times more of a global warming gas than co2 and also an energy source so in the developing world especially with waste management there is a huge opportunity to take what is right now being vented and contributing to our global emission problem and turning it into an energy source. so we are doing some work around that as well. >> in the back with the headphones i guess. >> my name is -- and i want to return quickly to the question of nutrient pollution, controlling that. you mentioned the path forward is joint states and individuals

their actions can have impact, but i was wondering if you could talk more about the cost aspect because have you done a cost analysis of what it will take to control that kind of pollution in this area? at the end of the day where's the money going to come from? i feel this is an issue that comes up anytime you try to do anything. >> how you pay for it is an important question. let me say two things about that. the first is, there are a number of people who do cost estimates around but the nutrient pollution, nitrogen and phosphorus. depends on who you decide to pick up the lion's share of the load. should it be people in housing developments who use mainly sewers, so their wastewater treatment plant when they get their monthly bill they pay all of that? should it be all agriculture or all folks who raise chickens or cows and pigs? should they do it all because

after all they are probably the largest source, certainly close to the largest depending on how you measure it. the answer is neither. the answer is let's find the most cost-effective solution, the most cost effective solution is to use the incentives and help that is out there at the state and federal level along with leadership to implement what are really not that expensive measures in the agricultural sector. simple things like keeping your livestock out of streams, planting cover crops can make you a huge difference in the load of nutrients and to the extent that sector is able to pick up responsibility, to release responsibility from the other sector of the dozens eliminated. so now what can you do in the developed sector, housing or in urban areas or suburban areas? the first thing you can do is look at whether or not there are opportunities for green

infrastructure which is much cheaper than building a new pipe. then you are going to need to look at smart investments in wastewater for structure, the good old pipes and pump stations that actually handled the tree and pollution. all that has to be done and it is best done at the state level. so one of my hopes on the chesapeake is that what we end up with our strong state plans. the whole idea of the chesapeake is a unique state that is going to submit their plan for how they intend to make that balance between developed areas and burr areas, green agriculture and urban and suburban areas. and then we as epa have really only one job which is to ensure those plans are realistic, that they don't count on huge reductions in one sector at the expense of another and that then they are implemented. that is a real job and that is my hope. now the big controversy has come over what happens at the state doesn't submit a plan or submits one that is woefully inadequate? we will do what that but i have

to say as we work with the states i think what is happening is that people love -- especially in maryland and virginia. maryland has taken a huge step forward in the past couple of years and we are working really hard with her chin and a couple of other states with a lot of help from the u.s. department of agriculture because they have funds. >> good morning. is great to be here. my name is jeff homestead and i served as epa form almost five years from 2000 to 2005 and i was proud to say was in the air office which does produce much more benefits than we just say any other part of the federal government. here is my question. epa has made enormous progress over the last 40 years, and most people would say that the low-hanging fruit has largely been harvested and now as we continue to try to clean up more and more we are finding that the next increment of pollution reduction does turn out to be more expensive and epa

acknowledges that and all of its analysis. the next time is more expensive. there is certainly concern in certain parts of the industry in a way that we are headed towards a future in which we really are the industrializing as the cost of the next increment gets higher and higher, that it just is no longer possible to have a significant manufacturing sector and epa even recently in a couple of rules has acknowledge that i think it is in the cement for example that a number of them can no longer stay open and meet the standards and then those plants go overseas where it is less expensive. as you look at this trade-off between getting that next increment and the possibility that you are simply going to be pushing people to make a cement in colombia or venezuela and shifted in, how do you examine those trade-offs and is that acceptable that essentially in

order to have what we want here will essentially drive heavily manufactured to other countries? >> i actually don't -- i'm not sure i agree with all the premise of your question. certainly we do look at the increment and cost of controlling. i believe very strongly that we are nowhere near having gotten all the low-hanging fruit, especially in the utility sector but in some other sectors as well. i would look at the cement as a real example of how we work really hard with the industry to minimize the impact on operating plants. there were only really a few and it has to do with their feedstock. it has feedstock so high in mercury that we really couldn't come up with a solution that didn't require them to either put very expensive controls on or to stop using that feedstock and since the manufacture tends to be located very near their feedstock that is a concern.

but again it was because of mercury, so the equation to me is what is the public health benefit and how much more does it cost? i think we are still very much in the one to 20 range especially under the clean air act so most of the benefits we are going to see now. all of our statutes are not that easy because it is a lot harder to quantify benefits sometimes under other statutes and that is where we have to be very very thoughtful. we are not mere near one-to-one yet, so we have a lot of space and the place that i am absolutely adamant is that i don't think they should ever be framed to people as okay do you want a job or do you want a clean environment? we are not there. we are nowhere near that line and we can't have both. companies have money. they are making record profits. we want them to invest and we want them to invest in pollution control technology.

do make says healthier, make a stronger and if it is energy efficiency technology to make them stronger and more competitive overseas. >> the environmental protection agency in his 40 years has been distinguished by many things but one of them is great environmental protection and that administrators so from bill ruckles to yourself it has been quite a history and i hope -- megan is a great pleasure to have you with the aspen institute. and engineer with a hartford is something the government needs. thank you very much, lisa jackson. [applause] forty years on epa a web site. thanks brain here. >> thank you, paul. >> have a great week. happy birthday. happy anniversary. [applause]

[inaudible conversations] respo.

while today's speakers are course independent, and we must treat them with a degree of caution that one should treat any economic forecast. indeed they are explicit about this, illustrating the uncertainty surrounding any economic forecast with the use of charts, rather than claiming and valuable certainty my previous assessors asserted when they provided their forecasts. the only thing that was infallible was that the political forecasts were usually wrong. with that caution in mind, let me turn to the forecast. after the deepest recession since the war, the greatest budget deficit and the biggest banking crisis of our lifetime, a recovery was going to be more challenging than the previous recessions, but the message for office for budget responsibility is that britain's economic recovery is on track.

the economy is growing and jobs are being graded and the deficit is falling. -- jobs are being created and the deficit is falling. employment and g.d.p. are high year in every quarter and in every year than in the june forecast. at a time when markets are gripped by fears about government finances of crossed europe, today we see the government was absolutely right to take a divisive -- decisive action to take the britain economy out of the financial danger zone. britain is on course to grow the economy and balance the votes. something some people repeatedly said it could not have been. let me take the house. the detail of the forecast. the forecast the economy are brought in line with those produced in the june budget, despite the challenge and international conditions. i also points out there very

similar to the european commission forecasts, which also happen to be published today. and it is forecasted that britain will grow faster than germany, france, japan, the united states of america and the european union. the forecast real gdp growth of 1.8% this year, 2.1% next year. 2.6% in 2012. 2.7% in 2015. growth this year is not expected to be considerably tighter than was forecast in june. and some of this improvement is likely to be permanent since some of it made a temporary impact to stop building. as a result of its forecast of the rate of growth all be 0.2 percentage points below the forecast in june. they also predict above trend growth for the full year after that. and the level of gdp is forecast

to be around half a percent higher next year than was forecast in june and indeed higher throughout the whole forecast time. mr. speaker, some have made predictions of the so-called double-dip recessions. while it is pointed out that the growth has been volatile but this is a common characteristic of post-recession recovery, the central view is there will be no double-dip recession. the forecast is for growth texture of more than 2%. and they expect the slowest quarter of growth will be 0.3% rising back to 0.7% by the leader quarter of next year. rthey also forecast inflation ball all, 3.2% in 2010 to 1.9% in 2012. crucially the forecasts of gradual rebalancing of the economy as we move away from an

economy built on debt to an economy where it reinvest in exports. again, something some people said would not happen. and they expect more demand come -- to come from british investment. this new model of sustainable economic growth will rebalance the economy towards investment and exports and away from an unhealthy dependence on private debt and public deficit. it will bring to an end to the unsustainable situation where family saw less and less each year so they ended up in the worst in the report today darling money to pay for increasingly expensive houses. employment is forecast to grow in every year of this parliament.

total employment is expected to rise from 29 million to 30.1 million, over 1 million additional new jobs. and on unemployment banks to faster than expected growth in the economy, the rate is slightly lower this year at 7.9% instead of 8.1%. the forecast for the unemployment rate is unchanged from the june budget at 8%. they predict a gradual decrease in unemployment with a rate falling every year. at the end of the parliament year we are forecast to report just about 6%, half a million fewer unemployed people and at the beginning of this parliament. the trend is similar to that of the internationally recognized labor forecast measure of unemployment. however, the level is expected to be high year. this revision is mainly due to a change in the wake of clothes

from her allowance will give place as a result of the new high in assessments. and in other words, more people are going to go on to jsa's. this will create a welfare system that encourages people to seek work and reduce costs to the taxpayer. in each year, fewer people are expected to be on both of these out of work benefits than in the june forecast. i can also tell the forecasts that they have now recalculated estimates for the reduction in headcount in the public sector. in june the forecast of the reduction in headcount of 490,000 over the next four years. in the latest forecast

assessment bridgette assessment has come down to 160,000 reduction. -- and the latest forecast the assessment has downtown 160,000. the heck are reduction still need to take place and will happen over four years. the forecast is private sector job creation will far outweigh the reduction and public-sector employment. it is in line with the employment trends in the 1990's. the most important point is this. the lesson of what is happening all around us in europe is that that unless we deal decisively with a record budget deficit,

many thousands of more jobs will be put at risk in the private and public sector. mr. speaker, let me summarize the forecast for the public finances, which shows that britain is decisively in dealing with its debt. barrowing this year is expected to be 1 billion pounds less than forecast in june. -- borrowing this year is expected to be 1 billion pounds less than forecasted in june. government debt as a share of gdp is expected to people low 70% in 2013. the debt ratio is expected to peak at a low point compared to june, just below 70%. on the central forecast we will meet the fiscal mandate to eliminate the structural current budget deficit when year early in 2014. at the same is true to get debt falling as a percentage of gdp.

the government has a quite rigid a wider merger -- has all wider mandate for managing this. in both cases the mandate is met. mr. speaker, it is clear that our decisive actions have proved to the world that britain can live within her means. this government has taken britain out of the financial dangers and said our economy on the path to recovery. that is not only the judgment of the zero vr, it is the judgment of the imf, the european commission, the bank of england and all the major business organizations in this country. already our efforts are paying off. today's forecast shows the cost of servicing the government's debt has come down. it is predicted we will save 19

billion pounds in interest payments between now and the end of forecasts time. this is 19 billion that will no longer be paid british taxpayers to private bondholders and foreign governments. it is 19 billion pounds that would have been wasted and will now be saved. this is an uncertain world but the british recovery is on track. employment is growing. 1 million more jobs are being created. the deficit is set to fall. the plan is working. we will stick to the course, and that is only too well confidence to flourish in growth to return. i urge those who seriously suggest that when they see what is happening to our neighbors across europe that we should abandon the the size of plan we're following and are more and spend more to think again. what they propose would be disastrous to the british economy. it will put us back in the international line we have worked so hard to escape from. it would mean higher deficits

and job loss and we should reject that path. stability is a necessary condition growth but not enough. our economy's competitiveness has been in decline for over a decade. that is why we have already announced annual reductions in corporation tax, cut the small companies rate, expanded loan guarantees, invested in an apprenticeship and promoted exports through a major trade mission. let me set out some of the other things that we are announcing today to support growth and the rebalancing of our economy. i set out a plan to reduce the main rate or a corporation tax to 24%. -- asset at a plan to reduce corporation tax to 24% sen.

the proposed to make the u.k. and even more attractive location for international business by reforming the outdated and complex rules for control of foreign companies. we have seen a steady stream of companies cut that left the u.k. over the years. we're not content to sit by and watch our competitors reach away on our corporate tax state undermined. n.y. another tax issue a corporal -- of crucial importance intellectual property. for a long time we have argued we should increase incentives the ability to develop new products in this country. to encourage businesses to invest in the u.k., we can confirm that we will introduce from april 2013, although or 10% corporate tax rate on properties that are newly commercialized. i can tell the house that the results of this measure, glaxo smithkline will announce a new

500 million pound investment program in the uk. including new manufacturing, a 50 billion down -- 50 million pound venture-capital plan. and build a new biopharmaceutical plants in this country. in total they estimate of 1000 new jobs will be created in the u.k. over the lifetime of these projects. and today we are also launching across government growth review. this will be determined forensic examination of however government can do more to remove growth opportunities. too often the national inclination is an opposite direction, creating new regulations and putting up barriers and mormaking life more difficult. together with the business department, the treasury will

lead an intensive program of work, including all parts of governments. we will identify requirements that can benefit the whole economy, specific priority will be given to improvement of the planning system in support for the exporters of. at the same time we will begin a new sector by sector focus on removing barriers of growth and opportunity predict opening at new opportunities. -- and opening new opportunities. pricked by bricks we will remove the barriers that are holding britain back. -- bricks by bricks we will remove the barriers that are holding britain back. i attended the european meetings in brussels yesterday. we agreed a three-year package for ireland's fourth 85 billion

euros, which is warranted to safeguard financial stability. of that 35 billion euros, copy used -- 35 billion will be used to support the banking sector with 10 billion going to a canadian bank recapitalization and 50 billion will be used for sovereign debt support. ireland will contribute 17.5 billion towards the so bragtotal package. the terms of the imf loan will be determined over the coming weeks. in principle the bilateral loan is for 3.2 5 billion pounds. the rate of interest on the loan will be similar to their rates levied by the imf and the euro zone. this loan to ireland is in

britain's national interest. it will help arkoses economic partners manage their with the difficult conditions. i should also tell the house that the euro zone finance ministers met without me to discuss a permanent financial stability facility, and i made it clear as a subsequent meeting pet the u.k. will not be part of that. the u.k. will not be part of a permanent bailout mechanism, and the european financial stability mechanism agreed under the previous government and day and of which we are parts, will cease to exist when that permit it euros on mechanism is put in place. when we came into office britain was in the financial pages own. the economy was on stable. our public finances were out of control. >> the chancellor must be heard. >> our economy was unstable.

the finances work out of control. we took decisive action. the independent office for budget responsibility has confirmed that the british recovery is on track. our public finances are under control. 1 million jobs are set to be created. today we took further measures to secure growth and promote stability. britain is on the mend, and i commend this statement for the house. >> mr. speaker, let's move to reality. here's what the ovr says. as we discussed in chapters 3 and 4, past experience and common sense suggest that the central forecast for economy and the public finances are almost certain to be role. there are upside and downside

risk to both. the only question is on which side of wrong that actually fall. this government has committed our country to our rate of fiscal consolidation that has only been attempted twice in living memory. on both occasions by countries that benefit from strong growth and a benign global environment. no country has attempted to cut so quickly so deeply of good and ireland. we have the highest fiscal deficit in the g-20. not true. the u.s. has a personal lehigh year in fiscal deficit. the plan to reduce it by less than half over the next five years. -- they plan to reduce it by less than half over the next five years. japan cuts by less than a quarter. the chancellor has talked chosen to take an unprecedented gamble with people's lives and the

country's future. he has done so on the basis of fundamental defeat -- deceit. the ovr expos that deceit last year and they have exposed it today. all of those stories claiming their constituents that things were worse than they expected and said they have never had it so good, will he tell them they will have to find a new excuse? nothing in his statement today can high death mask that it is the balanced approach of my right hon. friend that solid growth return at the beginning of the year. small growth return at the beginning of the year and the recovery growing momentum and a < million people growing --

claiming it out of work benefits than previously projected. that was the previous chancellor not this one. this is an approach to it that this government has rejected. the reckless gamble that member support is still to come. the chancellor is in the casino but has lost a bundle will get. it is the ovr's judgment of the future that matters more than their resizerevised forecast ofe year that is almost over. they are explicit. they expect a slow recovery next year as spending cuts begin to take effect.

looking beyond next year, the forecast for growth over the next four years is reduced to an average of 2.4%. this compares to the 3.1% average growth of the recessions in the 1980's and 99 k.i.a.'s. this growth was driven largely by growth in the financial sector and in public services, both of which will not be in a position to help this time. low growth means -- no growth means fewer jobs. unemployment will rise next year. no wonder the conservatives level of government association pointed out last week the front- loading cuts in local authorities will lead to 140,000 job losses next year, much higher than originally expected.

the increase on january 4 will cost 215,000 jobs. over three times as many as the proposed increase on national insurance, which it called a tax on jobs. the chancellor tells us of public-sector jobs will be protected by his decision to cut welfare benefits, but this works both ways. can he tell the house what additional hit to private sector jobs is from those welfare changes? the families up and down this country, a jobless recovery will be no recovery at all. this government has no interest in protecting jobs, no alternative measures. worst of all, no plan for jobs. indeed just last week, a growth plan actually trunkshrunk. there will be a debate. there will be a discussion.

the government's plan relies on a huge increase in exports. let's hope to materialize. it is it a gambla gamble. -- let's hope they materialize. exports need markets and there's nothing to suggest that the global economic climate will assist us in achieving of boost to growth. he has abolished investment allowances from manufacturing to pay for a cut in corporation tax. a tax that would give 1 billion pounds to the banks. can he tell us what sense there is in helping companies that make large profits but little investments at the expense of businesses that will invest heavily in the uk? we were very pleased to hear his announcement on the patent

office. we were very pleased because it was our proposal. it was lord dyson that are due this in cabinet. and that is why it was in last year's report. and it was an excellent proposal. it was a labor proposal. here is i -- here is our idea. they will give an 80 million pound loan to the market. there is an idea they can chew over a for the next four months. the chancellor talk about developments on ireland. we support the financial assistance offered to ireland, at the lessons cannot be ignored. a slower pace of consolidation might have been ireland's best bet at encouraging growth.

that is a lesson for us as well. the chancellor's analytical ability was demonstrated in his 2008 article that has been quietly posted. here he is again in 2008 confident that ireland were not be affected by definition of crisis that was just emerging. and here is what the chancellor said. ireland now has a future fund assets fell to provide security against future shocks and liabilities. their public finances are well placed. their competitiveness has risen. their institutions are strong growth. -- are stronger. he was wrong a lot ireland, and he is wrong about the uk. -- wrong about ireland and he is wrong about the uk. >> yes, well, the first point i

made is that the icing the chancellor made the mistake of writing at his reply before he saw the forecast today. he predicted it all, somehow they're being lowered growth when in fact growth is higher in every quarter and in every year than the june forecast. in i assumed he wrote his statement before the european commission forecasts because he had a whole list of countries. the european commission forecasts of a the next few years we will grow more quickly than germany and france s, the united states of america, japan, the euro zone and the eu average. you might as well start with the most accurate forecast for the economy. as i say, it is not much of an analysis of what they've said today. of course, he skated over the fact that because of a welter

changes we introduced, we have been able to introduce the head count reduction, which any deficit-reduction program, assuming the one he will propose, as required. he should at least acknowledge that the welfare changes to achieve that, and his party leader calls them very important choices about whether they will support welfare reform or would rather see a higher public sector dop losses. -- job losses. he said he did not believe in the rebalancing of the economy. the assumptions for exports and investment i made were pitiful. they are the estimates made by pimm independent body, whose members were -- that their appointment ratified by the select committee. he accused me of having no alternative measures.

[laughter] as far as i can tell the have a blank sheet of paper as the new economic policy. they talked about the importance of protecting intellectual property and supporting the fourth of bonds and then praised the work of james dyson, who last time i checked with someone we consulted rather than him. lord drayson also had some interesting things to say. since -- i should also welcomed by the way -- >> members really must calm down. the noise and the chamber was off-putting. the public notice it, sodalite. let's put an end to it. so goes of the chancellor.

>> on ireland's i do of course welcome the support that opposition has given to the decision we have taken to offer a bilateral loans. we have will have to bring legislation before the house. -- we will have to bring legislation before the house. i should have mentioned that sweden and denmark have also provided bilateral loans. i come back to the point, which is that this forecasts shows a million new jobs being created over the next four or five years. it shows the economy rebalancing. all he could come up with is that he renad an editorial last week, and i note that that is how he does his homework. he photocopies of articles from "the ft." . .

>> is a but chancellor worried about that and will he consider measures to address it? >> it is something that we will

want to address. it has the same duration of returning to its sort of average that it was before the recession came. think all of the parties of the house and the government will want to find ways to encourage saving more effectively than was in the case in the past and address that particular problem. >> what is the forecast for the gap between the richest and poorest in britain by 2015? does the chancellor and the obr expect that to grow? >> i am not aware that the obr made that forecast. obviously, everything we're doing, whether it is increasing provision for some of the poorest two-year-olds terms of free and tertiary care for their people premium, are encouraged -- of health care and pupil

premium -- >> with the make all liquidity available -- will they make all liquidity available, as they should do? >> the european central bank is independent. i will not speak for them. what i said about the european financial stability mechanism is that we now have a verbal agreement that that mechanism will not formed a permanent part of the bailout mechanism that euro wants to put -- the euro's own wants to put in place. we will not be part of that bailout mechanism. it would require consent for any change. >> i thank the chancellor for his statement. it can ask him what assurances he has received from ireland to ensure that the multi-billion-

loan will not be given to allow a fire sale of assets they now own? can he indicate what progress he has made with the northern ireland executive on regard to the corporate tax so that we can compete fairly with a nation that has a 12.5% corporation tax attached to it? >> on the irish bank restructuring package, this is now going to take several weeks, at least, to put in place. we are very aware, of course, of the interconnectedness of the banking systems of ireland, northern ireland, and local uk that is one of the reasons why we are making this bilateral contribution. that is why we're discussing the banking package. i certainly am conscious that some of the irish banks of significant assets in the u.k.

and we have very real interest in the future of that. it is why, my honorable friend the financial secretary, -- why he came to ireland earlier this week. i want the treasury and secretary of state to remain in close contact with members from northern ireland. on a corporation tax -- this has been genuinely a matter of debate. i do not think that has been secret. it has been in the newspapers. in the european union, some member states wanted to attach a condition to arlen's or petition tax rate -- ireland's corporation tax rate. it is a real challenge for companies in northern ireland with that will 0.5% and corporation tax rate. -- with that 0.5% corporation tax rate. i took a position which was, it is not really for other member states to dictate the tax rates of sovereign nations, even when

they are seeking international assistance. the level -- the rate that tax is levied by the irish government should be a matter for the irish government and the irish parliament. if the shoe was on the other foot, we would not want to be accepting decisions imposed on this parliament about tax rates. this should be a matter for the elected parliament of the country. i do not deny it is a challenge for the northern ireland -- for northern ireland, -- that will 0.5% rate. -- for northern ireland, about 12.5% rate. >> will this not create new opportunities for tax avoidance? >> i can assure that we will seek to avoid that -- tax avoidance. it is there to keep pace with

the changes in corporate tax regimes, which have been introduced in many other countries. ireland is just one that we've been talking about. you see this in belgium and the netherlands, where they also made corporate tax changes to attract international companies. we have to keep pace with those changes. that is why we are taking the measures that we are. >> george mahmudi. >> the chancellor -- george moody. >> official said this is because of a lack of serious content. -- officials say that this is because of a lack of serious content. >> we have published a series of documents. some of them on corporate tax reform, some on intellectual property, and some on the budget -- that is what the white

paper does. proposes measures that will then be legislated for. we'll have measures to address the competitiveness of british industry that will specifically look at things like the competition regime, the approach we take to attracting inward investment, how we improve our employment elie doebele and alike, and look at specific fixes -- how we improve our theoyment outlook and like, and look at specific fixes. he is welcome to be involved. >> isn't the strength of these forecasts that they were prepared by individualx/ >> that is a very significant feature of what is happening today. it is completely unprecedented for a chancellor to present a forecast that has been produced

independently by people verified by the all-party treasury select committee who have their own separate press conference. members have had a couple of hours to look at these documents. if you think back to a couple of years ago and the numbers that were rattled off, you had no opportunity to look at those documents. it was the chancellor's judgment, rather than an independent judgment. i think this is a major improvement to the fiscal policy making in this country. i hope when it comes to the house of commons it will have all-party support. >> why is the irish bank worth saving yet northern rock was not? among the irish banks are getting capital -- >> the irish banks are getting, in many cases, a capital injection. we had poorly regulated banks.

we're improving our regulation system. frankly, if the honorable member does not think we should be supporting the irish banking system, then the impact of his proposals would be very severe. >> he called this slow growth in the, -- in the coming years. does he agree that private- sector led growth is exactly what the u.k. needs after the bubble that was previously burst? >> i think he makes an extremely good point. what is actually happening here is a rebalancing of the economy. the shadow chancellor, i hear he is muttering away about what he calls low growth. it is actually more rapid, according to the european commission forecast, then germany, france, the u.s.a., japan, the eu average, the euro

zone average, and i am not sure what his proposals are that would increase that growth rate. if you have some, now is the time to produce them. >> most public-sector cuts will take place in the north. any jobs that are created -- not likely to be many -- will be in the south. is this policy unbalanced? >> in the last decade, in the government that he was a member of, for every 10 jobs created in the southeast, only one was created in the midlands and the north. that is the situation we inherited and it is the situation we're trying to change. we want is the export and investment increase. we are aiming for a more geographically-balance model of economic growth. i can tell you that announcements like the one today and the events that follow will help that. for the third time ever, there

is a tax cut for new employees specifically directed at regions outside of the south. >> my right honorable friend did never tires of reminding those opposite that this recession, like all previous post-war recessions, it is a recession built on debt. you cannot borrow your way out of debt. >> i can assure my honorable friend that i will not tire of reminding the opposition of that. as i come forward with new economic policy, -- they come forward with new economic policy, i would be happy to examine it, but there is nothing to examine. >> he sees private sector growth being driven by investment and export. in the obie our's report today reportl be our -- obr's today, we see dramatic uncertainties in the euro zone.

if this does not turn out to be as expected, where does the chancellor see private-sector growth coming from? >> the first point i would make is that, of course, one of the primary tasks of the obr is to address whether we will hit the fiscal mandates. they're not a matter of controversy. they show what we've done to get the british finances under control. under this scenario that is volunteered, they say that this the mandates will be met under those conditions. it helps the fiscal forecast rather than perverts it because the tax base is more focused for consumption. >> when the books are balance, will the chancellor seriously look at reducing the overall burden of taxation? it is just far too high. >> i would say to my honorable friend that i am the leader in trying to reduce the tax burden

and reduce taxes. i have always believed the best way to achieve this is stable public finances. otherwise you cut them one year and have to put them up the next. i am a fiscal conservative as well as a tax-cutting conservative. >> i refer to the center he came to my honorable friend. chancellor, through the obr, is suggesting there will be 8% growth in business investment, yet [unintelligible] it suggested will increase by 6% in the next four years. according to the government of the bank of england, there are real doubts about whether the euro area or in the united states will deliver the sort of export growth that has been suggested. it is not -- is not the chancellor just a little bit worried about the of the present in these estimates?

is he concerned that they will be delivered -- about the optimism in these estimates? is he concerned that there will be delivered on in the next four years? among these are independent forecasts -- >> these are independent forecasts. he is not in anyone's pocket. it is totally independent. i believe he is on the treasury select committee he interviewed the man for this job. he passed him. these are not my estimates. these are other people's estimates. they made the forecast. he says there is scant evidence. that is not what the office for but responsibility believes. they are independent. -- for budget her responsibility believes. -- that is not what the office for budget responsibility believed. they are independent. >> is a taxpayer support ending up supporting professional bond

and equity holders in banks? this has been one of the most difficult issues we have had to wrestle with. it is not possible to hold the senior shareholders responsible for taking a hair cut, which did happen in some of the u.s. bank rescues, with pretty disastrous effects. that is why that decision was taken. some shareholders will suffer losses as i think is appropriate. >> given that the newest year for production in the report suggests that growth will

surpass the previous predictions. it was 2.6%, 2.3% trend, 2.1%. what hope can we have that predictions are want to be any more reliable? is it not the case, in fact, that growth will not rise as much as predicted? >> i said right at the beginning of my remarks that these are economic forecasts, that we should treat them with the caution that one should treat all economic forecasts. i it least explicitly acknowledge that. these have been independently produced. these are central forecast. this is not a forecast come hell or high water. it is in line with most independent commentators, forecasters, happens to be close

to the european commission numbers which were produced today and were not available to the obr or british government until today. we had -- have confidence that they are part of a people who look to the u.k. and see it growing sustainably over the coming years and the jobs being created. >> all talk is of cuts. with spending still rising, despite these so-called cuts and with that as a proportion of gdp rising to a staggering 70%, will my right honorable friend remind the house of the coin a phrase, there is no alternative to further massive efficiency savings, particularly in health? >> i certainly agree with my honorable friend that an essential part of this program of a public expenditure is that

we get greater productivity in the public services. he is the former chair of that committee and has much to offer. treasury is engaging with him on this, i hope, and will engage further with him in the coming months. he is absolutely right. when there is less money available, if you do not have reform, then we will have a deterioration in the service. that is why we have to back reforms. that is why we're supporting those reforms. >> the office of budget responsibility is forecasting a relatively sluggish medium-term which, it says, reflects the impact of the government's fiscal consolidation. can the chancellor confirmed that it follows that, if the government's fiscal consolidation, have been less severe, and the medium-term outlook would be less sluggish? in other words, he has cut too

far, too fast? >> the short answer is no. obviously, what we have inherited was a very deep recession, a major banking crisis and a record fiscal deficit. i thought that, once i was assured across the parties that this was common ground, that we should use the link to address the fiscal deficit. the letter o the letter be the latter are -- the obr did produce a comparison to the current and previous government plans. over time, it was a much more sustainable path to growth and would avoid the downside risk of a major fiscal event, which, frankly, a major loss of confidence in the u.k. pick

aboutnot having to worry the uk's credit worthiness of their, unlike some other countries in the european union -- out there, unlike some other countries in the european union. we have sustainable growth and jobs being created. >> thank you, mr. speaker. could the chancellor tell us his assessment of what would happen if we ignored the imf -- you -- the imf-eu and moved toward putting our own house in order? >> would happen if you actually did this tomorrow? if the shadow chancellor bought out tomorrow and told me to adopt his plan and the u.k.

would back off its fiscal consolidation program, it would take much longer. we're with the u.k. be within 30 minutes after that statement? >> the number of losses of jobs in the public sector has been revised downward. i'm very concerned that the $18 billion -- about the 18 billion pounds. was that an explicit decision a policy by the chancellor? does he think that is fair? >> a, i do, of course, think this pending review was fair. at i said at the time, if they would produce an actual spending review, maybe we could compare, but they do not want to do that. i said to the budget and spending a rebuke that i would make you a code decision to try to seek further -- and the

spending review that i would try to make further changes. this is a challenge that anyone doing my job would face. we need to reduce the cuts in departments. that is what we were able to do. >> norman? >> may i congratulate the office of budget responsibility on a fairly transparent, comprehensive, an excellent report, which i think is up first in this country. can you give us an assessment of any remaining threats that you seek a final stanza -- financial stability from the ural zone countries? >> of course there is a concern about the high deficits in the euro zone. let us hope that the action taken yesterday to stabilize ireland and also the clarification that era's own ministers offered about the future permanent bailout mechanism and the involvement of

private sector credit within that will help achieve that. that is certainly what the intention was yesterday. >> they will announce proposals for cuts will likely loss of 400 jobs. this will have a devastating effect on my constituents. it will also lead to a loss of confidence by those who have jobs that they will have jobs in the future. this might well lead to grow up and on their part to spend money in the economy? -- economy. is the concern that could affect the new jobs and future growth? >> i have enormous sympathy with anyone who faces a job loss. what i would say is we're creating economic conditions where they will be -- there will be able to find a new job, i hope. we expect a 1 million new jobs

to be created over the coming year. i would make this observation to the honorable lady, who i think was the parliamentary private secretary to the previous chancellor. if the government had been reelected, they would be cutting billions and billions of pounds from public spending this year, next year, in the years ahead. that was in the budget. if she was able to find a way of many billions pounds without damaging local government, she should say so. and i welcomed the reform -- >> i welcome the reform. will this be scrutinized? >> the short answer is yes. one specific thing we want to look at is how government should

be helping businesses grow. that includes procurement. government spends too much of its money on the largest companies in the country. not enough within the smaller. that is one of the things we're trying to improve. >> on public sector jobs, the chancellor says that the numbers are up. some projections show that this is front loading. will the chancellor look at [unintelligible] so that we do not see those jobs losses next year? >> i said at the time it was a challenging settlement. i have removed some of the ring fencing to allow the maximum flexibility to deal with that. this country was borrowing 1 pound for every four it was spending.

we can see what happens to countries with high budget deficit and no plan to deal with them. the labour party wants to put forward a plan to reduce local deficit. >> we welcome the announcement he made. can you tell us more about the tax competitive measures you are doing to help the country? >> i have made no announcements. i can certainly say no more. >> we're looking at two is a civic things -- to do specific things that we believe will help encourage large multinationals -- two as of the things that we believe will help bridge a large

american nationals -- two specific things that we believe will help multinationals come to the u.k. countries are being aggressive in trying to attract companies. these tax measures will make as one of the most competitive places in the world to locate headquarters. on the patent and lower corporation tax rate -- this announcement is just one of many from companies that depend on that to power their business. it will make is very competitive to other countries. >> mr. speaker, obr has confirm that we will borrow 1 billion pounds less. apparently we could not afford

to make it 80 million pound loan. the chancellor has deliberately [unintelligible] these policies are now damaging the british economy. >> i think that was one that was prepared earlier. first of all, the u.k. growth is forecast to be higher than germany, france, or many other european countries, and the united states of america. it is also a case that the forecast in question creates a million jobs. when it comes to the sovereign loan to ireland, that is of a totally different nature from industrial support. it will be set out in terms brought before the house of commons. it is 3.25 billion pounds, not the number he gave. >> he has 34 -- reinforced the

need for exports to help our recovery. what can he do to personally help reverse the situation whereby we currently export more to southern ireland than we do to all of the brick countries put together -- bric countries put together? >> that is one of the focuses of foreign and trade policy. we have tried to increase our exports to those countries. the prime minister laid -- led major trade delegates visits to india and china. business secretary was recently in russia. i think a trip has been proposed for brazil. referring to those countries and other important emerging economies like indonesia and turkey, we are seeking to expand our exports. we do not want to export less to anyone in those areas, we just

want to increase our exports to emerging areas. >> we know that the deficit was paid to avoid a depression, a chance that would not fade. first and foremost, profit, jobs, growth statutes. secondly, taxation. thirdly, savings over a longer time. this will cast millions of work. it will be -- who these will be unnecessary. >> that was a complete load of nonsense. what is independent forecasts shows is that we're creating a million jobs. the economy is growing more quickly open next couple of years and most of our european

competitors. the situation was absolutely catastrophic. people were calling into question britain's ability to pay. if that is the situation we have inherited, we have done many things, in the last six months, and to make sure the british economy is on the mend. >> i am sure the whole house welcomes this chart which shows there is almost no probability of a double-dipped recession. with the chancellor agree with that forecast? -- would the chancellor agree with that forecast? >> it is, of course, an independent forecasts. while i have the right to disagree, i have not exercised that right today. >> what were the things offered

to end housing targets? does the chance cannot accept that a private-sector- lod -- will the chancellor not except that a private-sector led -- >> that is one of the sectors we're looking at as set out in the review published today. if i can just correct him, the capital investment program is actually higher than the program from the march budget. if he is not aware of that, so be it. >> mr. speaker, i welcome my right honorable friend's statement today, particularly the forecast where it sees projected public-sector job losses dropping. based on that 490,000 figure,

previously, price waterhouse coopers projected 1 million jobs, would he like to comment on the reduced impact on private-sector unemployment as a result of the new projected job losses and the public sector? >> of course, the projection is made for private sector employment as well. it takes into account all of the potential impacts on that and finds that a net 1.1 million jobs are going to be created. there will be 30 million people on unemployment at the end of the parliament, rather than 29 million the day. >> [unintelligible] what other cultivating measures is he considering? >> we have created the regional growth fund to look at areas in need of support and investment.

we have been able to announce some significant transport investment in other parts of our country. you mentioned the national tax reduction outside of the southeast and southeastern area. i am trying to create a more geographically-balanced economy than i found when i took the job. >> it is clear from the response that the party opposite is still in denial of the huge deficit they have created. i congratulate, mr. speaker, my right honorable friend for creating a viable and workable, transparent plan. could i go back to the permanent fiscal stability facility? what will happen if another euro zone country requires a bailout? >> first of all, i don't know my

honorable friend for his comments. i would say this about -- i'd thank my honorable friend for is common. i would say that the bilateral loan -- there is a very specific, and i stress the word specific, circumstance that would lead us to support ireland for the interconnectedness of our economies. i also said that the european financial stability mechanism -- the eu fund -- was something that the previous government had signed up to that the u.k. could not block its use because it operated under to and the -- under qmb. i think that this mechanism will disappear in 2013. we have taken a bad situation and make it a lot better. >> thank you, mr. speaker. can the chancellor tell whether

ireland's fiscal consolidation has been successful? >> i think the point i would make -- ireland has had to take some incredibly difficult decisions to deal with its this goal deficit. it has announced, with the support of all the major parties, with the exception of sin fein, that it will have to take further austerity measures. we should have some respect for the incredibly difficult situation that ireland finds itself in and actually take some comfort that we, in this house, are able, because of the measures we a taken in our public finances, to help this country. we're on the firing line -- not in the firing line in the way we did -- we might have been in this party had not won the

election. >> despite the extensive naysaying from the party opposite, is of the chancellor aware of this recent report -- is the chancellor aware of this recent report that businesses and the northwest are looking to expand -- in the northwest are looking to expand? what will be the expectation for job creation? >> we have a. boyd that increase in the small company rate at the previous government wanted to introduce even in the recovery. we have been able to avoid damaging part of the jobs tax. the forecast is for jobs to be created in the private sector, across the country, including in the northwest. frankly, as one could see, the labor party wanted to talk down the economy. it is no wonder they were

rejected at the election. >> he is talking a complete load of nonsense, as he put it earlier. looking across the irish sea, what does he -- a private sector recovery has not happened in ireland. why should it be different here? >> if the honorable gentleman cannot tell the difference between those situations, then maybe he should not turn up at these events. i would just make this observation -- this is an independent report, produced by an individual. from the opposition front bench about the independence of the office about it responsibility. we set this up on an independent basis, giving up four members

of the treasury the select committees and rights to approve or reject the appointment of the members of the committee. we will see whether opposition members, including those on the front bench, support this legislation when it comes before parliament. at the moment, it does not sound like it will, but perhaps they will change their mind. >> is my right honorable friend as concerned as i and that the prospective regulations proposed by the retail distribution review, might actually result in a loss of jobs? >> i know there are a number of concerns that have been raised about the review of this area. they are an independent regulator. these have been drawn to their attention. >> does this apparent good news mean that the government can now [unintelligible]

by scrapping plans to hike university tuition fees. or is it pure ideology? is that what it is about? >> this issue is about the hypocrisy of the labour party. they set up that report he was in the cabinet that agreed to that. they're all now walking away from it. it is absolutely pathetic. >> the predict on page 118, table 4.21, that we will save $19 billion in -- 19 billion pounds in interest payments. of these the right choices? do we have this 19 billion to spend on schools, rather than putting in the pocket of private

government or bondholders? >> he is absolutely right. this is one of the issues that is less commented on, but a very relevant. we are reducing the debt interest payments that we inherited from the party opposite. we had a situation where the debt interest, the money that we have to pay out to those we have borrowed from -- that bill is coming down by 19 billion pounds. we would otherwise have followed the leader baathist -- the labour's plan. we have other plans for taxpayer money. >> read the then lend to ireland to repay the ecp -- rather than lend to ireland to repay the ecp -- ecb, might it not bit more sense to help ireland

deleveraging by purchasing some assets directly? >> that we say this to my honorable friend -- let me say this to my honorable friend. i think this had to be part of a coordinated international effort with the imf and the other european member states. we have taken apart in that. we have our own the -- i do not think coming out with our own unilateral package would of been particularly easy with the imf organizing international effort. i've said earlier that we will, of course, want to look at the impact of the bank reorganization and banking reorganization in the ireland and some of the assets that are managed in the u.k.. i will keep the house informed about that. >> i welcome my right honorable friend's statement today. in particular, the investments

to a new facility that the university -- at the university. with the chancellor agree with me that, by putting something into the science budget and coming to this house today and presenting figures of growth and stability for the u.k. economy, this is setting out a clear message to the rest of the world that the u.k. and east midlands is an excellent place to invest? >> i completely agree with my honorable friend, who was a powerful champion of the east midlands and her constituency in a few months that chia's been here. she welcomes -- that she has been here. she welcomed this announcement. of course, the support for job creation in the east midlands and across the country would not be there if we have a fundamentally unstable economy like the kind that we inherited in may.

>> what steps are being taken to maintain low interest rates? >> the bank of england's monetary policy committee sets the interest rates. it is independent in doing so. the purpose, in part, of the measures we are taking to reduce the deficit has been to give the monastery policy committee the maximum flexibility and freedom -- monetary policy committee the maximum flexibility and freedom to stimulate the mind -- stimulate the demand in the economy. that has enabled them to keep interest rates low, which has been a help to the economy. >> turning to the corporation tax reform -- can the chancellor confirmed that it will make the u.k. more attractive as a holding company jurisdiction and help make us a preeminent

headquartered as much as the financial center? >> i think they will help to do that. my friend is right. they will help the u.k. be an attractive place to international companies to create jobs in. also, that changes to the patent regime will help a number of sectors, for example, pharmaceuticals. pfizer is a big÷???ñ?

this is two hours. >> the framers of the united states constitution put their names to that document intended to the people for ratification. what brought them together? most americans seem to have forgotten that the single most urgent impetus to constitutional reforms was the need to deal with the financial crisis.

.. as alexander hamilton put it we have reached almost the last stage of national humiliation. we have neither troops nor treasury nor government. the constitution that came out of philadelphia in 1787 provided all the tools and new national government needed to address this financial crisis, effectual

sources of tax revenue, national control over the currency, national control over foreign and interstate trade, a credible commitment to paying the debt, the rudiments of a modern and group c. system and by implication or so hamilton, washington and john marshall thought the authority to create a central blank on the model of the bank of england. the creation of the central bank precipitated the first constitutional debate of the new republic. disagreement over the banks sparked the formation of the two great political parties of the nation. much of the constitutional theory of the early republic, the extent of national powers, the role of the executive to the treasure come the meaning of the necessary and proper clause were articulated in the course and since that time, financial crisis along with war has continued to challenge in shape american constitutionalism.

the great depression of the 1930s tested whether the constitution was adequate in the needs of a modern economy. many of fdr's advisers thought not. in the governmental response to the depression, the new deal, about the most far-reaching other than those impelled by the civil war. the new deal change the way we think about national authority, federalism, executive power, the regulatory state, economic rights, redistribution and much much more. the great stagflation of the 1970s which brought about inflation at a rate of 13.5% and unemployment as high as 9.7% in spidered a similar if less far-reaching set of changes in and constitutional thinking about the president's authority over the regulatory bureaucracies, the boundary of state and federal power, proper methods of constitutional interpretation in the role of

the government in economic affairs. but now we find ourselves in the midst of a financial, fiscal and economic meltdown of similarly catastrophic dimension which again test the ability of our constitutional structure to deal with the crisis or perhaps our her ability to perform to that structure even at a time of crisis. in the last two years we have seen government action that would have astonished previous generations. the federal government purchase control of general motors and chrysler, two of the nation's iconic manufacturing companies even after congress voted down a proposal to do just that and it purchased aig the largest insurance carrier without congressional input at all. it intervened in previously sacrosanct and crips he proceedings. it shifted hundreds of billions of dollars in bad investments from private shoulders to the taxpayer. it negotiated deals to save one

private investment firm using $29 billion of taxpayer money and then left the next such firm to the tender mercies of bankruptcy. never before has so much power been wielded by officials outside the art mary constitutional chain of command. federal officials with no senatorial approval, nicknamed stars, have set compensation levels for executives in private companies, restructure the automobile industry, distributed what amounted to tort damages for the bp oil spill and organized the new regulatory agency within the federal reserve with extraordinary control over the allocation of private capital. the financial crisis has rekindled debate over the role in governance of the central bank, uniting such figures as ron paul, the libertarian firebrand from texas and bernie sanders, a self-proclaimed socialist from vermont in an effort to reassert democratic

control over the independent federal reserve. almost every day a new change is upon us lasting implications for the way we govern ourselves as a nation and a world. the constitutional law center of stanford law school has convened this conference to generate discussion, analysis and reflection on these issues. the speakers include many of the most eminent legal scholars, economists and historians in america. i am fascinated hear what they are going to say. they will be reflecting on some of the same questions that our founders thought about in philadelphia in 1787. how can we create and maintain structures of government, powerful and flexible enough to deal with the vicissitudes of crisis but accountable enough and controlled enough to be consistent with principles of republican government? it is our constitutional structure put to the task. how will the responses to this

financial crisis change our system of government? what are the implications for executive power, the constitutional bankruptcy system, central banking, government involvement in the economy and regulatory governance? it is a privilege to be able to discuss these issues even as the events which inspired them continue to unfold and a pleasure for me to welcome all of you to this conference entitled, the constitution and the financial crisis. welcome. [applause]

>> good afternoon. my name is carlos bea and i am a judge on the ninth circuit court of appeals. i'm very happy to be here to introduce the panelists on our first panel. the panelists in alphabetical order, i will leave it to you to determine from left to right, r. david barron, who is a professor at harvard law school. he recently returned to harvard from serving in the obama administration where he was acting assistant general from 2009 to 2010. he often writes about federalism, the place of cities and constitutional law and the executive branch. in 2008 professor barron and are

besser marty lederman were an influential pair of articles in the harvard law a review on the commander in chief. professor baron also served in the executive branch before going into the academy as an attorney adviser in the office of legal counsel and the department of justice and he was also a law clerk to my colleague, stephen reinhardt. next to him is mariano-florentino cuellar. professor of cuellar is a professor at stanford and faculty scholar at stanford law school. he too has recently returned from the academy from the executive branch in 2009 to 2010 he served as special assistant to the president for justice and regulatory policy. this summer president obama pointed him to the council of the administrative conference of the united states.

professor cuellar writes about administrative agencies and national security and he recently published an article in the university of chicago law review on the world war ii era history of the federal security agency. professor cuellar sauce on the executive committee of the stanford center or international security and cooperation. next professor cuellar is jillion metzger who is a professor at columbia law school. she writes about administrative law and federalism and the wave ministry to plot intersects with federalism concerns and constitutional law. her most recent article is federalism and federal agency reform which is forthcoming in the columbia law review. before joining the columbia faculty, professor metzger was a staff attorney at the brennan center for justice at new york

university law school. is the massive professor of law and cromwell professor of law at the university of virginia law school. he writes about constitutional law and especially the original understanding of the executive branch. he has written extensively on the powers of the president during wartime including articles in the texas law review called the separation and overlap of war and military powers. before joining the faculty professor park auch was an associate professor at university school of law in a professor at the university of san diego school of law. he also serves as associate general counsel for the office of management and budget in 2000 he is also the author of an article in the gail law journal

entitled, how to remove a federal judge. [laughter] what we are going to do today is i am going to, before the panel came i sent them a following question which i think will sort of center their discussion and each of them will speak in turn and make an opening statement and then i will throw the floor open so each can ask questions and perhaps take a few questions from the public also. the question i send our distinguished panelists is this. under both the bush and the bomb administrations, the executive ranch acted aggressively in its attempts to address the financial crisis. do you think either administration reached or came close to breaching the executive

branch's constitutional authority? as a matter of law and policy, should the executive branch have increased power airing a financial crisis, or should the president add within the strict boundaries of powers delegated to them by congress? finally, will the exercise of executive authority in in the recent financial crisis successful? with that question before them, i now turn to professor barron. speak we will do it this way and it can be more of a conversation. so i just wanted thank professor mcconnell for inviting me to this end for thinking to have the hunger-- conference. as his opening remarks indicate, the question of the role of financial crises in constitutional law when you

think about it is obvious but it is also i think very much understudied. partly what i want to do in my opening remarks is a way of dodging mr. bea's question and put it in the area we are much more familiar with in the national security crisis. the basic question is, should we think of the economic crisis and the way the government responded to it in constitutional terms roughly in the way we think the government response to national security and national security is irrelevant to the question. this has been a subject of some debate. i know professor poser i think is written on exactly this topic and there is at least two reasons why it might matter to resolve this point. let one is that if in fact we see differences in the way we are operating in the two

spheres, but those differences don't actually seem necessary as a legal or constitutional matter there is the least a question as to why we shouldn't have both. in other words we are seeing things happening in the way they respond to economic crises that are different in the way they are happening with respect to national security crisis, it might suggest he could make her national security more like the economic one. if that is not the case though, then if instead the legal rules are driving it, the constitutional structure and the authorities it has been given actually are leading to the distinct responses, then we have the different type of question which is due any to change change the legal rules in some dramatic way? so it is a threshold question of the said law that is driving the difference in the responses or do some other thing that is internal to the nature of the

crisis? there is there is a separate each of which is as the government differently, just as a factual matter. when we see the government acting, good acting in any way that is meaningfully different and if so how? judge bea question to us might suggest no. so the take-away would be the government acts aggressively whenever there's a crisis in a matter what and even if we think the rule structures are different the rule structures are not that different because the government's basic mode is aggression and it finds a way to be aggressive no matter what the rules are to be the second possibility. so i don't don't have answered these questions but i have a few observations some of which have come from my own recent experience as a lawyer and a circumstances where these crises were happening in the go questions were coming. i will say my own self experience of it to chime in the midst of processing as to what to make of it in the matter is

that it is a quite different feel in the two circumstances and some of that is almost mundane facts about how the government is working, but some of that has to do with the particular authorities that are in place so i will say just a little bit about each. in their brownlett just the mundane facts, a very striking difference between how law gets made in one setting versus the others virtually everything is classified in the national security context and virtually nothing is classified in response the economic crisis. at first glance you might not think that matter tremendously as to the shaping of law but as a process mattered has a huge impact on the ability of people to communicate with each other. to openness within the government and the sharing of ideas and the like is a very different thing when you are dealing with legislator were. you don't have to be in a classified room. you can take work home with you. you can be discussing it and thinking about it in a way that in a classified setting has its

own effect on how the question is resolved. is quite striking thing when you are in the government dealing with these questions to see the difference in those two circumstances. at the second thing which points to a somewhat different direction is there is a much greater degree of fragmentation in the legal decision-maker's in the economic sphere where governments organized in a national security sphere. and really happened up have independent agencies dealing with the national security crisis of any significance. all the relevant actors are in the room with the relevant legal decision-makers to make the decision. in the economic sphere the treasury department would be bound to follow opinions on the legal counsel or the attorney general at the tradition has been that independent agencies aren't so bound unless they agree and in fact it is not the usual case the department of justice would even be a bias in the independent agencies as the source of their legal authorities. so that means there's a lot of

separate potential legal decision-makers are operating simultaneously and responding to the crisis in a way that's not necessarily going to be coordinated to the extent legal response to national security crisis would be which is a fairly significant difference just operationally. the mundane experience of the thing to other factors that seem of significance to me, the last to a .2 is the first is legal authorities that are in play. in a national security crisis, the possibility of an appeal two cars with no authority is ever-present. there's a possibility that statutory limitations might themselves be unconstitutional and that is a thing that is considered as entrenching on the president's powers and there's the possibility that if there is a lack of statutory authority the president has supplemental constitutional authority to respond to the emergency. that is not they feel in the context of responding to an

economic crisis. it is statutory law all the way down as discussed. there are ways in which there might be constitutional limitation on the president's ability to control this or that actor but short of that there is very little, at least in the modern government now, sense of an independent constitutional source of authority for the president to respond to the crisis or of a sense of a limitation statutorily of something he wanted to do that it could be disregarded on constitutional grounds. and that means everything is in the mode of statutory interpretation. relatedly, the particular statues that are in place at least in the last aspect tend to be operating statutes. in the most recent national security crisis the basic statutory framework intel with was a whole range of limiting statutes, criminal provisions like the foreign intelligence surveillance act, the torture at them a lot. there was in my experience relatively less about, at least

in the early stages. it might be that the dodd amendment that was adopted with respect to economic compensation restrictions could be understood as analogous, limiting statutes that had to be worked through but i say this because i think one has to think about the relative aggression of loitering in a response to it in connection with whether what the government is doing is interpreting what was an authorized extension of her sponsor crisis versus whether it is interpreting and in an aggressive manner which wasn't restrict this power in the midst of a crisis. those are two different kinds of statues to be dealing with and i think it is important to segregate them out. to last point is the attitude within the executive branch to what the aftermath of the crisis suggest about the kind of powers that will be needed in the

future. here i say it is a pretty, to me, significant difference that i don't have ended good explanation for what is driving it but it can be quite interesting. so if you look at the history of national security crisis, it is very rare that the president having found the power not unheard of but rare, having found the power that was used in thought to have been used successfully, that the president would then be eager to give it up. the story of presidential power, national security authorities but in the last crisis on the economic side, the administration at least was supportive of a new framework going forward, which on its face would not contain the kind of easy authority to do some of the things that it claims were successful in the event of a future crisis, most obviously the auto bail out. so the new regime that is in place on its face does not make that something that can be

accomplished in the same way that was accomplished last time. instead there would be a much more fragmented regulatory structure which does not appear any particular actor would have the authority to do what it was done through the president of the secretary of the treasury under the t.a.r.p. regime. so to my mind there is a significant question as to what is it about the economic crisis that went successfully dealt with assuming one thought it was but by the count of the administration they believe it was with the auto bail out and having dealt with the response with the new regime which wouldn't contain the authorities to repeat that action. resid think in the national security grounded strikes me as highly unlikely that one would have found the grant of authority the executive branch resulting in a the successful response to a national security threat with the conclusion the administration would seek legislation which wouldn't contain the same authority that they adjust exercise successfully. it is a puzzle to me as to what

is driving that but it seems to me if potential fruitful line of agreement. >> thank you very much. now we will turn to professor cuellar. >> thank you judge bea and thank you to my colleagues mike mcconnell for organized conference on a very important topic. just to set the stage and give some context i want to say from a left right perspective i'm right here in the middle. i just want to point that out. there's a lot to say about this topic including two things that i think matter a great year but i'm not going to belabor. first became near to a truly catastrophic financial disaster and at least to me the arguments the effect we could have done fine with more limited intervention or convincing at this point. second, the separate of power slows down decisions. that is partly what it is designed to do which is one reason congress routinely delegates a great deal of power to the executive, the preeminent crisis decision-maker in our

system to quote the supreme court from the mistretta case our increasingly complex society congress cannot do its job absinthe and ability to delegate power under broad general direction. rather than belaboring these points or want to focus on making for points that i think are important to the questions judge bea raises. first, some of the episodes and what became a truly epic high-stakes drama to prevent the financial concussion raise constitutional questions but i don't actually think those are the most difficult questions raised. i think the most difficult questions raised are about institutional design and operations. gotchas is a little bit more about that. the present starts with broad constitutional and sent statutory power. the statutory powers that are implicated in response, the emergency economic stabilization act of 2008, much-maligned. congress authorized the executive to bail out financial institutions. i don't think the fact the

company makes cars means it can't be a financial institution or lowe or his failure to grant a bill that would specifically set up a different program to bail out the car companies means the meaning of the esa excludes companies on its face. moreover the executive does not exercise power in a vacuum in congressional and other political responses are part of our system of accountability. some argue that esa itself was unconstitutional because it gave away too much power should the executive. violating the non-delegation of doctrine. i point out these arguments are hard to accept. the existing parameters of the non-delegation doctrine have been with us for seven decades running for classifications like curtiss wright and mistretta and requiring congress to do more and no do less than establish a principle delineating general policy in the agency that is to apply. secretary here has the authority to purchase securities only if he determines doing so would promote market stability in congress by subnine factors that

could be considered in such a decision including eligibility for a broad range of financial institutions protecting retirement security of americans. as well as a champion of the non-delegation doctrine that justice scalia put in the american trucking case which i would consider to be deleting non-delegation case kohl even in sweeping road tour of the schemes we have never demanded sedges provided a determinate criteria for answering questions like how much regulating is too much? a statutory grant of authority under controlled substances act for example allows the a.g. to criminalize possession of decision of drugs when it is necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety. nor do i think it constitutionally automatic to the degree across as a very explicit and already established line in president that an inferior reporting to the treasury secretary and not subject to senate confirmation for example was in the world of a car czar or as i prefer to call it an autocrat or pay czar.

secretary geithner was accountable. we may disagree with this decision but he was accountable and i believe the constitution leaves some latitude in defining these relationships. the second i want to make is the following. there isn't any episode that raises some more concerns from my perspective is secretary paulson's initial draft of the t.a.r.p. legislation. go back in time to late 2008, septemberseptember, and you see a piece of legislation that quite differently from the one congress actually adopted with just a few pages long and the specific authority that the secretary of the treasury would get was literally a couple of lines long. i would argue that version of the t.a.r.p. legislation comes closer to violating the non-delegation doctrine as well as violating what i will describe is an afghan principle. that sounds like it was growth on a napkin with a fire alarm blaring in the background proceed with caution. section 2 vet bills as the secretary is authorized to take such action as the secretary

deems necessary to carry out the authorities and the fact. i'm not exactly sure what that means. from a doctrinal perspective though it is still a closed case given the lines we authority crust in the american trucking, benzene and mistretta. moreover a number of us in academia would have predicted congress protected itself and revoke that statute quite aggressively reminding us of lawmakers relevance even without help from some more aggressive urchin of the non-delegation doctrine. somehow in a couple of days the bill went from three pages to about 157 pages. the third i want to make is reviving a more robust version of the non-delegation doctrine has cost as well as perhaps benefits but those costs even leaving aside that would ignore more than about 70 years of precedent are the following. saying congress has to be drastically more specific then what emerged in emergency economic stabilization act i would argue is akin to making it harder for congress to make a deal. some favor of us non-database 10 doctrine probably for that very

reason but they are also downsized that are exacerbated in a crisis. the executive may be back in a corner and forced to rely more on novel and unusual arguments they bigelow and resize the direction of david suggested which is to say to argue that their other authorities beside statutes that may be the executive could conceivably rely on given the security impact of a crisis like this. or the executive in the u.s. government or have switches be cast aside left on the sidelines if the crisis worsens. the last point i want to make is this. to say that something is constitutional is not to say it is prudent or wise. that is what our politics are for. i do think much of what has occurred make sense but probably not everything does and i leave to folks over the course of the next day and a half to tease this out and really ask hard questions about this. i'm not prepared to defend or what it's worth every detail of the public-private program.

the problem -- my process and private companies and i do not favor the taking of such stakes when the situation remotely resembles normal times. i think it raises a ton of difficult institutional and prudential questions. but these are not only constitutional questions. by balloting by a broad interpretation of rot such is the emergency economic stabilization act, a lot more depends on people and institutional details like how accountable as the fed and he was put in a position to administer it? user dilemmas that are also existing in the more conventional national security context and i say conventional because again i have no doubt the financial meltdown threatened our security in some sense. they illustrate one reason why our discussion of constitutional principles today implicate not just whether the constitution has been violated but the larger question of institutional design that this conference isd