>> let me ask this question. if this range act which is high up on the list of our new leadership's agenda, it's the

fourth piece of legislation introduced, what would this do this health care reform? how would you take an enormous piece of legislation like this and i think obamacare is going to be a congratulatory mark in history. how would this affect it? wouldn't it just stop it in its tracks? >> it depends on what members of congress feel about it. if the majority of those in both houses of congress support the regulations necessary to implement that law, then it goes on as before. the only thing that would stop it under the act would be if majorities in congress don't support those regulations. it ensures essentially that the american people get a regulatory policy that the american people

want, and that's a great towards greater political accountability. >> well, wait a minute. the majority of the congress already passed the bill, and the president signed it into law. >> congressional opinions change. congress repeal statutes, alter statutes, and one of the problems is you don't have legislation introin last year. >> can i ask unanimous con acceptability for one -- consent for one minute here? thank you, sir. now look, gentlemen and lady, you know to challenge a regulation all they have to do is walk into the nearest federal district court and sue away, and we have registrationlations that get reviewed and modified or kicked out. what's wrong with that? >> nothing, but courts don't review the policy merits. courts don't ask if legislation is a good idea, is this

something american people support? what courts look at is the nonpolicy questions. were the rules followed? those are two separate questions. you're responsible for the policy questions. >> look, we just passed the health care months ago. you mean we got to go back and look at it again? >> i think when you have major legislation and agencies implementing that legislation -- >> you know what -- >> [inaudible] >> so like to me now it sounds like a back door way of legislating again, and when they are charged with actually just making the rules to implement a bill already signed into law. thank you very much, plirm, for -- mr. chairman, for your generosity. >> thank you, chairman. i want to follow-up on the comment made by mr. conyers when

he said the individual who is objecting to the rule is sue away. who pays for that? who brings that lawsuit? usually it's the small business owner, a farmer, a gentleman objecting to that regulation? i'll ask mr. mcintosh that question. >> you're right. it's the private party affected by the legislation, and their recourse is in fact very limited in that they have to argue that the agency failed to follow its own procedures or acted capriciously not that they disagree with or they feel it's unfair that the regulation imposes burden say on wheat farmers, but not on corn farmers, and the law says to the agency, the department of agriculture, you go and allocate what should be planted on the land, and, you know, do it in a way that maximizes the return

for agriculture. well, if the farmer who is adversely affected by that wants his day in court, all he can say is, well, sure, they allocated it, but they didn't give me my allocation. the courts say sorry, you lose. they had to make that decision. i think the later remark reflects correctly what the act would do is say that decision who gets what allocation for what crops to do should be a legislative decision, and so in many ways what the bill does is correct a constitutional deficiency that's inherit in the regulatory program where the accountability for legislative decisions like those never comes back to congress. >> yeah, and correct me if i'm wrong, mr. mcintosh, the bureaucrat creating the rule -- >> no, he's a civil servant, a

person appointed by the president. >> when i talk to my small business constituent or farmer in the district and he objects to the policy, i can't go to him, well, we'll help that guy out the next time around because we disagree with that policy. he's essentially stuck with that rule other than the courts available to him? is that a fair assessment? >> his political recourse would be to join and vote enough members of congress to change the law or to vote a new president who would change the regulation, direct his agency. >> okay. i appreciate that. there's been a lot of objection that i'm hearing in this testimony that one of the problems is the workload that would be put on congress, finding the time to go through and develop that. wouldn't we face that same problem through the enabling legislation and amended the eni believing legislation, isn't that a tremendous workload on congress?

no one objects the congress would have the authority to do it, do you? we could change the enabling authority and clarify what we meant from congress. no one objects from that? >> nope. >> that burden on congress would be bigger i would argue. am i far-fetched on that conclusion that it's a huge burden on congress? >> yes, it would. i mean, back in 1995, we thought about doing that, address a lot of regulatory problems, and some of them were dealt with, and others didn't. let me give two seconds so brag about you all. i think congress can handle the burden. the senate continues to mystify me -- >> you're not alone. >> people in the body say they get things done by unanimous consent ultimately, but i think it can be done. >> thank you. i yield the balance of my time. >> thank you. the senator from georgia. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

mr. adler, isn't it correct that regulations that pertain to clean air, these are the regulations that you're speaking of being able to stop? >> well, any regulations that are made. >> yeah, air quality, water quality? >> the examples i gave weren't -- >> no, no, no, i just want you to answer the questions. air quality, water quality; correct? >> yes. >> what about food safety? >> i think members of congress should be willing to vote to be held accountable. >> what about drug safety? >> i think members of congress should be held accountable by voting on whether or not those regulations are a good idea. >> what about financial reform. >> again, congressman, i don't think members of congress -- >> that is covered under these regulations that are brought to bear on big business and

industry. >> yes, and -- >> primarily. >> primarily, and -- if they were accountable -- >> and so things like the health and safety of workers, do you want to be able to stop those kinds of regulations from becoming the force of law? >> no, i want my member of congress to have to vote on that decision. i want to know -- >> well, well, tell me now, you contend that $1 trillion per year is what all of these regulations cost? how many new regulations are promulgated yearly that have that economic significance? >> that's the agate affect. between 2000 and 2009 the major of major rule -- the number of mayor rules affected is between 80 and 90 a

year. >> okay, and you're familiar with the attributes of the senate? >> yeah, yeah. >> in terms of them doing their work? >> yeah, and -- >> and you stated the fact that one of those attributes is not the ability to move quickly; is that correct? >> i agree with that. >> you've heard that before, and you know that to be a fact, suspect that correct? >> it's correct. >> the senate does not move quickly. >> the senate has to be moved to quick -- has to be forced to move quickly. >> in that obscure regulation you think would be enough to cause them to set aside all of the judicial appointments and other important treaties that need to be ratified, all the legislation that mr. mcintosh gives us credit for producing here in the house, but because of an obscure regulation, they

would certainly spring into action. is that what you want us to believe? >> i don't think a regulation dealing with air or water or financial that costs more than a billion a year is an obscure regulation. >> well, let's talk about obscure regulations. who would decide or how would it be decided that a regulation should be subjected to the congressional review under the reigns act? how -- >> the executive branch's cost estimates would determine. >> who brings that to the attention of congress? >> the agent has a procedure where that information is automatically transmitted to both houses of congress with the regulation is finalized. >> who would do that? >> i'd have to check. i think both -- >> would it be the u.s. chamber of conference? >> the agency does it and the

comptroller and the accountability office is responsible for submitting that and within three days legislation is automatically reduce in both houses. >> there's some ability for politics to infect the process of actually producing the legislation there. >> actually, no. the way the act is -- there's no amendment -- >> it would be a government bureaucrat that would do that? >> i spend 5 lot of time on regulatory policy. i'm more worried about backroom deals and agencies than up or down slots on the -- votes on the floor. >> how do you get politics, mr. adler, out of the rule making process? aren't we by subjecting the rule making process to congressional dictates, aren't we by the very

nature of what we do here in the house subjecting these rules to politics and -- >> rules are -- >> and influence, political influence with campaign contributions and whatnot? >> rules and public and private behavior are things officials should be held accountable for and all members of congress vote up or done is far less subject than ma manipulation than in the halls of regulatory agencies. your small home owner is not spending time at the usda lobbying on regulations. i don't know how members of congress feel. >> we just want to remove all regulatory action here in congress, less government, let's cut government, cut regulation, and let's allow the members of the u.s. chambers of commerce and other large members of

congress that run out business and others that run out in society and whatever will be, will be. i appreciate it, thank you, sir. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona, mr. blacks. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank all of you here for being here today. yes, my first question is to you sir, it acurs to me that not only the process here, but the mind set in which agencies write their regulations could be one the most significant advantages of this legislation because if i were the director of agencies and knew it was subjected to the scrutiny, that congress was going to approve it, i would be careful on how i wrote it. i would make sure it's regulation that has common sense and could stand the legislative process itself, so with that,

sense it only requires congress to approve major rules, but it could affect and change the culture of the agency, in what way do you think that improves rule making, or do you think i'm all wet here? >> no, i think you're exactly right. the prospect of having the work product that the agency does in developing a regulation be scrutinize the and debated in congress and voted up and down will have as it does on every other decision the agency makes where congress expressed an interest has an impact on their thinking and calculation about it. that provides more accountability ultimately to the citizens who vote on members of congress. that same accountability is in the national review act, but you can still by having a discharged position in the house to stop a

rule rather than the presumption being that it goes forward or 30 members of the senate can have it discharged position. the mere prospect of a debate even if everyone assumes that won't pass, i think can also have a sal ewe story effect on the deliberations. i'm encouraging members of congress while you're deliberating the act to use your authority under the congressional review act as well, but, again, it comes down to sunshine which mr. adler mentioned, bringing things out into the public debate has a tremendous benefit on all the actors involved. >> well, thank you, sir. i know there's going to be and already manifest here debate as to the constitutionality of the legislation. i for one am fundment tally convinced it's constitutional, but i want to be open to potential dissent here. those who cite article 2 section

1 of the constitution are obviously citing that executive power should be invested in the president, and some of us would cite oral one section one and regulation is certainly has a lot of the same characteristics as legislation, so if you're going to make that case, it's important to consider, but in constitutional terms, mr. adler, is there any critical substantive difference between the act and a statute that treats new regulations as proposed recommendations to congress for legislative action? >> i don't think there's any significance difference and both are constitutional under the existing president. >> i wanted to find out what is your -- why do you postulate this is constitutional? is there anything you would point out in particular? >> a couple things. the resentment requirements have to be satisfied, both satisfy

that. i think that the supreme court made clear repeatedly in numerous opinions as have lower courts all authority to issued regulations must be granted. there is no residual authority to issue regulations that comes with other grants of authority agencies. it is not something seen as inherently executive. it is something that for the most part, the federal agencies did not enjoy until the 1970s,. there were exceptions, but the presumption was unless agencies are granted the authority, the legislative type rule is an authority they lack. and congress is not obligated to have that authority, and if congress wants to restrain that authority as it does here, there's not constitutional problem, and it doesn't create the sorts of concern that might be raised if, for example, congress sought to impose similar limits on the exercise of prosecutor discretion or other things closer to the core.

>> i understand. that's a good answer. quickly, then, justice breyer and profession tribe of harvard supported the view that the act is constitutional. i know you know that, but can you specify why you think mr. adler is wrong or professor tribe and judge breyer is wrong? >> that's an open invitation, and the light is red, but if i may answer? >> briefly if you will. >> i will try. i think justice breyer who was then a judge, not a justice, is engaging in what he often does which is extremely creative, more theoretical than practical analysis in this article which i have read very carefully, and i think one of the most important things is that his -- he sees as a replacement for the one house veto which was invalidated and he saw it as a

case by case going through each of the statutes rather than an across the board blanket provision, but most importantly, when he finishes, he makes is very clear that it is neither practical nor desirable. he questions the wisdom of it. if you read the article, it's we could do this stuff and think about these things -- >> in other words it's stupid by constitutional? >> but this was before the last several decades of supreme court decisions in morse server -- and a few other cases that separation of powers has a lifeon. they are looking on a functional basis. >> the time expired. >> yes, sir. >> the gentleman there illinois. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm still relatively new here,

but i learn something new every day. today i learned it's not good when someone is not elected is enforcing our laws, especially criminal ones, so the next time a police officer stops me, i'm going to say who elected you or fbi agents or state's attorneys or just go on down the line. in the end, the only person who is legislated in the executive branch is the executive. at the county level, that's a state's attorney, but there's some delegation. this isn't 1776. it's a far more complicated world, and ladies and gentlemen, i would respectfully suggest or defie you to say i'm not thinking about regulation today. when i got on this commuter airliner, i'm not going to wonder or worry about how many hours of sleep that pilot got last night. come to my hometown in chicago, the more bidty and mortality capital of the united states for

asthma don't think about regulation or if you drink the tap water in chicago which has chromium levels, not in the lake, but in the drinking water, three times higher, in the new legislation. you can decide now or when you have your eggs in the morning, a million cases of salma kneel la last year? i understand, well, we all understand, that the president was trying to trike a balance here that -- strike a balance here that over a 200 year friction over the executive branch and the legislative branch, and it gnaws on you when you don't like what they do. you want to change the rules when it bothers you, so i looked at it. i talked about the president striking a balance, mr. mcintosh, mr. adl erk r, how

many rules do you think this president's epa has proposed or finalized in his first 21 months? just to guess if you want. >> major rules or all rules? >> all rules, epa only, clean air agent acts. >> just under clean air? >> yeah. >> just under clean air acts, probably under a dozen. >> much higher. it's 87. i was appalled. i couldn't believe it. who could be more liberal than that. look at the clinton administration. first two years, what do you think his numbers were? 115. just shows a trend here. look further, george w. bush, first two years, 146. 146. i mean, mr. mic into be, you

used -- mcintosh, you used the expression, i don't want to misquote you, but the courts forced their hand on carbon. does that mean you just disagreed with them? >> no, what i meant by that was the court, i think, incorrectly interpreted the bill. >> but isn't that -- back to the constitution, you are disagreeing with two out of three branches. doesn't the constitution say that the executive enforces and the supreme court interprets, and they interpreted. you're upset with both of them now. >> well, at the time, the executive branch did not share the court's interpretation, and i think there was a fair amount of evidence in the legislative history that congress didn't intend that when they passed the clean air act amendment. >> well, if i could, sir, please, let me read the language you had a problem with, section 202a1 which in judgment

causes -- talking about carbon here -- that causes or contributes to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. we're talking generalities before, but now we're talking specifics. you don't think that language implies that there could be a problem that someone in the epa could interpret to epa danger the public's health or safety? >> no. that section of the clean air act was intended to give epa the authority to regulate when substances that were at the time that bill was passed not known to the problematic for the health become known to them, but at the time, people knew of carbon dioxide, and i would recommend you check with john who was the author of it. they did not intend for that provision of the clean air act to give authority for epa to

regulate carbon dioxide. they talked about it in other parts of the bill, decided not to give that authority. the language you cited i think is also a really important point for another issue that is very key to this whole debate, and that is how specific should congress be when it delegates the legislative authority to the regulatory agencies, and there's always been a debate back and forth about whether general lang like the language you cited is appropriate. the consensus is that it has been and the clean air acts and the language cited there, but i would point to you in an article that i referred to in my testimony by professor at boston university, gary lawson, where he points out if you had the goodness and niceness act and said to the regulatory agency, prom mull gait rules for goodness and niceness and figure out a punishment, that would be

too broad a delegation. somewhere in there there's a spectrum and the constitution says no, the legislature can't delegate all of its legislative authority to the agencies. the reins act gives you the protection of going against that and major regulations go back to congress and there's back for a vote. >> i apologize for the gentleman's time expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida, mr. rolffs. >> thank you, mr. chairman. it's interesting when we talk about the regulatory environment. what i learned is if i want to be profitable or if i want to make sure that i got the right environment, i try to manage my risks, and there's some insurance risk, the market risk, the resource risk, but one of the things i learned is the regulatory risk that exists is almost not manageable, and the reason it's not is because

there's no trends. there's no way to anticipate what the regulatory environment will be if you want to start a business. in my particular state, there's a water criteria that the epa is drying trying to im-- trying to impose that the ago industry says it will cost part time jobs, lose over $1 billion annually, cost the fertilizer industry $1.6 billion in manufacturing cost. it seems to me this reins act would allow at least some sense of risk management over the regulatory environmentment wouldn't you agree? >> certainly. >> with regard to more imposition of regulatory schemes, i'm reminded back years ago when i was in the legislature and this is on a smaller scale, but i was active in a boy scout group that had a

summer camp, and they had the property for 50 years, but they wanted to put on autohouse there for the camp. they had no running water or electricity, they had to get architectural drawings, approved plans, the dep had to soil sample, and by the time they got anything in order to meet with the regulatory system, summer camp was over. what it taught me though was logic and reason is not always there. i know that hr10 exempts camping, hunting, and fishing, but without logic and reason, i think you also lack accountability, and one of the things, i want to ask you this, would not the reins act allow for a greater sense of accountability to where it should be belong in congressional oversight of the regulatory environment? >> as i said earlier, mr. ross, i strongly endorse the notion of congressional oversight. i have no qualms whatsoever with

your committees calling up -- you call them bureaucrat, i call them committed career civil servants and political appointees at the agencies and ask them, what are you doing and why are you doing it, and what's the support for it? i think that's appropriate, but i would answer your earlier question differently. if you are worried about no trend, his answers to mr. johnson's question was that there is no trend. last year, congress passed a health care bill. this year it's going to be implemented, but it's coming back up, and if just one house decide they don't like it, then it's not going to happen, and in two years there's another election and maybe the other chamber will feel differently, and the ability to predict what each election, and elections do have consequences, i believe that and agree with that, but

are you going to change then every two years the possibility that the rule is on, the rule off, the rule is on, the rule is off. i think that leads to more uncertainty, less predictability. >> so you suggest that the status quo is more certain in terms of aseesing the regulatory risk? >> it's a process. you pass a bill. you then turn it over to the executive branch to faithfully carry out the laws and to issue the regulations. i agree with mr. adler, and agency is not a free agent, cannot do whatever it likes. it can only do what congress said, but if congress says set the levels at this level, and the agency does that, it is faithfully carrying out the position that congress enacted. >> don't you agree in terms of accountability that you have a greater degree of accountability where you have elected representation? >> yes, in the initial statutes that was passed that authorizes

the agencies is one that is fully accountable because it was by and passed by both houses of congress and signed by the president, and the fact that now one house may think differently about it, does not lead to greater accountability. what about the other house that may like the idea? you got gridlock. you got problems. i think those problems create greater uncertainty. >> but with regard to gridlock, and again, just to point out quickly here. in terms of the bill, the content of the bill says within three days of the regulatory rule that senate shall introduce their joint resolutions so there would be an expedited fashion. i take issue with you being gridlock there, but i see my time expired. thank you. >> thank you. on behalf of us, we want to thank the witnesses for the testimony today. without objection, all members have five legislative days to submit additional questions for

the witnesses that we forward to the witnesses and respond as promptly as possible so they are part of the record. without objection all members will have -- >> mr. chairman, i ask unanimous concept to enter doo the record the crs report on total costs and benefits of rules. >> without objection. >> thank you. >> without objection, all members have five legislative days to submit any additional materials for up collusion of the record on behalf of all of us, thank you for your expertise, time, and your participation. this hearing it adjourned. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> tonight, republican fcc commissioner on the fcc's approval of the come cast nbc mortgager as well as efforts to increase broad band effort for mobile devices.

>> at today's state department briefing, crowley released a statement on the suicide bombing and we would have a hard time supports the government there if the government supported he has bo la. >> we have a -- [laughter] can't do better than that. [laughter] a buffalo goalie. [laughter] good afternoon, and welcome to the department of state. just a couple of items before taking your questions. the secretary has arrived in mexico and is meeting with

foreign minister and will travel later on today to mexico city for a meeting with president. she will participate and reenforce u.s.-mexico cooperation on a wide range of issues including competitiveness and environment immigration and of course cooperation against transnational organize the crime. we condemned the terrorists we saw today in rush 145. we stand with the people of russia and offer our sympathies to the loved ones of those injured and killed. we're continue to work with russia to of the prevent the threat to peace loving countries. we offer support to the russian government if need be to help bring the perpetrators to

justice. what? at this point, we have no information that any american citizens were killed or injured. assistant secretary for new eastern affairs arrived and today he's met with the foreign minister and he will meet with other government officials and critical party leaders and civil society advocates in order to convey u.s. support to the people. the united states seeks to be supportive while recognizing this is a that notion initiated and led process. they will discuss ways how the u.s. can be a constructive partner in charting forward including social freedom and work to achieve transparent and credible and timely elections as well as its government addressing the underlying and

economic grievances that led to the recent unrest. kirk campbell is in hawaii today leading meetings on pacific island issues including a bilateral coordination meeting with the asian development bank an a dialogue with australia and japan. he will also hold consul traition with australia and new zeal lant. the purpose is to confirm our shared commitment to work together with island countries to enhance security and prosperity in the region. they also pledge support for steps to hasten the restoration for democratic institutions and the rule of law in fiji. assistant secretary campbell will participate in the state of pacific dialogue hosted by the east-west center to discuss key issues related to the islands. >> in january, he decided why he

was a better venue than say beltsville or something like that. is he going -- is he crossing the pacific? >> that's a good question. i don't think so, but if we have any further -- >> do you know who he is meeting with? >> his counterparts. >> and there were three again? new zealand, australia, and japan? >> new zealland, australia, and japan in different combinations, but there's representatives coming in from a broad range of questions including island countries in the region. >> okay. >> the help you're offering the russians, what kind of help specifically? >> no, we've just touched base saying if you need help with the ongoing investigation, we have expertise, of course, russia does as well, but we have made the offer of assistance. i have no indication at this point that a lot of

investigations i'm confident started whether the russian federation responded yet. >> that's presumably fbi? >> yeah. >> could i also ask you you mentioned violent extremism. they actually apparently have a terrorism investigation ongoing. would you use the word terrorism at this point? >> well, obviously, it's investigation, but, you know, i don't know that i would draw a significant distinction between the two. we use the term violence extremism and others use third term terrorism. >> on the trip to tee knee sha. how long is he staying? >> my understanding is he'll be back here on wednesday. >> so today and tomorrow then? >> yeah because i think there's a conference later in week on iraq that he will participate in. >> okay. >> so right now his plans are to

travel and then get back here to the united states. >> okay, and just a follow-up, does he a message to him or does the u.s. about the viability of the former president's party? >> well, recall, you know, secretary clinton has had conversations with the prime minister and the foreign minister prior to this. gordon grey, our ambassador there continues to be in couch with the interim government. what jeff is trying to do is just assess, you know, where they are in the process and how the united states can be helping. >> [inaudible] >> i believe that's the foreign minister -- i mean, what's the question? >> the question is is he a

member of the foreign -- >> again, i'll defer to the interim government. i know there have been some resignations, you know, from the party of, you know, former president ben ali, but as to the political status of individuals in key positions, you know, this is a matter for the government and it is important for the government to continue to open up a dialogue with them and respond to the aspirations of its people. >> now, you said something about helping tenesia translate to democracy. how will you do that? >> well, clearly, the elections they are beginning preparations for will be vitally important. we have expertise and part of what the assistant secretary will evaluate is to what extent we might be helpful in

providing, you know, some of the support through ngo's that worked with a number of countries around the world, # you know, for helping and preparing for elections. obviously, there's not a history of free and fair elections. >> do you know turn left at egypt and stop in beirut -- [inaudible] >> can i just follow-up? >> you know, what's the position on the government? do you support it, recognize it? people are asking for the prime minister to step down. today there were clashes. >> we support the transition that is underway, and we hope that this transition will be peaceful. we understand that the, you know, the civil society, you know, has questions about the nature of the government. you know, clearly after, you know, decades of mistrust, there are questions that people

continue to raise. the government is, you know, trying to be responsive. we know that this is hard, and we no that the government will at times, you know, have missteps along the way. obviously, we are conscious of the fact that one independent television station was briefly shut down i believe yesterday, and we have expressed our concerns to the government about that. the government reversed its action after a few hours, so, you know, this is a government that is trying hard to respond to the aspirations of its people. we're encouraged by steps its taken so far. there's a lot of work to be done. we're prepared to help the country along this path, but certainly opening up space for political parties, beginning a dialogue with civil societies, releasing prisoners, opening up

space for, you know, free media covering ongoing events. these are positive steps, but the government has to continue to respond to the demands of the people, and we'll see where that goes which is why jeff is there getting a firsthand view. >> is that conveyed directly by secretary? >> i can't say he conveyed that, but it's conveyed from the embassy to the government. >> [inaudible] >> sure. >> excuse me. how big a blow is it that the next prime minister looks like he's hezbollah supported? >> well, everyone's got a whip count. there's a constitutional process playing itself out. ultimately, the make up of the future government of lebanon is lebanese decision. we're monitoring the situation closely, and we'll wait to see exactly, you know, who is

offered formally, you know, the opportunity to form a government and what the composition our government looks like. >> well, is there any stach tore yal that will get -- is there anything stach -- statutory that is hezbollah dominated or led government? >> no, and we'll see what the time makeup of the lebanese government is and then we'll evalwait that that means in terms of our relationship. >> well, there's some reports that unnamed u.s. diplomats have been going around saying if hezbollah backed person becomes the prime minister that the u.s. will sever economic aide to the lebanese government. is that correct? >> well, again, we'll reserve judgments until a government is formed.

our view of hezbollah is well-known. we see it as a terrorist organization and we have great concerns about a government that, you know, within which hezbollah plays a leading role. it is hard for us to imagine any government has being, you know, truly representative of all of lebanon if that government is prepared to, you know, take steps back, for example, from its ongoing support, you know, for the work of the tribunal. we will look ag the composition of the government, lock at the implications in terms of policies that we feel are vital to the future of lebanon. we continue to want to see a government that is serving the interests of the people of lebanon, not the government of other countries. we want to see a government emerge in lebanon to continue to support the work of the tribunals and the era of impunity, so again, we'll

reserve judgment until we see exactly what happens. >> without asking you in a way that you'll see we reserve judgment, is it legal for the administration to provide funding to a government that is led or dominated by a group that you call foreign terrorist organization? >> that would be difficult for the united states to do. i mean, in other words the larger the roam played by hezbollah in this government, the more problematic our relationship will be. >> can you define that? >> again, -- >> is it a number? >> again, we have -- >> let me finish -- >> we have well-stated concerns about hezbollah. >> the government has two ministers from hezbollah in it, and it seems they are probably not going to get more than two ministers.

are you more focused on the role of hezbollah or the process itself? it seems the process is democratic and institutional. you're not going to recognize a government that reflects the will of representatives of the lebanese people? >> again, you know, we'll wait to see, you know, what the government looks like, you know, who is involved in that government, what the policies of that government will be, and then we will evaluate what the impact on our relationship will be. i'm saying, which is the obvious, that we have great concerns about hezbollah. we've seen it as a terrorist organization, and the larger the role played by hezbollah, the more problematic it is between the united states and lebanon. >> anything before waiting for the results because the people are saying this is iranian fool by hezbollah. >> again, we want to see a government emerge in lebanon that will serve the interests of the people of lebanon and will

sustain, you know, the up dependence and sovereignty of lebanon. we want to see a government that will support the work of the tribunals, so, you know, we're going to wait and see as this constitutional process unfolds. >> is the secretary doing any talks with any leaders? >> ce continue to monitor the situation in lebanon very closely. we have had recent conversations with government officials, and we'll continue to engage across the full spectrum as lebanon goes through the democratic process. >> the documents -- >> hold on, hold on -- >> [inaudible] >> we'll go from issue to issue. >> very quickly, there's a call for the 14th march coalition which may develop into a flash point. are you counseling, the u.s.

allies, against any kind of activity that -- >> that goes without saying. we, you know, there is a constitutional prosays here. every indication is the government is following this constitutional process, and certainly we do not want to see any faction of any kind resort in violence. >> [inaudible] >> i can't say, you know, not to my knowledge, but our ambassador more kindly has been closely monitor k events, meeting with -- monitoring events, meeting with people across the spectrum as we watch things up fold. >> this is a tactical point. once in relation to lebanon. you were asked a question whether you recognize their

government, and you did not respond with the usual line that we have heard for many years here that the u.s. don't recognize governments, but recognizes states. has that changed? >> no. >> so okay so by not -- >> we have diplomatic relations with lebanon. >> the line has also been we don't recognize governments. we recognize states. >> that is true, yes. okay. >> on the documents relating to israeli palestinian negotiations, is the publication of the paper kill off life left in the peace process there? >> and, you know, just to clarify, these are not u.s. documents, and we can vouch for, you know, their veer rasety, and we don't plan to comment on any particular document. >> you must know whether or not what's reflected in the documents. >> well, i mean, none of this

changes our understanding of what is at stake and what needs to be done. you know, we don't to believe that a framework agreement is both possible and necessary, so we continue to work and engage the parties as we've done, you know, throughout this process. we've had, you know, the contact with both the israelis and palestinians over the last 24 hours. we've had contact with a number of leaders in the region. first and foremost because we have an important meeting coming up at the end of the next week, but obviously in working through the details of the meeting, we've been able to, you know, get perspective on, you know, the possible implications of this. we don't deny that, you know, this release will at least for a time, you know, make the situation more difficult than it

already was, but, again, we are clear eyed about this. we always recognized that, you know, this would be a great challenge, but it doesn't change our overall octoberive. -- objective. >> when you negotiated and was planning to come to washington this week. to the best of your knowledge, can you confirm he was? second, are there changes in his plans? >> we did talk to mr. arafat yesterday. i'll check on his future travel plans. >> you don't deny the release at least for a time will make the situation more difficult than it already was. isn't that saying they're after it? if these things are created and are lies and misrepresentations of some palestinian officials, why should it make anything more difficult? >> you know, the pursuit of

peace in the middle east is at one level a substantive challenge. we know what the core issues are. we've been involved in, you know, many discussions with is rallies and -- israelis and palestinians for a number of years on these issues. at a second level, this is a political challenge, and regardless of whether, you know, one document is accurate, one document is not, or one document represents, you know, a past position, and one document represents -- don't represent a current position. obviously, we're looking at the reactions coming forward in the last 24 hours and what's coming forward in the next few days. it doesn't change our understanding of the challenge or of the framework agreement. we're going to continue to engage with the parties, narrow

differences that do exist, and continue to, you know, move them towards the framework agreement. >> senator mitchell have any plans any time soon? >> he has been on the phone over the last 24 hours with several leaders. he talked to president air abbas last night. we have been in touch with the israelis as well, but, again, you know, part of our -- a lot of our focus is on plans for the meeting next week and how to use that meeting, you know, to continue to move the parties forward. >> can you explain his current role as distinct from ross' role? i understand he is or has recently been to visit the parties in the region. >> there are a number of dimensions to this. you know, george mitchell remains the special enjoy and is the special negotiator. dennis ross is in charge of regional policy within the

national security staff. .. do you have any idea on what he's talking about? he's going to have an option beyond the realm of what is being discussed.

>> look, we support current palestinian efforts to create strong institution that put the palestinians in a position to govern should the ongoing discussions lead to negotiations that lead to a framework agreement. we have been key supporters of the work of president abbas, prime minister fayyad, building up security forces, helping to build an economy -- a viable economy of the palestinian territories and we're going to continue to do that. that said, we have also made clear that we believe strongly that the best and only way to fundamentally resolve the core issues that reach an agreement and end the conflict once and for all is through negotiation, not through unilateral statements, unilateral action by one side or the other.

>> it seems according to these documents, the palestinians actually put a lot on the table. but it seems to matter what kind of concessions the palestinian authority present two different israeli governments, is really position is still the same. they're not ready to get a deal. is it time for your administration to put some pressure on israel? and are you aware of the national security council new evaluation that netanyahu actually will not work with obama on the peace process? >> look, i go back to what i said at the start. we believe that a framework agreement remains possible and necessary. this way we are undeterred and will redouble our efforts in the coming days leading up to the courts had he been. we continued to engage the parties. we continue to work with them and find ways to narrow the gaps that do exist between the two

and remains our object is to help the parties reach a framework. and that the national security -- on the issue of the national security council and netanyahu? >> george mitchell and the secretary have both made clear that we believe most sides remain clear to reach an agreement. this remains a challenging path, but nonetheless we continue to pursue this path. >> with a prospective security council resolution condemning settlements, which is in accordance with an american physician, with that helpful or not? >> was made clear we do not think that will be helpful and that new york is the right forum to resolve these issues. >> another subject? >> can we stay just with israel for a second? i'm wondering if you have any comment on the whole of the flotilla, the israel report, if you agree with the turks that it was basically a joke without any credibility.

>> well, we continue to regard the secretary general's panel as a forum for the international community to review the incident. we do believe that the completion of the first part of the commission report is an important step. understand the second half will be released in the coming months, but this is a process that will be continuing under the auspices of the u.n. secretary general. >> ct is still think, as he did back when the incidence of this report deals with to place, that the israelis have the means and the means and the intent to conduct an impartial investigation into their own activity? >> yes, we do, but there is more work to be done both on the israeli court and on the secretary general's panel. >> a little bit confused as to

the -- which one do you consider to be more viable, the secretary general's report what he is really panel report? >> i don't think that's an either or proposition . we have been supportive of the separate by israel and, you know, there has been, you know, we think this is an independent report, critical and impartial and transparent investigation that has been undertaken by israel. and it will contribute to the broader process that continues through the secretary general. so i don't think it's an either/or proposition . >> in connection with the republic day for india on the 26th, india is on high alert, red high alert as their terrorism is concerned. any connection -- i mean, have you heard anything, if they need in the u.s. held lawyer --

>> well, we have ongoing counterterrorism cooperation with india. we share a concern about a threat of terrorism both in the region and around the world. i can't point to any, you know, any specific reaction that we've done in recent days, but we continue to have full cooperation to india and the united states as well as other countries. >> with me ask you one more appeared in connection with the moscow bombing, almost every country has been going come as far as terrorism or -- russian president was here in the chinese president was in town last week. my question is that, i asked you that only china -- [inaudible] we have not seen any terrorist activities in china.

what i'm asking you is, you haven't discussed with the chinese president to your, what can the global community learn from china so they are -- there can be the same terrorism free? >> i'm not sure that china would necessarily agree with your definition. this is a global challenge. last week at the state department we had a first meeting of global counterterrorism that we've put together. i think they're 24 countries represented. so we are in fact expanding our cooperation for comparing notes in terms of icepack essays and sharing information is that we think can help a variety of countries that confront this challenge. >> the indian embassy in washington is that this raised a query with the state department about the printing of diplomatic immunity to a union minister in india, kamal nath, regarding a case which has been filed

against terror in the u.s. can you comment on the status of that query as well as with the state department's view is on whether he or she should be given immunity? >> we are following a closely civil complaint involving mr. kamal nath. there are -- this is still a legal process that is unfolding. it's unclear whether there is any live action against minister noth and what its content might be. i think the plaintiffs have until february 9th to file an amended complaint. the immunity request remains under review at the state department, and we have not made any determination at this point. >> is somebody spoke from india, like the secretary level -- at the secretaries received any -- >> i can't say the secretary of them involved in this. >> thank you, sir.

>> on north korea, north korea said denuclearization issues are the only deterrent -- the u.s. and north korea issues. what is your comment on that, their insistence? >> well, that's not true. you know, denuclearization of the korean peninsula as a regional and global concern. but this ex parte process that was put in place to deal with these issues. it involves more than just the united states and north korea. so by definition, this is something that is of broad international concern and needs to be resolved internationally, not just bilaterally. >> the north korean refused to talk to -- without the three high-level talk that contains the nuclear issue, but they do not -- >> we understand very much with north korea would like to do, but it's got to resolve these issues through the multilateral mechanism that has been put in

place. >> has there been any meeting with the visiting sri lankan president mahinda rajapaska? >> no. >> and secondly, the state department issued a travel alert sandbag nepalese maoist party is a terrorist organization and not to have any contact with them. and two days later the secretary of state said that he talked to their leaders. so is this some kind of -- if it is a terrorist organization, how come you're talking to them? >> i wouldn't say so. first off, we we did welcome over the weekend a clear progress where this agreement in nepal to transfer command and control of maoist forces to a special commission. this is an important step in the peace process, but now nepal needs to move ahead with the rest of the process, which involves the neocons duchenne and the formation of a

government. so there are -- that is a major step that we welcomed. >> again, one on afghanistan. a senior journalist in afghanistan was attacked with acid last week, and the journalists and the person who attacked and both say it was at the behest of iranians, and it threatened to the attacker to attack them. the mac yak come i haven't got any information on that. >> on the ivory coast, you've treated -- thank you very much, but that piggyback the outtara's call for the pinnacle collects words for one month. carville apparently is not going ivories cocoa. have you had any medication does your backing for this imply any sort of formal banning of u.s. imports of ivory coast cocoa? >> a very good question. we do support president

outtara's call for a month-long ban on cocoa exports. our embassy is attached with the relevant players on this. we are working closely with the e.u. and their sanctions have a great deal, not only with the export of cocoa, but the ability to be transported outside of cote d'ivoire. it is part of our strategy to deny laurent gbagbo the resources so that he can continue, you know, to buy support from the military and political act tears and we hope that this will help convince him to step aside. >> just to follow-up and it seems there is distance between the u.s. position in the e.u. the e.u. is sandy would support a blanket ban because that would affect people at the ivory coast in a bigger way.

>> i mean, you're right. there is this delicate balance here. we are trying to find ways to prevent mr. gbagbo from appropriating more resources that belong to the people of cote d'ivoire that he can resist the will of the people. so we are fully engaged with the e.u. and we do call attention to the fact that cargo has taken major action and we welcomed. thank you. [inaudible conversations]

>> madam speaker, the president of the united states. >> do solemnly swear to support and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies, foreign and domestic? >> now, european commission president manuel josé barroso takes questions from the european parliament to represent the 27 countries of the european

union. as president of the european commission, mr. barroso is responsible for setting the policy and legislative agenda of the european union. this is about an hour. [inaudible conversations] friend shot transcode the means of yesterday's meeting is available. either in a comment? i can't see anything. the minutes have been improved. the first item on the agenda after the lunch break is the

round of questions with the president of the commission. we follow the regulatory procedure in question with one minute, answered one minute should there be an additional question with a minute to reply. and paired. and third, political groups will speak with the president. the first to take the floor as our colleague on behalf of the european people's party. >> translator: thank you, president. i'd like to put a question in the house about the european emergency fund. to -underscore the importance he

attached to that, the european after all. and here's my question. what is your position on expanding the front? you had some thoughts on that. and how can this be strengthened over time the situation at the moment. what is your vision on extending means. >> thank you very much, mr. president barroso. >> a civil thank you. they must reinforce the scope of

this white van. we consider this a part of the comprehensive response. it's also about the structural reform, but in fact is important to increase the landing competitive because as we know the access that is indulging or hundred euros. i am not willing to increase the feeling now, but we know that the uss cannot de facto land with 40 billion if need be. this is a rating for the fsf. so we can increase the funding capacity of the fund. and i think this is a very constructive proposal that should be adopted sooner rather than later as a part of a comprehensive response.

>> thank you very much. [applause] any additional questions? >> translator: a supplementary question. you are saying rather sooner than later, what exactly do you mean by rather sooner than later? there is a certain degree of urgency when all is said and done in my view when it comes to ensuring financial stability in the markets over the coming months. it will however strengthen that and we are seeing debates amongst government leaders and finance ministers at the moment. could you please be more specific on sooner rather than later? >> littermates precisely that, not to procrastinate. we have considered you react to more than acting. we have to be ahead of the curve, not having the curve.

so as soon as possible. it seems that the meeting yesterday and today made some progress. we are contacting our member states. i believe it is important. but it would be licensed with the european council on the fourth of february to address these issues there. the commission is ready to address these issues. >> thank you very much. colleague hughes on behalf of social democracy. >> thank you very much, mr. president. ambassador barrasso, they have talked about the greek and irish labor market bright enough or click to bargaining and social dialogue. your new daniel gross promises more of the same. your officials are calling for on a revision of index clauses and pay deals, but motion a flexible work, review of unemployment benefits in the reduction of overprotection of

workers. do not agree that the commission should be looking to promote our social dialogue and collective bargaining rather than undermining it? finesse the issue of pay excluded from the treaty and the social chapter of the treaty, but legal businesses the community using an collective-bargaining systems? also, doubling of the fiscal consolidation effort is going to choke off any possibility of achieving the 2020 process. what is your answer to that? >> ousley without any ambiguity we fully support at the level. that's the member state responsibility. i've been promoting actively the social dialogue and these are relevant partners. but in fact, we are of the opinion we should know create work.

i think it is part of the reform needed. >> additional question. >> thank you are much, mr. president. why is that, mr. grasso, they're all in labor markets. what about the financial market, internal market, the commodity market. all of these seem to be on labor markets. why should the least well off, why should workers be carrying the cost of this recession and the need to repair it? >> is not totally on the labor market, i'm sorry. we're making and reforming the financial market and the contribution of this parliament. we are discussing the survey at length. it is the internal market reform as well. we're discussing the energy market, but the labor market is also part of the reforms to

increase europe's competitiveness, especially in those countries that are no most vulnerable in some of them are already engaging in important mobile market reforms. >> thank you, mr. president. mr. president, dashed >> mr. president, in the private conversations with mr. medvedev w. bush are concerns over petoskey and when he looked to the case of karnofsky, if it was in russia or we have to say that failed. and double that, that's my compression of the 31st of december, where normally there's 31 of the constitution is guaranteed free assembly. so as you know the opposition is everyman on the 31st, organizing a protest meeting. and there are in my view seven months in 2011 where there are

31 days in the month so that means there is a chance if this continues that in 2011, more disk and have been as what's happened with mr. macsoft. so what is the combination of the e.u.'s institutions can develop on this? >> russia is a member of oecd, member of the g8 can potentially member and i think it urgent action of european institutions is needed. >> thank you. >> as you said, we have freezing issues. the europe has already publicly reacted through high representatives. we believe that the right of each and every citizen to a fair trial european convention of human rights to which russia is a party of equal importance to

the partnership between european and russian federation. there is also the cornerstone and we are now developing and we continue to closely follow the series you should doormats of meetings with russia and emphasize in brussels. the european expects russia to understand the limits in human rights and also to respect the rule of law. [inaudible] >> -- i think this has dissolved the most urgent has to do with this problem. it cannot continue by going now in the russian federation and i think there's many important commercial links that we have to stay silent on this issue. >> thank you, mr. president. madam president rebecca holland's degree and.

>> thank you, mr. president. transco thank you, president. the freedom of the press in russia is a major can learn. and if you want to hear about this, mr. president, i think you really can contact what is happening now in hungary. i'm wondering why the commission is being so lax about this hungarian media love because then i'll fails it has principles which apply in europe and well beyond. we've had it drawn up in terms of encouragement, the direct sun audiovisual media, the unesco convention. basically the fundamental rights and so on and so forth. i'll just leave it at that. i'm wondering when you are going to take adequate steps in hungary?

what is your timing? why have we so that no infringement procedure? it is also covered by legal rulings in this set are. >> we have to implement with hungry as the state in a professional manner and we have to look at this very cautiously from a legal point of view. we have been doing and forming extensively. in fact, we have some concerns we intend to send a letter to hungry no later than this week. the first letter to which the hungarian authorities should respond. but i repeat, we have to follow clear objectives in partially liquid-based procedures to this

impartiality because i can assure you we will be following this matter. >> translator: i would ask them that all documents which have been made available to the commission by hungary should be of aid available to us as well because we would also be a look-alike to assassinate. we need to assess it may be hungary has been even provided the full text of the law and may be playing for time. i would suggest you do with these documents. also, i feel it was really, really difficult in terms of the negotiation with turkey. and in the discussion, talking about the copenhagen criteria,

but then to close your eyes, to come to what is already a member of the e.u. >> assuming information to this parliament, the vice president in the relevant communists of this parliament. at the same time, the legal dimension we have to have a very clear objective way. the commissioner has a very good reputation and ability come we don't want to put it at stake. and i assure you that we have -- we are having good attention and concerns. we've expressed concern. tomorrow is coming to this department and we can discuss politically and clear procedures for this matter. >> thank you very much. >> mr. president. >> translator: president, a

few days ago the interstate commission published its report concerning the causes of the disaster the 10th of april last. the parish public was amazed at the results of the report. over the past several days time it has been proven that the report conceals facts that are uncomfortable for russia in the whole report is shifting the guilt onto the other side. no one in their right mind questions for mistakes and errors made on our part and the whole process of preparing and performing the visit of the least polish president. yet the russian report has all

the variants which is designed to dispel any charges that may be incumbent on the russian side. how does the commission to evaluate this report and does the commission intends to do anything to clarify the causes of the smaller strategy, the head of the state of the e.u. having your country died, including many members of the political elite. >> thank you, mr. president. mr. kaminski, no one will ever forget this terrible tragedy, neither in poland nor elsewhere. we have felt deeply the deaths of president bush's key and all those that will be. i had a report published last week. i'm also where the polish reactions, for which i have a lot of understanding from a given us a of this treasury.

.. as i said, we have to see the legal according to money formation it was a state visit and, regulation was enter already after this terrible

accident. so from the legal point of view it seems there are not many arguments of commission but of course we can always discuss this matter or others that may request eight. >> thank you pantry much. >> mr. president united left. mr. barrasso i'm sure we know how important is to ensure the stability of the bureau in that regard their is one thing i haven't totally understood, and this is what we were debating on the bailout plan stop when you were trying to move forward. my question is well, do you have a coordinated at a chance? this is in the first time something like this happens, not

the first time i've got this impression the media certain reports on it in full so it's not an easy dispute between you but it's also a major political issue. i'm sure you can imagine i'm not either but the issue is are we helping the financial speculator is when there's a clear sign of division? >> in the institution it governs its own responsibilities. i view some responsibility that it believes it is rightfully right for the european union and so in a very comprehensive document regarding the annual survey we express our opinion. not only the duty to do it, so this is what we have done, and i think that in fact this was well received by the market as we've

seen before because they understood at least now there was a little willingness to move in all aspects of the comprehensive response including on the esff. this is unanimous in the mark that we can do more on that matter. it's of the opinion of the european central bank of expressing an important terms so i hope member states will come on the position of the commission. >> mr. barroso, i fully accept that you have your own opinion and their right to express it, but my question remains open. on such an important issue when the people speculating about the hero more at this very important point in time how could it be possible that you have opened

mr. sarkozy it seems to have coordinated in advance, you're going out in public with contradicting statements. >> does not need the permission before expressing an opinion. and by the, our proposal was made very much in online where the member states stated they were ready to obtain what is necessary to protect the stability of the area and they have addressed specifically the esff said they were ready to reinforce. there was no contradiction and i cannot comment on others. i can tell you the position of the commission is unanimous position of the central bank and the position of other relevant institutions following with great attention the financial stability of the area. so i think that we have to

highlight now what unites us and not specific issues about the way we communicate. >> thank you. madam? >> thank you, president. mr. barroso, last week the european courts recently retired after 15 years of service made allegations of the media. the allegations which are nose pressed me pointed essentially to the lack of independence which affect the level of transparency and the reporting of the irregularities. there was published yesterday that nothing more on the commission's power and put into question the basis of which this parliament has been granted this charge for the last 15 years. it is now time for the parliament to demand that the budget and count are truly independent body to the new institution. without this independent function of the parliament no position to continue the charge in the european commission of

the financial responsibility. will you, mr. barroso, allowing an external auditor to review the accounts and tell us the truth about how european taxpayers' money movement? thank you. >> madam? >> i move to recall the european court is a full independent body we seek to work [inaudible] commissions of interest and respecting independence of this external auditor i never made negative comments about sessions court, the constitutional court, in european court and that is a busy principal of democracy in the respect of the ruble fall and independent institutions. the court as auditor as a part of the process is normal and

necessary to ensure the process works well and the understanding it is with international standards and i should recall the extremely critical reports, so i think we should respect our institutions and the independent. >> mr. barroso, i disagree with your response. in response to the criticism made the last 20 years, the commissions have turned to the auditors and this is recorded by the media asking them to change the methodology of work so that the reports on the new expenditure would show up. in my 30 years of professional experience in the area of accounting and auditing, i have never seen the oddity instruct the auditor how to do its work. how come now we know if a reduction in their rate is new

to the change in methodology requested by the commission and to the improvement the parliament has the right to express its opinions of the process. you are now have six expressing the opinion. the commission is also a political body. we have been elected by this parliament we have the right to express opinion. this is no way the pressure to consider intolerable pressure, this is an exercise of transparency. so once and for all we respect and we don't pressure of the terse and try to do our best to implement recommendations of independent institutions. >> thank you. daniel.

>> thank you. jerusalem is the capitol and from east to west is territory and must remain so. the european union, president, has a right to be proud about this, that the only democracy in the middle east within the regime in the fight against the islamic jihad israel is not only defending itself, but in europe and everything we stand for. and the judeo-christian values. and so, defense of israel should be self-explanatory. the opinion should give the international community a clear signal because after will only have its proper place in jerusalem. it would appear to me that diplomatic representation should be news to the capitol, jerusalem.

the future of the embassy should include if you were going to have one have one in jerusalem. thank you. >> first of all, you know the position of israel. we fully support the existence of israel. as you said a democratic state in a very difficult environment. and we recognize the right of israel come at the same time we like israel to respect the right of people and believe the best solution is for two states, israel and the palestinian states to drift in respect of each other and international law. regarding the issue of the changes capital and our representation in israel we don't see a reason to change. >> a different question please. >> thank you, president. of course i'm disappointed with

that reply and which of jerusalem's. last week the commission judge that israel should move the settlements. where are they supposed to go? they are supposed to be in western jerusalem. there are arabs and jews there. what you would say is you have to discriminate in east jerusalem because the city is one single community. but what are you going to do with those israelis and east jerusalem then? the 12 build and are entitled to build. >> i think the position of the european union has been in line with the international community including the lines of israel regarding the settlements.

we believe the settlement issue has been dealt with by the government does not always been helpful in and the current efforts for peace in that region. and the precise comment are giving a good reason why we should not have our representation in jerusalem because of such difficult situation in that extremely important city for israel and all of us. so, let's keep our commitment to peace, let's support of course israel at the same time let's not forget the right of people waiting they also deserve our attention and support. >> thank you, mr. president. now we are going to be specific and concrete topic. it's innovation and energy. the second part of question devoted for innovation and energy. one minute, please.

>> president to the commission. the commission is driving innovation in very different fields under the system. second generation biofuels for example, fusion for the generation intelligent tools, renewable forms of energy in general terms, a general energy efficiency, and also catching, transporting and storing electrical vehicles and so on, so forth. resources of fuel are far between, mr. president, and an awful lot of citizens or expressing concerns which i'm going to put to you today. they are asking to of all of these why in this difficult circumstance where is the commission going to put the

emphasis, what are the priorities for the commission? >> very difficult question because in fact all priorities are linked, so we needed to complete the energy market and the key to this is also the we to have a renewable energy sufficiency is certainly a career. we also to invest in low carbon technologies because there is also an external dimension, and we need to pursue those commissions to speak as much as possible with our partners of energy flow, so i think these are the four priorities i would like to have the counsel address, the completion of energy markets and implementation of rules of internal markets, energy efficiency, low carbon technologies, and accepting, and efforts. >> thank you.

>> president barroso, the european union has to decrease the greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by 2020. at the political level we are already discussing a more ambitious goal. it is a well-known fact that the biggest burden would have to be carried within the energy sector and other sectors including the etf. i would like to hear your opinion on when the conditions will be appropriate to make more ambitious goals. what tangible measures should we take in the field of energy in the e.u.? is one of those measures the measure that you have highlighted when you answer the question of my colleague? >> this is also a global process

a significant step in the able to keep alive process but in fact it was not enough from our point of view to go forward to binding targets i think we should ask others namely the biggest developers and emerging economies to make a considerable effort and so far they haven't committed to eight so that is why we have to find the right way to make them move. at the same time those countries are ready to go forward and make more commitments they can and should do with and to conclude in february is to achieve more energy efficiency. there we are below where we should be. we are on target to reach our goal for 2020 but not energy efficiency. it is a concrete area we can make more progress.

>> one minute, please. >> thank you, president barroso. to ensure energy security and low cost consumers in the future we must use all kind of low carbon energy and this includes clean coal technology right up until now the development has been very, very slow. the president can give an assurance that supports the research into carbon captured and storage will continue into the future. >> thank you. we will try to achieve it but at the end of the members must decide on the funding for their research and that is a matter that we are going to discuss where we present perspective,

but certainly i hope that the member states will have investment in renewables, low carbon technologies and souls on the technology priorities establishing energy technology plan. we are indeed proposing this for the next european council. >> madam? >> you said just now the member states are achieving less than half what they set out to achieve in the 20% target for energy by 2020. so why is the commission not pushing hard to make that target binding on the member states? >> we are pushing. that's why we try to put this for the next european council.

energy efficiency is still lagging behind. i'm not happy with the situation and the commission intends to refer to it. first inefficiency is an integral part of the targets as you have put. at present we are in a dialogue with states to establish national targets to fi objective. we have already submitted existing measures by 2020 will be no more than 10%, however, the combined national target emerging in 2020 discussion gave this more ambitious than it is. but still, likely to be below. that's why we intend to follow the two-step approach. first, closing the progress on the national target's is fine in 2020 and we view this progress in 2013. if this review shows our targets of 20% is consider proposing

legally binding national targets for 2020. >> thank you. the floor is yours. >> mr. president, president barroso, i have a question for you with regards to the harmonization of defeating in charge of europe fitting into the net. he has pursued an approach which would suggest the most successful innovation program in the area of renewable energy that we have is going to be destroyed. so what are you going to do to try and prevent the harmonization eventually leading to the bonus energy into the net? how are you going to try to

ensure that he is going to work on this issue of energy efficiency, isn't going to be simply playing the time, rather needs to do something by 2012. what you said just now is you are already starting to see that the non-binding goals are not going to be enough. how are we going to hurry that up? >> first of all, let me tell the commissioner that proposing this in an approach to energy efficiency and i fully trust doing its best to achieve that goal. we try to put this energy also linked to other policy objectives like the fight against climate change. we believe this is not just about certain targets. it's also about working the member states. so we believe that it's better that member states establish their own national target and then see if they are on track, great, if not, we will come with

a binding regulation to be at least we propose it. but, you know, the chief success on whether to start with a kind of a voluntary target at least that is what we've done in the past and its fund for the right approach but we don't exclude on the contrary that we need a binding targets for each country. but let's give the member states also the ownership of this policy and see how they are developing the strategy. >> thank you very much. >> thank you, president. on the fourth of february we have the energy council and we've got two directors up for the position also the environmental assessment and we have to think how we can reconcile the two variant on a sustainable basis, about the in

environment and production of energy. the approval procedure shouldn't last anything over a year in this case. the commission is currently suggesting five years. that is a whole lengthy period and by sorry we can't have that anymore. with the commission be prepared to reduce that period of time and at that the framework directive in such a way that in the future? the storage plants can bridge the gap between the solar energy on the one hand and wind energy on the other. >> in general, the commission wants to reduce as much as possible time for the adoption and implementation. the question is that member states have a realistic delay so that it can be implemented as much as possible avoiding the distortions in the market or at

least we should believe the internal market and the concerns in the energy precise that we've different ring regulations still. we are not starting from scratch now. in february there are communications we have done that we've presented recently and also the story i think we can say the climate in the energy package as you presented years ago my previous commission. so we are open to the reduced time gap but it's important to have an agreement with member states so that they do it more or less at the same time to avoid these problems of the destruction of competition in sight. >> thank you very much. madam? >> research and innovation is vital to drive the competitiveness. the european university taught the world cable the scientific research. it was cambridge university

beast in the region i represent. at that university but also many less well-known institutions of businesses large and small have seen cutting edge research funded by the e.u. through the 50 million-pound -- sorry, bureau framework program. suddenly this framework program as a representation for being the most complex and bureaucratic in the world. last the parliament voted unanimously on a series of recommendations to simplify this bureaucracy. what is the commission doing to implement those reforms? >> first of all, congratulations to the university and to your region. secondly, i hope to add support in your group to discuss the national framework for inappropriate commitment in research, technology and innovation at european level because cambridge is one of the

most developed universities in the world, but there are other universities in europe in the poorest regions the unfortunately todd have some kind of access. third, simplifications in the priorities for energy and innovation and then in this case for research. it is a part of the european council discuss innovation it is one of our priorities and we are happy to have the support of parliament for that. we hope others it is important to understand how one port and it is for the scientists that the lu is not so much time with paper and that they have more time to concentrate on what they do best at the research. >> madam. >> thank you, president. in the name of financial consolidation, the so-called austerity programs are compounding the divergences

within the european union at promoting antisocial policies, undermining and cutting public investment particularly in innovation and energy. now that means that should these guidelines continue the same policies and the same pressure applied to portugal and other countries with weak economies will lead to a worsening of our divergence and the situation will get worse because of the lack of solidarity from the european union. the issue then is to establish what measures are going to be taken to change the situation in such a way as to inform that there will be effective support for innovation in countries such as portugal and others who have not planned adequate public investment in these areas and also to guarantee access for people and industry to energy given the high price is being

applied at the present and the difficulties that are being felt in many quarters. thank you. .. >> translator: it's also important to remember cohesion and solidarity, so there's a

european plan for cohesion which covers territorial cohesion and social cohesion and for all these reasons if you allow me we need to operationallize. >> one minute. >> translator: thank you, president. innovation is going to change our economy. our society we're going to be losing more jobs, so we need to unit to take the tissue nigh. -- initiative. we need a more integrated approach with the various dt's. for example, amongst regional partnerships. we see that only one dg is getting involved. i think we need a more holistic approach, and so i also think that the funds need to work together more. we have to avoid the recommendation of funding.

so what about creating a major financial stream for innovation? and then on energy, in relation to innovation, everyone's going for this, but real innovation should be found in small scale. i think that's where we can find some empowerment to citizens, so me and other colleagues here are thinking in terms -- >> you are rightly concerned with this problem of the lack of synergies which is why i expected the counsel to address this is a very specific way. the innovation of partnerships are a goal to create and instrument to create synergies between already existing programs and to european national and regional levels by bringing them to the under a

single umbrella. i believe we can capture on solutions for addressing the challengesment one of the goals to speed up the time between research to market oriented innovations and to market products and services. this will create the necessary pool for participation, and this is why we try the commission and why the member state's approach to innovation is going beyond dg's portfolios or even country or regions. >> thank you very much. >> translator: thank you, president. scientific research recently published an international press looking in particular at greece and israel showing large amounts

of natural gas and oil in the agenen to south of creation. bear in mind, i'd like to ask how the european commission intends to extend and further research on exploration and exploitation of a new reform of energy, and how can we be better applied in the eu moving beyond the idea of pipelines, and i would also like to state in your presence that you have looks, sir, obviously, implementing the treaty of lisbon, and at the same time managing an economic crisis, a major economic crisis in europe, and you've done very

well in that, and i think that you've actually focused on that direction, but then there's also the american method as well where you can probably produce more money. >> participants would like the take the floor. >> mr. president? >> thank you. >> distinguished member was saying something nice to me. thank you very much for that comment. regarding the -- regarding the first part of the intervention, i mean, we don't have the means and it's not our priority now to make exploration or support exploration of other sources of energy in europe, and in terms of infrastructure is for interconnections because it's critical european dimension, and in that method we're beginning to make proposals as something

that's been achieved already. for instance, the countries and now we are working also with the potential new european countries to establish and not have false interconnections, and things are going well. i came and decided to work on the corridor, and you, let's say, possible way of bringing energy, in this case, to europe. this is where i believe european unions can make an investment in infrastructure for energy. >> thank you, thank you very much. one minute. >> president -- >> translator: president, the commission has brought out a very welcoming in my view, initiative on approving energy efficiency across the european unions, both the electric grades and gas are covered by this.

the expenditure involved will be something along the lines of 200 billion euros, and these are to be hit by 2020. now, also know that half of this is supposed to come from the private sector. my question to you is the kohling. from what remains of the 100 billion euro needed after 2020, where are these funds to come from? from community funding? will they on the other hand be bonds issued or will there be some other financial source? thank you. >> [inaudible] >> microphone. >> i'm sorry. >> okay. >> the 200 billion euros on infrastructure in 2020. 200 billion euros of the total

investment needs to be delivered on time by the market alone, whereas the other 100 billion requires public action on permitting and leveraging the necessary private capital. that's why we are now proposing for instance bundleing measures that you make this a private investment more, let's say, rational and more useful. we think also take a look at frif frivolous principles to fill the remainder of the gap. there's an instrument for european interests in the new financial perspective after 2013. beyond grants, nobody markets can be proposed such as equity participation, guaranteed and public and private partnership loans, and as you know, i already spoke about the european

funds to project bonds specifically designed for this project. >> thank you. >> translator: director of 2001 has renewable forms of energy before it establishes which is open to public incentive. obviously, we have to look at the questions at the nonbiodegrateble issue of waste. they issued bills to citizens and boosted the building of incinerators which is bad for health. with lessons for incentives, there's been two procedures and despite intervention in italy, insinner ration of waste is

still being driven and as we've seen. obviously, i think it might be difficult to remember the details of the situation, and that's why i've provided a question in writing. it's not possible to encourage incineration of waste, and there are no delegations in that direction. also, i think it's a bit inconsistent that the waste directed of incineration is the ability of using or getting rid of waste. >> thank you, madam. >> the speaker has been interrupted. >> you rightly said in the detailed question. i don't know the detail of all the infringement procedures. there's important information just on energy and general markets for energy. we have now 77 infringement procedures with member states in general, and 65 on the

individual markets, so issues provide me that question in writing, and i'll send a response in writing. thank you. >> thank you very much for your answer. >> translator: yes, thank you, president. climate change and renewable energy, we can see these in the strategy of 2020, and you can see you talked about all these things seriously, but if you look behind the facade of environmental protection, you find a different strategy that at tommic energy is supposedly environmentally flendly energy and there's a position there in answering one of my questions. he said it's very important in reducing carbon emissions, and it's important for the future. well, you're being commission is not directed for the maximum

running time of the nuclear plants. on the 26th of april we'll celebrate 25 years now, so do our citizens really see atomic energy as a clean, environmentally, friendly solution. can you really sell that in >> you know the position of nuclear energy and full respect for that and some member states have and some don't have. one is forced where a nuclear energy, but, in fact, it's true that nuclear energy is in terms of climate change less polluting than other sources of energy. having said this, the commission has some obligations in the treaty. at the beginning of the european union, there was the commission is not totally right to provide assistance to member states that

require it in nuclear in matters of research and social security certainly what we -- it's certainly what we intend to do. >> thank you very much. >> translator: one minute. >> you're bringing an optimistic view. i understand you can want speak to the figures on the stage in terms of cubic meters of gas, but does the commission have any estimates or expectations of this obviously, not binding, that would be an answer on whether it would be able to feel the southern corridor which is providing or supposed to provide 31 million cubic meters. thank you. >> from this visit, i came with a clear commitment of those

countries to support fully european union in terms of the southern corridor. in fact, i find the joint declarations of the leaders and publicly the president who said he was ready to supply enough gas for europe, and even more than what we need at the current moment. having said this, there are still problems to address. some of those problems have to be commercial decisions of the companies involved, and also lead the way with the different pipeline can be built and developed, but there is enough gas. there is enough gas in that area to come in the european union if the member states of the european union are ready to cooperate with those countries and others to make that project

available or other projects of the south corridor. >> thank you very much. the last question. >> translator: thank you, president. as evermore european families of economic crisis spend more than 10% of their monthly incomes for the energy bills, i'd like to ask you, what are the concrete steps that european commission has viewed in order to reduce energy poverty? let me ask you if you view the increase of the percentage of the european region of developments to be used by the member states to increase the energy efficiency of their dwellings starting with the future financial perspective, thank you.

>> energy is standards of consumer protection with regard to the provision of the minimum service transparency of billing, handling, so on and so forth and provides choices to consumers, and i could quote many other areas where we are proposing measures directly addressing concerns of consumers. regarding lower energy bills, in fact, we think that in medium term at least as real integrated energy markets can achieve more than the current situation where there are, in fact, many of these functions and positions of dominance in the market. regarding funding for projects of energy security as i said earlier, we certainly intend to impose it in the next financial perspectives, so part has to come from market solutions, but part has to come, indeed, from public up vestment and european -- investment and european

investments. >> thank you very much all the colleagues for the discussion on innovation and energy. it's a very important topic as we know very well, and thanks to you, mr. president, the commission's second time today in hard discussion in the department. thank you very much. thank you all of you. [applause] >> tonight republican fcc commissioner on the fcc's approveful comcast merger as well as efforts to increase broadband for mobile devices.

>> south dakota's governor gave his first state of the state address in a joint session of the state legislature in pierre earlier this month. he talked about expanding the state's economy and putting the

budget back in balance. this is a little more than 45 minutes. [applause] >> all right, thank you. [applause] [applause] >> lieutenant governor michaels, mr. speaker, members of the legislature, chief justice gill bertson, justices of the supreme court, constitutional officers and fellow south dakotaians, thank you very, very much for giving me the enormous challenge and the wonderful privilege of being your governor. it is my privilege today to offer thoughts on the state of our state. to do this one has to ask the questions against what standards do we measure ourselves, and i believe we shamed look to the citizens of -- we should look to the citizens of south dakota to answer that question. over the last year, most of us were involved in political campaigns. we visited with thousands and

thousands of disaksians. they told us what they want from their government. they want balanced budgets -- regulations, more and better jobs. they want to be protected from crime, they want help for those who need education or training to become self-reliant. they want care for those who have no one to care for them. they want more opportunities and better lives for themselves, their children, and grandchildren. in short, the people want a strong foundation for our state. in this community, we will all have to work toward this goal. i'm also very grateful for the hard work that's been done over the past 8 years by the state legislature and by governor mike

grounds. our state is in a much stronger position than almost any other state in the nation because of the decisions the governor and this legislature made. we have made substantial increases in ethanol production.

>> we thank you for all those who serves over the past years with their service for south dakota. [applause] [applause] the dominant challenge of this legislative session will be the state budget. i have asked legislative leaders to convene a joint session on january 19, eight days from now, to receive my budget proposal. the budget will present tough choices. this challenge stems from the national recession which has caused revenues to fall even as the demand for services has risen. that is why my number one priority as governor is to create jobs and grow the economy. it is the best long term

solution to solving our budget problem. during the campaign, we released an economic development plan entitled "building a stronger south dakota." this is my goal. it must be the goal for all of us to create a state with more jobs, more wealth, and more opportunities for our young people. it is a four year plan, not a one year plan, but i'm always open to improving this plan or adding to it as circumstances change, but i will act vigorously to implement this plan starting today. i propose to elevate the governor's office of economic reporting directly to me as governor. i plan to be personally involved every day in our state's economic development efforts. i'm proud to have pat cost sell low as commissioner of the office of economic development. pat has practiced as a cpa, run a business and served his community as a civic leader.

he will be a great partner to me in leading our economic development efforts. i intend to be south dakota's number one salesman. often, a governor is called upon to be a deal-closer and that's an important role. i will also be a door-opener and i'll use my officeo seek opportunity for our state. our economic development efforts will utilize a three-pronged approach,nvite, increase and innovate. first, invite. we should continue to invite businesses to south dakota from high-tax, overregulatedtate second, increase. we should encourage those businesses that are already here to increase their production and the number of people they employ. we need to help them find orders and contracts, we need to help them add new lines of business third n oh vacate.

we should foster innovation and entrepreneurship because some of our best businesses, the ones that are most likely to expand here and stay here, are businesses that were started in south dakota by south dakotans. that's why we need to keep expanding our research efforts at our universities and strengthen our efforts to match those researchers with entrepreneurs so that new knowledge can lead to new business. another economic development goal i set during my campaign is to revamp the revolving economic development initiative fund, the redi fund. an important first step is to increase the total value of that fund. i'm proud to announce today an innovative and forward-thinking partnership with o state's ethanol industry that will refocus state ethanol incentives and provide an extra $10 million for the redi funds over the next five years. currently our state provides $7

million a yea in incentives to ethanol plants operating in south dakota. i will be introducing a bill to save the state $13.5 million over the next five years by spreading out the current ethanol incenves over an additional two years. $3.5 million of that savings will be used to install even more ethanol blender pumps in >> the extra $10 million in savings will be deposited into the ready fund over a five year period. this approach is a win-win-win. first, our economic development efforts will have more money to invest in south dakota business. second, our ethanol industry gets an investment in blender pumps, the infrastructure needed to extend ethanol markets, and third, we'll do this at no auditional cost to the budget. i want to recognize the vision that the ethanol industry has

shown in working with me to craft this innovative plan. they are redeploying millions of dollars in short term incentives to expand their markets and strengthen their industry over the long term. i want to talk about small towns. i appreciate that the ethanol industry has brought jobs and wealth to the rural areas of our state. south dakota is a state with many small towns, and they must be an important component of the our economic development efforts. we will work with local and regional economic development organizations and nonprofits to identify and train small town specialists who can work with local leaders to make contacts, create plans and goals, and promote themselves to business. i will revamp our microloan program that provides loans to small businesses for capital assets. this program is under unitized because it is too bureaucratic. some are reluck at that

particular time to apply because -- reluctant to apply. that is government at its worst. i'll ask the office to streamline the paper work and approval process. i will also prioritize loans to aide in the sale of small businesses. in many small towns, the value of a business inventory are so high banks are he has at that particular time to finance a potential purchaser. this can lead an aging shopkeeper to shut down for lack of a buyer. we can use the program to help younger owners purchase the businesses and keep our small town businesses open. of course, our small towns rely heavily on the agriculture economy. agriculture is the state's number one industry and the foundation of our economy. over the past few years, mother nature has provided some challenges. heavy rains, hailstorms, belies

discards, and the outbreak of mountain pine beetle, but our producers still enjoy strong financial returns. our robust ag economy is the principle reason that south dakota's income growth is among the best in the nation, and a strong ag economy not only helps the farmers and ranchers, but also the numerous egg-based businesses across south dakota. i will aggressively expand opportunities in agriculture like the south dakota's plant and the beef plant in aberdeen and i'll hold in conjunction the second governor's agriculture summit to discuss the future of agriculture with every commodity group and stake holder. i want to open the lines of communication to make sure the state government is always acting in the best interest of

farmers and ranchers. my door will always be open. just as we focus on our largest industry, so too must we continue to promote the second largest industry, tourism. the visitor industry in south dakota has enjoyed great success over the past several years, and i expect to announce another strong total for last year at the tourism conference next week. while the recession caused visit spending to fall in much of the nation, we have held strong in south dakota. we need to build upon that success. i will be elevating tourism back into the cabinet to give this industry a strong voice, and i will be bringing a bill to retain the extra half cent tax that the critter industry placed upon itself in 2009. that tax is set to expire, but these revenues are important to continue to provide for our very successful tourism promotion

efforts. south dakota is a great place to visit, and we must continue to tell our story and invite people from all over the world to enjoy south dakota. i'll also be introducing a bill reforming the large project refund program. this program which was the topic of much discussion last year was created to encourage investment in large projects in south dakota. it has worked. ethanol plants, ag processing plants, and wind power projects have all been built in south dakota in part because of this tax incentive program. however, this program has also been used by some projects that would likely have been built in south dakota anyway. we should reform this program so that only attracts new projects without giving tax refunds to projects that would have been undertaken anyway. as you know, this program is scheduled to sunset at the end

of 2012. it would be a mistake to let this program expire and lose this important economic development tool. i will be asking the legislature to reform the program to provide that refunds only be given to the projects that would not otherwise be undertaken and to give discretion to determine when a project meets this standard. now i recognize there's no way to right a wrong that perfectly anticipates every situation. it makes more sense to allow for discretion in awarding the tax rebates so that loopholes are not used to secure unneeded rebates. i ask that you provide this authority so that south dakota can be protected from unnecessary tax give aways. now, i'd like to update you for a moment on developments at the samford underground laboratory in the home state for the deep underground engineering science laboratory. today biology experiments are

being conducted and nearly all of our state universities are participating. more experiments are preparing to commence yet this year. under a preliminary agreement, the original plan was for the national science foundation to build the deep underground science and engineering laboratory and for the department of energy to pay for the excavation of large cavities, but recently, the national science board has taken the position that the department of energy should own and build the facility, and that the national science foundation should pay only for experiments. therefore, $29 million in funding is being withheld by the national science board and has not been released to home state. over the past several weeks, i'm sure you've read in the news media that we have worked closely with the national science foundation, the department of energy, and our congressional delegation to secure short term funding to

continue this important project. although this is a challenging situation, i will keep working to secure this funding so the lab can continue to operate while a new agreement is reached. i hope this can be accomplished very soon. every one in south dakota should be proud of the commitments that governor rounds, the state legislature, over every citizen made in securing the deep underground lab for our state and nation. i promise to work hard to ensure that the set backs suffers in the past few weeks doesn't undermind the path of the last few years. just as home state has great potential to transform the economy of the black hills, the air force base is already an important economic driver. i was proud as lieutenant governor to help create the ellsworth development authority that encourages development that complements the base. aviation is an industry that

would fit near ellsworth well, and i will be proposing legislation that will make south dakota more attractive to the aviation industry. i will ask you to reform south dakota's product liability tort law for aviation manufactures based in our state to protect manufactures from claims rising years after the aircraft is manufactured. this bill is based on the state law of kansas which is home to many large aviation manufacturing operations such as boeing. just as we acted in the past to attract the financial services industry, we can change this law to give the aviation industry a reason to look at south dakota. these are some of the initiatives i will be undertaking in the next year to create jobs and grow our state's economy, but we cannot forget the important advantages we already have. we have the best business climate in the nation, and i intend to keep it that way.

our first advantage is our low tax burden. i am proud that south dakota has the lowest per capita tax burden in the nation. i've said many times during my recent campaign that i will not raise taxes except in case of an emergency like a blizzard or a flood. recession is the worst time to raise taxes, and if you send me a bill to raise taxes, i will veto it. the sec advantage is the reasonable, prekickble and -- predictable legislations. it can be improved. it is the nature of government overtime to become more regulatory, and we must be deliberate about resisting and reversing this. over the next year, we must undertake a comprehensive review of regulations in every agency of government. we must first repeal the regulations we don't need. secondly, seven my those that are --

simplify those that are too complex, and third, seek the input of our customers and make government more streamlined and sensible. now, as we discuss economic development, we must remember that the foundation of our economy is an educated work force. every year, education is one of the dominant issues of the legislative session, but too often the discussion is only about funding. now, that is an important discussion. after all, education is half of the general fund bucket. certainly we'll have that important discussion again this year, but we should not measure our schools by how much money they receive or spend. we should measure them by the success of our students. by many measures, south dakota students are succeeding. 89% of our high school freshmen complete high school, one the best rates in the nation.

72% of high school graduates go on to college or technical school, also one of the best rates in the nation. among states that pass at least half their students, our average act score is near the top. i believe our students and schools are successful because of good parenting that sends most south dakota kids to the schoolhouse door ready to learn. they are met there by hard working, committed educators who cause that learning to occur. my wife, linda, worked for years as a teacher, school librarian, and a coach. these professionals dedicate their careers to the young people and it's because of dedicated administrators, teachers, hard working students, and families that allow us to succeed like we do. can we do better? of course we can. i'm firmly committed to ensuring

every student who wants to go to college is fully prepare to enter and graduate. i am fully committed to expand opportunities through partnerships with the tech schools and private businesses so high school students have exposure to skilled technical fields. i will also be sponsoring a bill to increase the bonding capacity of our post secondary technical schools to allow them to continue to expand their campuses and add new programs in tech technical fields. we have to do a better job in the fields of science, engineer, technology, and mathematics. south dakota does relatively well in these fields when compared to other states, but our children are not competing just against iowa or minnesota or other states, but they are competing against india and china. over the next year i'll work on new approaches to strengthen education in the important areas

of science, technology, engineers, and mathematics. now, i want to use my office to promote new approaches in education and help schools implement them, but i also want to allow local school boards and school administrators to run their own districts. that is why i will be sponsoring bills this year to repeal the 100 student minimum for school districts and also to remove the cap on school district reserve on balances. we must trust local officials to make the best decisions for their district, and if they fail, we must trust local voters to find new local officials. our system of education is a source of tomorrow's work force, and we have no greater work force need over the next ten years than in health care. by 2014, disks will require --

south dakota will require an additional 13,000 health care workers. partnering with health systems, professional organizations, educational institutions at local governments, we must increase efforts to encourage our students to consider careers in health care. we should encourage local school districts to give high school credit to graduation or training in fields like emt, nursing substantiates. we must also continue to promote the privately funded south dakota scholarships. governor rounds created this program with no state funding, with generous support from corporate and foundation donors, i have already begun conversations with continued private support because this program rewards young people who commit to staying in our state and to entering into health care and other high-need fields. in the area of health care, my administration will be working

to comply with the new requirements that congress has imposed upon us as part of the health care reform legislation at the federal level. at the same time, however, i am going to continue to support the efforts begun by governor rounds and attorney general marty jackly to reform the health care law in court. i will support efforts in congress to repeal or reform this bill. over 90% of south dakotaians have health department coverage. here our most serious problem is not coverage, but cost, yet the federal law focuses almost entirely on getting coverage for the few without and does little to control rising costs for the many already insured. this is a low that does not -- this is a law that does not make sense for our state. now, the federal health care law is a frequent topic of debate. likewise, economic development and education are often

discussed in the political arena, and rightly so. another important issue in our state has not received as much attention, something i'd like to talk about. infant mortality. south dakota's infant mortality rate is significantly higher than in narks, minnesota, iowa, nebraska, or montana, and although we saw dramatic improvements from the 1960s to the 1990s, over the past decade, our infant mortality rate exhibited a worsening trend. in the last several years, the good news is that infant mortality among native americans in our state has improved.

the bad news, it's still higher than in most places. worse yet, in the rest of south dakota, the mortality trend has worsened. it has been said that the infant mortality rate is the gold standard for measuring the health of the population. i will make it a priority to face this problem head on. we already know many of the factors that contribute to infant deaths. too many mothers in our state, almost 20%, use tobacco products when pregnant. in one-third of south dakota counties, 30% of mothers don't seek prenatal care in the first trimester, and more young parents need to learn about safe sleep positions and other important infant care tips. one tool our state has to combat infant mortality is the bright start home visitation program. nurses visit expecting mothers

in sioux falls, rapid city, and pine ridge to educate them about preeing pregnancy and behaviors after their baby is born. our state has been awarded a $645,000 grant to expand this program to more communities, but there is more to do. i'm going to ask doctors, hospitals, parents, and state and tribal leaders to come together to face this problem. each of us has a role to play. we all want more south dakota infants to reach their 1st birthdays. infant mortality is one of many issues that will encourage close corporation between state and tribal leaders. our reservations are integral parts of our state, and i do not view any challenges based there as tribal challenges. they are south dakota challenges. as governor, i'm going to work hard to build a positive working

relationship between the state and each of our nine tribes. i want to base these relationships on two principles. first, i will also remember that the nine tribes are nine separate governments, each with their own set of circumstances. they should not be subject to a one-size fits all approach. second, i want to be respectful of the wishes of tribal leaders. my first question to them will be, what are your challenges and opportunities? and my second question will be, how can we work together? i am creating a cabinet level secretary of tribal relations to help me build these relationships and hold these conversations. i want every tribal leader to know i'm serious about working with them to build a stronger south dakota. i'm not looking to attend more meetings as window dressing. this is not window dressing. i want to build real relationships that can lead to

positive results for all south dakotaians living on or off reservations. in addition to the bills and other proposed changes i've described already, i will be recommending several organizational changes. this week i will be submitting a reorganization order for your consideration. i've already mentioned i will be aboll inning the department of tourism and establish an economic development, the department of tourism, and the department of tribal relations. each deserves a seattle at the cabinet table. in addition, i will be moving most of the business regulatory functions from the current department of revenue and regulation to the department of laborment i believe that these regulatory functions such as banking, insurance, and securities fit more closely with the current labor department which already including worker compensation, unemployment, and

many professional boards and commissions. making this change will also allow the department of revenue to focus on its core mission, collecting tax dollars owed to our state. i will also be moving three behavioral health divisions from the department of human services to the department of social services. these three divisions are funded heavily by medicaid which is administered by the department of social services. i'm hopeful this realignment will allow social services to work with the agencies to find efficiencies and save medicaid dollarsment finally, i'll be splitting military and veteran affairs into two level departments. the department of the military is led by the general and will oversee the south dakota national guard. the department of veteran's affairs oversees the veteran's benefits and programs including the state veteran's home. creating separate departments for the military and for

veteran's affairs will allow the general to focus on leading and increasingly active national guard while allowing the secretary of veteran's affairs to ensure we always meet our obligations to our veterans. over the past few years, it's been my honor to serve on the board of directors for south dakota's honor flight program. this program charters flights to fly to washington, d.c. with world war ii veterans to see their memorial and other sites. it was a privilege to be associated with honor flight and meet many of these heros now in the twi light of their lives who fought so value lantly to protect our world from fascism and communism. today's foreign struggles are creating a new generation of heros who put their lives on the line to protect our freedoms. we owe them our thanks and our strong support, and i'd like us to pause at this time and thank them together for their

service. please join me in thanking our veterans. [applause] [applause] [applause] [applause] [applause] [applause] [applause] [applause] beyond the cabinet changes i just described, i've also reorganized the governor's office. in most governor's offices in south dakota and around the

nation, the governor has employed a single chief of staff. i've opted up stead to have six officials reporting directly to me as an executive committee. these six people will divide up the traditional duties of the chief of staff and also assume many other responsibilities. one team member of that team is our lieutenant governor. matt michaels is one of the most impressive people i've met. he came from a single parent home, worked through school, served his country in the united states navy. he graduated from law school, and is one of our state's leading attorneys in health care law. he's a brilliant legislature and a two-term speaker of this house. most importantly, matt is a family man with a great wife and son has and great values. having matt michaels as a full time lieutenant governor is a great asset to south dakota. he's working with me every day to make the state a better

place, and if something happens to me, matt will be ready to lead the state as governor. the elevation of the lieutenant governor to full time and other organizational changing i have made does not add another layer of bureaucracy. these changes have not added additional companies or employees. my governor's office has at same number of physicians as the previous administration, but by reshuffling duties and personnel dollars, we have cut the payroll by more than 10% effective yesterday. i would like to say a few words now about the state budget. i'll be introducing several bills on behalf of the bureau finance and management that are necessary to implement my budget proposal. this will include a special appropriation to fund the water bill and our obligations under the position of the

reimbursement program. there's a number of technical bills i'll discuss with you next week in the budget proposal. beyond legislation, i'll work with the cabinet this year to make it more efficient and save money. i want to revisit state travel, the motor fleet, and the airplane fleet. i know that studies have been done in the past, but austerity measures in place limit the amount of travel that is being done, and i want to ask the department of transportation to undertake a comprehensive study of usage. both of our auto fleet and our airplane fleet to determine whether we need all that we have. as my last words about the budget today, i would like to say something about the principles that guided me as i crafted the budget proposal i will present next week. as a first principle, i am committed to eliminating the structural deficit.

a structural deficit exists when ongoing expenses exceed ongoing revenue. let me every size that definition because clear communication depends upon a common understanding of language. a structural deficit exists when ongoing expenses exceed ongoing revenue. one time revenue items do not enter into the calculation. one-time companies do not -- expenses do not enter into that calculation. ongoing versus on going. we have had an increasing structural deaf -- deficit not because of mismanagement, but because of the ongoing recession. our contractor's tax, our bank franchise tax, our collective ongoing revenues fell in fiscal

year 2009 and fell still further in fiscal year 2010, and although they are now turning around, on going revenues for this fiscal year ending this june are still expected to be below fiscal year 2008 ongoing revenues. even as those ongoing revenues were falling, our ongoing expenses were growing. to fill the gap, the federal government gave us money. as a condition, we were forbidden to cut spending in most areas. this denied us to freedom to address our structural deficit in a meaningful way. that money will be gone in fiscal year 2012, and we must now confront our condition. i am committed to eliminating the structural deficit, and that is my first principle. as a second principle, i believe

we must not use one time dollars to perpetuate overspending. that just kicked the can down the road. it defers the problem to another year. one time money should be used only for one time costs. reserves should be used only for unexpected needs. the budget i propose next week will meet our goals within these principles. my budget proposal will clearly demonstrate to you and to the people of south dakota that if we truly want to balance our budget without raising taxes as i do, we must be prepared to make some very difficult decisions. i intend to lead my example. the agencies under the control of the governor will be cut by at least 10%. the governor's office will be cut by 10% over all. every member of my cab innocent

has agreed -- cabinet agreed to cut his or her salary by 10%, some by 15%. i will be cutting my own salary by 15%. it is my duty as governor to begin the budget discussion with a proposal. i do not claim that that proposal is the plan. it is a plan. i look forward to an open and honest dialogue with you and the people of south dakota about in proposal. i am willing to reconsider the details of the budget i present, but i am committed to the principle goal of a structurally balanced budget. during session, the halls of our capitol are filled with those who represent the many interest groups of our state. these are good people, and they have a job to do -- advocate for their employers, and it is important that someone fills this role, but we who have been

elected must remember that there is another interest group who is not so well organized. they are the taxpayers who elected us to come to pierre. we are here to represent all of south dakota, the taxpayers as well as the tax spenders. the taxpayers ask that we look at the big picture that we take the long view and that we spend their hard earned tax dollars responsibly and provide government services efficiently. as governor, i will put taxpayers first, and i will make sure their voice is never forgotten. let me close now with a little history. every year our legislature opens its session by inviting the governor to report on the state of the state as i have just done. it was exactly 100 years ago last week on january 3rd, 1911

that the legislature convened for the very first time in this building. they heard the governors state of the state address. the governor discussed many of the same issues we talk about a minute ago, and that we will debate and discussion, the budget, education, agriculture, state institutions, law enforcement, transportation. the governor had been elected in 1908 and had won his second term by a margin of more than 20%. yet, i would venture to guess that almost no one here would be able to recall the name of that governor if asked. you see, that's the point. a century from now, governor dennis daugaard would be as forgte