agencies? >> we have cut deeply into the nlrb. so that's significant. >> i heard it was a one-page plan. >> you've got one page to review? >> we very much hope for more. >> so you haven't gotten anything from fcc beyond this one page. >> you're exactly right. independent agencies have not delivered plans, but we are hopeful and encouraging them to engage in a look that process. >> we had our meeting with the president on wednesday. i think you are there. one of the questions asked of the president was specifically related to the epa. we have had this conversation with epa and many of their proposed rules and regulations that have no impact in improving safety. it's much more aligned with the political agenda of ideology

rather than safety. in fact, the epa almost cracked the don't have to comply with the rule. we practice to the president's attention. >> has anything changed in this regard? >> the epa is clearly complying with the executive order. you have seen both the plan from the epa, which is detailed and has 31 suggestions for reforms as epa will be considering what comes than in the next. to add to that 31. epa's recent roles have been detailed in their compliance with the executive order, including analysis which you point to job impacts. >> can you give our committee examples of where you have said no to the epa in any of their rules or regulations or the department of interior for that matter? >> way we work with epa and interior is collaborative than anything else.

>> have you collaborated in a way where some proposals for rollback? >> you can see a number of their rules when they were finalized were far more modest than when they were proposed. >> can you send examples to our committee of cases come up with previous proposal in the rollback or posole but ultimately made its way to regulation >> to show examples come in the national manufactures boutique really applied -- >> the gentleman's time is expired. >> order to complete the answer. >> the epa's action with respect to the rule, which included a recent stay and also a scale back in response to concern. >> and unappreciated decal that information. i yield back.

>> we don't have any reaction to mr. burgess. >> i guess can send it will be made part of the record and reconvene after the though. thank you for your time. [inaudible conversations]

>> a subcommittee of oversight investigation will reconvene and we will recognize the next series of questions for the general mall from pennsylvania, recognized for five minutes. >> i appreciate you being here today. i've reflected back on a quote from ronald reagan that says it is not my attention to do away with government and rather work with us, not over us. governments can and must provide opportunity, not smother it to foster opportunity. he said that back in 1881. i think we would all agree they haven't heard anyone from our side of the aisle say we don't like regulations. but there is some ambiguity. when the administration came out with the executive order in january this year, it said

regulations should be evaluated by difficult for responsible to dignity, fairness and impacts. are those measures you use when reviewing regulations? >> our principal focus as the previous sentence at the executive order emphasizes its costs and benefits and quantify. so our focus is how much does this cost? what are the benefits and monetize simple as possible? >> with the executive order, does it have the authority to overturn laws congress passes? >> absolutely not. this raises for a recognition under some law like those designed to prevent or prevent discrimination against returning veterans can't use patterns without assistance. >> one of the things had to do with yucca mountain in the law

clearly states that when these licenses and other things goforth, action is to be taken. now we hear a new standard coming out that was supposed to look at issues of consensus and social consensus in those areas. and yet, what she said as he don't have the authority to overturn laws. i am assuming the department of energy is one of those areas you have site over? do you intend to have any discussion with them with regard if they decide to ignore the law based upon a new standard of in the law? >> well, i should say that fidelity to god is our first foundation. that is the requirement of everything we do. we oversee d.o.e. rulemaking. so if there is rulemaking activity and that domain, we would as a matter of course engage with that. if there is something as a matter of course, we'd be happy to engage with them. >> it is extremely valuable if you could report to this

committee on that very specific issue because lott is quite clear that demands the department of energy is supported not welcome at a new standards son-in-law is also quite clear. we need to have your respond. another issue has to do with impact of the health care bill on small businesses. according to the administrations of estimates, regulations will force all the players at 80% of his misses over the next two years. that is the concern. are you aware of that assessment? >> that particular number i was not aware of, they certainly know the general concern. >> when you look across benefit analysis, we see numbers grow in terms of the cost of health care bill and we see estimates that 9 million people will lose their benefits to 30, 40, 80 million, the succeeding but estimates i to provide health care, an and or that amount.

and so along those lines, have you been pushed in any way to move rules through quicker to spend information like that? >> no. >> and the delay finalizing rules based upon how the agencies that handled her corporate or public comment in responses from the business community? >> the basic answer is yes and we often engage for lengthy periods of agencies because of the public comments. in fact, i spent a lot of personal time on the website known as regulations.gov, studying those comments. the only qualification are for obligation and the lie requires action, then we have to respect that. >> pendulum republican members at the white house this week, the president asked questions about epa regulations about

cost-benefit analysis that how would we look at that in terms of the type of jobs as well. and he said basically there were mandates and standards of love we had to adhere to if congress wanted to do something otherwise we should change those claws. i agree with the lovely and despair. the question also becomes of how you match. you are in a position of considerable authority here. so i'm these areas of delays or pushback, have you ever actually done so in terms of twopenny agency, can you give us an example of how you or pushback in the to delay putting on the speculation until we analyze it or until you come back with a cost-benefit analysis? >> what you see is over 100 rules have been withdrawn from a review. in many cases, the reason for the job is insufficient engagement with issues of cost and economic impact. you can see that.

you can also see off in the final rule comes out different from the proposed rule, less expensive and less burdensome and sometimes proposed rules should start finalize because there is significant concern from the standpoint duvets in the interagency review of involves not just opposite of regulatory affairs, but the department of commerce, economic advisors plays a role. >> how about pushback on the health care rules? have you done any of that? >> our first obligation with respect to health care rules is to obey the law. >> heavy pushback? >> i want to phrase it pushed that. we work closely with the agencies to make sure the costs are as low as possible and make sure the burdens are reduced. he may have noticed with respect to the grandfather and will, there was an management they responded to concerns from the fact that stakeholders that

excessive burdens and there's a lot that's been done and we and others have been participated in that in trying to make sure the implementation. >> i'm not sure in getting an answer. as it happened? >> i would want to claim personal credit for anything. >> what they reword this way because employers routinely keep the same benefits in order to cut health health care costs the change of coverage. under the interim final rule for the grandfather and plans in january -- excuse me, june of last year, employer plan foster grandfather status in changing curious regardless of whether benefits you mean the same. to believe health and human services should have instead proposed a rule open to comments from stakeholders who could've advised hhs to influence the decision before the public began? >> what i would say about that is the interim final rules receive comments and hhs should we and has been highly responsive to those comments.

in a particular kc kids come as a responsiveness to amend amend in a hurry the rule to respond to some of the most concerns. we'll discuss that. it is also the case that there were q&a indictments clarifications that were very responsive to concerns raised by exactly the people to whom you refer. >> thank you on mr. chairman. >> they see no one on the democrat side. we will go to the chairman emeritus of the joe barton from texas for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. congressman burgess was speaking to you about some rules that impact texas and i'm going to follow up in a little bit different way. are you familiar with good

102-point ibanez on transportable to epa is in the process of promulgating to replace the care standards ruled nine in compliance with the clean air act several years ago? >> yes, i am. >> are you aware that justice seeker may be last week, epa disallowed texas implementation plan and put down some requirements that if implemented are probably going to shut down 25% of texas electricity generation? >> in the clean transport will drive -- >> what just came out. >> yeah, that rule is under review now.

so my understanding is that not enough and then along the lines you just described. >> i want to give you an opportunity to demonstrate real accountability. my understanding is the office you hold is the president's direct link to reviewing all the various regulations except those specifically exempted by the executive order. another was coming with the president spent to make sure all these weird agency regulations to pass a minimal test and you're supposed to review every significant order, et cetera, et cetera. i want to review what the epa

said about this interstate transport decision that they just handed down. says this proposed action is not a regulatory action under terms of the executive order, 12866 latte., and therefore not subject to review under 12866 and 13563. it is going to shut down 25% of the power generation in texas. and to consider? >> under executive order. now i know what you're talking about. under executive order has $100 million for a significant impact on effect your area, then accounts. if you like to look into that. >> i want you to do more than

deadly look into it. i want you to do something about it. if your agency disagrees with the executive branch regulatory decision, can you stop at? >> if there is a rule, regulatory action we have the will to stop it to the extent consistent with the love. >> of the upper exercise that authority? >> we've seen over 100 withdraws overrules. and that speaks for itself. >> i am going to read you something. this is generated by the state of texas. so that is the source. it says the only way to achieve the epa's contemplated mandate by 2012 compliance date, which is next year will in fact be to cease operating the effective

units for most of the year, leading to the loss of jobs, shut down of mines and serious risk to a trick reliability. keep in mind that texas is in compliance in terms of the standards. keep in mind that the regions that are supposedly affected by texas, st. louis then i think that readers have just been declared in compliance. and yet, epa has come out in the last week stipulated by next year, texas has to achieve an additional 34% reduction in co2 emissions every party achieved a 33% reduction in the last 10 years. in the next six months, with a twitchy 34% more for shut down all these plans.

i think that's pretty bad comes significant. >> i think he said one of my favorite words in english language, which is the word propose. this is a proposed rule, correct? not final? okay, from the standpoint of those concerns, that is excellent news. it has happened in the last two years that something has been proposed and not been deemed significant and as a result of further assessment and public concern, and has been deemed consistent -- significant at the final stage and there is an ira involvement. >> we will definitely take a look at that. >> i am going to work with chairman stearns and the commander to get chairman up 10 and ranking member waxman. we are going to follow up on ms. and we are going to expect. they're going to work cooperatively with you and your staff. but if you really have the dority, now is the time to

exercise. >> understood. gentleman, recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for holding this hearing. in thank you mr. sunstein for being here. >> what is the process for determining whether regulation is subject to executive order? >> the basic idea is, is it significant, meaning doesn't have $100 million annual cost on the economy if our benefit by the way. $100 million in impact. then it can be deemed significant also the defects affect your foreign area. there can be something that falls short of the $100 million threshold that nonetheless has an economic cassette or it can raise novel issues of policy or law. so the net is why with the kind of daily mundane things.

>> i have right here a proposal of oklahoma's implementation plan. i can't do a little bit before about that. epa proposes to disapprove of oklahoma's plan. this step dennen said no, were unable to do federal implementation plan. it will cost ratepayers almost $2 billion. what i would like to note is the ira refuses proposal. >> a disapproval of the state implementation. >> i have introduced the bill

recently caught the train act. i talked a little bit about at the requires the cumulative analysis of regulations that impact america's manufacturing and energy to understand how they will impact international competitiveness and job creation. will you and the administration support this? >> there are three words you use. cumulative cost, competitive job creation better very much our focus, prominent in the executive order. this is something daily we are attending to. with respect to regulation, wyoming is the narrow implementation and i defer to others on that issue. >> i've talked to the president and they seem supportive. mr. sunstein, you're very intelligent man. no question about it. and the administration of your highly regarded. what you say carries a lot of depth and weight.

you tell the president he thinks they should sign that bill? >> well, i tend not to tell the president. >> i think you would listen to you. he doesn't know what this stuff about you. if you come in there, mr. sunstein, a cuddly cuties to say okay, think what do it. >> you might have done that at the university of chicago. >> you guys go way back. >> is good something is interpreted other things. he will be a big impact on this and i hope you can because people -- i go around my district, oklahoma around the country and have never heard people talk about the epa. people are tuned in this is costing them everything that is passed on to consumers. it's not on the businesses. we have to keep that in mind. it does affect competitiveness and johnson are economy. mr. sunstein, he said good things today and i hope that he will support this because it's

something we should do. i don't think it is too much asked to do these cost-benefit analysis on global competitiveness and jobs. >> at think the gentlelady and is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. sunstein, i think you can tell we are all hearing from constituents they are frustrated what is coming from this administration. i started in january to a listening sessions with our employers in our districts. they were jobs related listening sessions. i mention that to you the last time we talk and they are incredibly frustrated. as one of my constituents said, you know, we used to get a good unable periodic, one page at day. now the regulation comes in reams and reams and reams of paperwork. into such a heavy burden that the jobs numbers today should not surprise you all because

what you are doing isn't working. so they should be good to you and i hope we can work with you on this. and i know that you all are saying well, we've got draft proposals out there. we need input. and the input coming back to you is you are on the wrong track. so if you're on the wrong track, sir, please advise the administration to change what they are doing. now, i know that the executive order, the 165 -- 63 we are discussing, independent regulatory agencies are not to be subject to the zero ira review. but these agencies are in and using your birds come and courage to do so on a voluntary basis and to perform retrospect that analysis of its steamrolls. and you had hoped that they

would do that. is that correct? >> that's correct. >> catechin first letter to the editor of "the wall street journal" work commission on board from this cpsc knows from the administration and i'm quoting, has ignored the direction to look for and of the many burdensome regulations. we are just too busy putting out new regulations, end quote. >> i've got to tie you, that is the kind of thing that we are hearing from our employers is frustrating to them. so, let me ask you this. among the 30 polin in a draft plan supplied by the agencies to go ira i made team and released on the website, did any of them come from the fcc, the ftc, cpsc for the nrc? >> no.

>> they did not. sir, what is going to be her next entry tricyclic >> well, i am hopeful and i said in writing and i'll say right now that we would very much like the independent agencies to engage in this book but process. >> i've got to tell you the american people are hopeful for jobs and you all have dropped the ball. they are getting tired this. and they are enough to take some action. in what you are doing is sending out all the these speculations is broad. it's going to have $100 million impact. we are going to pull it in here and hold you while accountable that this in the american people will hold you accountable for this. you've got to find a way to get these agencies to get some of this regulation. to me ask you with one and half minutes left. the combo care organizations in tennessee is very important industrial sector for us. the proposed rule on the accountable care organization is

incomprehensible. there is a group representing some of these organizations such as the mayo clinic that wrote the administration saying with a 90% of its members would not participate because the rules -- the rules. not the law, the rules as written are so onerous that it would be nearly impossible for them to succeed. i am hearing the same thing for mike situates company. in addition, the regulations are stated to be overly prescriptive , operationally prudent son and the incentives are too difficult to achieve to make this voluntary program to track days. one of the major problems seems to be some medical growth has little experience in managing insurance risk and the administration blueprint rapidly exposes them to potential financial losses. what has oira's roll band in

reviewing this rule today for the accountable care organization? >> the quote you gave is very reminiscent of some stakeholder response to the meaningful use rule, which hhs proposed a while back. >> or problems with that, too, arthur's earthquakes we hear about those problems at the meaningful use rule. are we going to see the look that process? >> i would like -- >> had we speed the process of? >> well, they are two things. first, this very hearing in your interest in making sure what is on the plans have not implemented already on a very fast track, that those things are implemented or put on a fast track. your ideas about what should be on the plans they woke him with respect to the outcome of the real you raised i said is a little pitiful. >> should we retrieve the

authority and addresses statutorily? >> i wouldn't say that. i would say it as a mechanism, the work proposed not just because i'm recently married, but also because the fundamentally constructive nature of proposed rules or entrants i know where you have a chance to fix things. i have her concerns to which you appoint and our role will be in trying to address those concerns. >> mr. sunstein, my time has expired, but i would just like to place a motherly reminder. actions speak louder than words and the american people have gotten very tired. to back ..

>> if we aren't able to cut billions out of this process, that would be a surprise. >> executive order of 13563 specifies that regulations should promote job creation and that regulation should impose the least burden on society. when will your office issue guidelines for analysis to identify whether rules promote

job creation or result in job destruction? >> okay. well, what we've been doing is working carefully with the agencies rather than the guidelines approach. that's an interesting suggestion. we've been working carefully with agencies when a rule has potential job impacts to make sure that that's addressed fully, and -- >> will you be issuing guidelines for analysis to identify those rules? >> it's an interesting question whether this should be done by guidelines versus rule-by-rule basis, and that's one we've been focusing on the 30 plans in the last month. >> you will not be issuing guidelines -- >> i didn't say that. we are focusing really laser-like on job impacts of rules, and you can see actually with the rules withdrawn or amended in the last months in part because of concerns about job impacts. some of them are very prominent. this is something we do on a daily basis. whether this should be done through guidelines is an

interesting question. it's consistent with the executive order and also omb circular four with words on this to focus on job impacts of rules whether guidelines are useful or not, as i say, that's an interesting question very worth considering. >> and then so i mean, the process you're considering then, are you going to require methods of analysis that account for direct and indirect job impacts or do you follow the lead? we had the administer of epa and ignore job lesses results from shutting down facilities? >> i believe that testimony was focused on a rule issued by the recent executive order, and under the recent executive order, job impacts have been and will continue to be discussed. >> but it also requires a look back though. they should have done a look back on that. >> oh, well, if epa, the rule i think you're referring to is a proposed rule where there's extensive set of comments

including comments that involve job impacts, and it would be very surprising if those impacts weren't carefully addressed before the rule is issued. in terms of the lookback process, we are very much concerned about the prioritizing, the lookback as to get job growth going. >> and so there are a number of studies and i've got a study right here in my hands here, a number of studies that show health effects associated with the job loss, health effects and impacts on family, impacts on education. if a rule is expected to shut down a facility or reduce employment, don't you think that cost to americans health associated with the shutdown should be considered under the executive order? >> i'm aware of that empirical literature. it's an interesting set of findings. what i'd say is that the job impacts of rules definitely should be addressed. whether health impacts that are

a consequence of job impacts should be addressed, it's a little bit of a frontiers question in social science. i know the literature to which you're pointing, and existing omb documents don't require that, but it is certainly worthying about. >> so right now you're not taking into account impacts on children or families when they lose a job as a result of legislation? >> well, to taking the of job impacts, which as i say is a central focus of ours, is to consider job impacts on families and children. the word job impacts in ordinary language especially in the current economic environment, not even before the word job impacts naturally calls up adverse effects on families and children. >> are you aware of rules at the department of transportation relating to new signing requirements costing counties tens of thousands of dollars if not more each? >> yes. i'm aware they are concerned about that and pulled back on the rules?

>> so they have pulled back on the rules? >> absolutely. he's personally been engaged. >> the rule is stopped? >> well, the rule that was causing the public concern was pulled back, and there's reassessment, and you can be sure that the most vocal and con vinszing concerns about -- convincing concerns about unjustified cost were well-heard by the department of transportation. >> thank you, gentlemen. the time expired. mr. griffeth is recognized for five minutes. >> it states the regulatory action is based on the best available science. your office has responsibility for helping the president achieve this objective. you may be aware there's a pending legislation that involves the listing status of formaldehyde in an upcoming report on carcinogens. this is important and is the basis for regulatory actions

that may be taken now by osha and other agencies and may affect legal decisions in the near future. my understanding is that the studies and data sets reviewed by the ndp in its ongoing decision making process are the same as those used in the draft formaldehyde assessment by the epa. the national academy of science recently calledded that epa draft assessment into question and raised serious concerns suggesting the draft assessment is in need of substantial revision at the very best. i assume you agree that the federal government must have consistent, clear, and coordinated assistance on matters of public health. considering the positions on science issues between the bodies, can you assure me that you will be involved in reviewing this issue and assuring any policy decision made by the npp will reflect the best available sound science including recommendations and

conclusions of the national academies? also, oira from time to time is engaged in the national academy of science to review science evidence to provide an assessment. will you engage with the academy on scientific questions on hand and the report prior to to its release? >> thank you for that. our central domain includes rule making, and it's crucial to that and care a lot with the national coma of sciences. i work closely with the president of the academy to make sure the science is right. on the particular issue you raised, it's not rule making in the sense it's our normal domain, but i can promise you this that in the next 24 hours, i will discuss this with john holdren. >> let me let you know why i'm concerned about it. we heard earlier that

regulations are good, and they are in some cases. i'm not sure they're always good for jobs, but sometimes they are, and sometimes they are not. formaldehyde is a great concern in jobs county alone. there's an industry there employees over 600 people. we are looking at an announcement in the next week we'll lose jobs in that same county. the county is 17,000 people, and we're looking based on regulations losing over the course of the next couple years, we have a good chance of losing if these regulations go into effect, 700 jobs. do the multipliers on that and it's higher in rural areas where the money tends to stay in the commune. we're talking about the county, not one town. the town with 600 jobs based on the industry with formaldehyde is significant. it's not the only county in the district where jobs are impacted by regulations. iask you to look into that. look at another subject of

interest in the district and that's the milk regulations. we appreciate the epa decided not to regulate and i assume you stand by your opening statement, both written and oral, as to that, and i appreciate that. let me ask you this. it is also fair to say that those regulations treating milk because. animal fats as an oil never went into effect that they had been -- the phrase i'm learning is the can was kicked down the road for some time, and without the april 12th epa announcement that they were not going to, but exempt the milk products you mentioned in your written statement, without that exemption, they would have been regulated in november of this year, is that not correct? >> i believe that's mostly correct. my understanding is that the coverage of milk actually was real, and in the law, enforcement -- this is a good thing -- was not firm, so it was kind of an enforcement limbo.

>> yes, sir, and without the action on april 12th, the enforcement would have begun in november in >> that's correct. >> i appreciate that, and thank you very much, and i appreciate your work on trying to save jobs. like so many others, that's a main concern in our district, and we hope you have the presence here and that you can convince hem to roll back some of the regulations that's already in effect and not propose or not have them go into effect where they cost jobs like the milk regulation would have done. >> i thank the gentleman. the gentleman from texas is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you mr. sunstein for being here. i want to talk about the regulations on protecting our economy. in advance of the hearing chairman upton said they were pleased with the administration sharing or concerns in stifling or chasing jobs overseas. i have an industrial base, and i share that concern although i am concerned about some of my

republican colleague's plea all regulations regardless hurts the economy, and let me give you an example. years of deregulation dropped the markets to the point of collapse in 2008. the federal reserve had the authority to stop the lending practices that fueled the mortgage market, but chairman greenspan refused to regulate the industry. the security exchange commission relaxed its net capital rule in 2004 allowing investment banks to increase leverage ratios 33 to 1. the treasury department opposed legislative efforts for transparency and oversight concerning trading in energy derivatives. the office of supervision and control over currency remained in states from protecting home buyer in predatory lending. as a result in 2008, the financial markets in the united states collapsed. this economic crisis created a recession causing 8 million americans to lose their jobs and the stock market to lose 50% of

its value. i also want to read to you conclusions from the congressional t.a.r.p. oversight panel. they concluded regular given adequate attention to one of the three key areas of risk management, transparency, and fairness, we might have averted the crisis. mr. mr. sunstein this was a primary cause of the financial crisis. my first question is do you agree with the findings of the t.a.r.p. oversight panel, and was this is case where the lack of regulation harmed the economy and caused the nation to lose these millions of jobs? >> i'm in general agreement with that. >> okay. and in the view of president obama that increase of government -- that any increase in government rules and regulations, do they hurt the economy? >> depends on the rules and regulations. some do, some don't. >> well, and hopefully we learned our lesson, although sometimes we have to keep learning our lesson.

we saw during the financial crisis targeting effective regulation provide important safeguards for our economy, and we hope we remember that government regulations can play an important role in protecting our country and our citizens, but also on the other hand, i see a lot of what i think are really silly regulations coming out and think, okay, how did they get to that point? i tell people, congress is the only stiewtionz known to man to turn an elephant into a giraffe. sometimes i think committees can do the same thing. mr. chairman, i appreciate the opportunity to ask these questions. >> i thank the gentleman, and we're going to do a second round so we won't hold you too much longer. i'll start out with -- i want to go back to the chart that was quivering up there. i think you have a copy of the chart. did you know that that chart came from the web page,0v#

>> particularly in 2010 and 2009, the average duration for those reviews have gone down. do you agree with that? >> that looks about right. i wouldn't put a lot of weight on the fact -- >> let me finish. you agree the information came from your website that you approve, it's accurate, you

agree that the first graph is correct and the second graph is correct so i guess would going back to the first question where you disagree, i guess you would now agree that second chart shows spend less time in review of regulations and you have to review? >> i'll tell you what i want to see before signing off on that. the left chart has economic significance and the right side is regulatory review. most of the rules for review are not economically significant, so what i'd believe is the case i want to see the chart to be sure that is in 2010, our average duration for rules in general is pretty close to the predecessor. i believe that's true, but i want to see the chart to be sure. >> well, i'm glad you believe the charts are accurate. i think you're parsing your words here by saying the wording

of your title you don't agree with? >> it's not sigh man ticks. we review significant rules that are not economically significant. economically significant just stay well under the 50% of the rules we review, so what we want compare is the significant rules to the average review time or economically -- >> okay. >> you got the point. >> sounds like a chicago professor at law. [laughter] i think the point we are trying to make is that basically that you've had more economically significant rules in the years from 2008 to 2010 and at the same time the actual review in economic impact has gone down. that's our point we want to make, and we want you to understand that you might come back with a little different interruption, but these came from your web page. let me move on to my next set of questions dealing with end of life care rules.

during your last appearance before the committee, you testified that the decision to include end of life care rules into medicare regulation was inappropriate and that the american people deserve to see the content of the rules before they are finalized, that's what you said. do you still agree with that statement? >> absolutely. >> okay, but are you aware on march 3, 2011, an appearance before the subcommittee on health, the secretary freely admitted she made the decision to public this regulation without notice of public comment. were you aware of that? >> well, i was not aware of that. >> that's a fact based on what you said. obviously, she did not comply with it. have you had discussion with the secretary about this admission? >> what i'd say the secretary was very responsive to the concern that this had not been adequately ventlated by the public, and that was promptly

corrected on exactly the ground you state, and that was the secretary's decision. >> okay. so here -- end of life care rules in medicare, controversial to say the least, and she agreed that she had not even sought public notice. don't you find that -- is the word "preposterous"? >> i think what happened long before anything like that went into effect, the correction was made, and that's a good thing. >> but you agree that she was incorrect by not asking for public comment? >> well, hhs i think what they formally said was not that they had not asked for public comment, but it had not been adequately ventilated by the public. >> ventilated? >> ventilated. not in the sense of air, but in the sense of -- >> but don't you think those particular rules, end of life care should certainly have asked public or have public comment in

a very clear manner? unambiguous so that the american people have confidence? i mean, that seems to be so basic, wouldn't you agree? >> yes, and that's why the secretary amended the rule. >> uh-huh. was your office ever briefed the decision to include this regulation? >> we saw the regulation -- >> just yes or no. >> we were not briefed on that. >> the answer is no. were any materials provided by hhs about this regulation to you? >> the regulation was presented to us. >> could you please submit those for the record for us? >> the regulation is the same regulation published. >> but the materials -- >> independent -- >> not the regulation, the materials. >> no materials were provided. >> there's nothing you can provide? >> i don't believe so. >> was your office contacted about the possibility of including end of life care rules into future regulation? >> no. >> okay.

and at this point, do you feel that the analysis for the end of life care rules has been sufficient by the administration and the comment period that it's been adequate? >> well, what i understand is that the provision to which you object has been eliminated, and i support the secretary's decision. >> and so we don't think it will come up again, the new rule for the end of life care? >> well, you know, we are -- we are in the business of reviewing rules that come before us. i would defer to the secretary's statement. >> but your understanding is by her amending and pulling this that there is not going to be any further end of rule, end of life rules or they'll be amended or what? >> i would defer to her on any such issues. >> okay. all right. my time's expired. recognize the gentlelady for

five minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. in your testimony, you talked about how initiatives described in the prelim story regulatory looked back at federal departments and agencies and potentially saves billions of dollars in the future. can you describe some of the steps that agencies have taken that have already led to significant cost savings for individuals and businesses? >> yes. we have from dhs something that happened in december which was a reporting requirement of those on airlines. it's 1.5 million hours. that 1.5 million hours burden has just been eliminated already. i mentioned the epa milk rule. they also exempted biomass, something of great interest to the biomass industry. it's a three year exemption, potentially longer, and that will have significant economic consequences. osha proposed and now announced

it will finalize a $500 million burden reduction initiative, and we have a number of initiatives that actually were announced long before the president's executive order that promised over 60 million in hours in annual burden reduction, and i don't know how much an hour is worth, but if it's worth lill, which i don't believe, that 60 million hours turns into a lot of money. >> so as you described in your testimony now that you've had this, this comment period and the public process, i think you said now through august, the agencies are actually going to be looking at a more exact way that they can cut regulatory burdens and start implementing the plans i would assume, august-september; is that correct? >> absolutely. >> i hate to do this, but i suggested to chairman stearns we have you come back in the fall

after labor day and talk to us about what process is made over the summer because like you, we are very committed to common sense regulatory reform, and like i said to you before, at least my view, i've always been a proponent of regulatory reform, but i don't think regulations are necessary -- i don't think regulations per se have values attached to them. i don't think that they are inherently good or bad. i think some regulations are helpful and they can protect the public interest and they can save money, and i think some are overly burdensome. i think that's the view you share and the administration shares too; correct? >> yes. >> so if you can come back and let us know what kind of progress you have made k i think that would be helpful. would you be willing to do something like that? >> i'd be delighted. >> okay. one of the priorities that the executive order said is that he

wants to tailor -- the president wants to tailor regulations to impose the least burden on society, and a lot of our concern on both sides of the aisle is the concern about regulatory -- burdens on small businesses so i'm wondering if you can talk to me about what you see already and now what you see coming ahead this summer to reduce regulatory burdens specifically on small businesses. >> okay, great. on the same day that the president issued the executive order, he issued a memorandum on small business, protecting small business from unjustified regulation, and what the memorandum does is two things. first, it reiterates and underlines the regulatory flexibility act, an extremely important statute for small business, and second, it goes further by saying if an agency is not going to have flexibility for small business such as a delayed compliance date, a

partial or total exemption, reporting requirements, it must explain itself. now, we've seen in the last month some prominent actions by cabinet level departments eliminating burdens for small business, sometimes reporting burdens, sometimes not reporting burdens, sometimes regulatory burdens, and in two important cases by pulling rules back as to engage with the small business community to see if there's a way of doing it that would be minimally burdensome on them. >> you know, one of the things i noticed when i was thinking about this is when i talk to businesses in my district, small and large, one of the great frustrations is obsolete regulations that have reporting riemplets that are -- requirements that are based on a lack of technology, and now that technology's moved ahead, they are saying why can't we -- why can't we just report lek

tropicically? why kef to -- why do you have to fill out forms too? is the administration doing anything to specifically address those concerns? >> absolutely, and we've heard the same thing. it sounds more small potatoes than it is. small businesses say we can do it electronically and it's easier and shorter amount of time. you have us use paper which is a mess for us. if you look through the plans, you'll see nowm rows initiatives from numerous agencies that they're going from paper to electronic. we have a little precedent here, actually, not so little. the department of treasury has a paperless initiative to save $500 million in the next years just by eliminating the use of paper. that's taxpayer dollars, we hope that transfer that. >> if you can get somebody from your staff to send us an e-mail -- don't send us a letter, send us an e-mail listing all the initiatives so we can know what's going on and communicate that to our

constituents. >> great. >> thank you. >> the time expired. the gentleman from texas recognized for five minutes. >> thanks, mr. chairman, and appreciative of you spending so much time with us today. let me -- you wrote a piece for the "wall street journal" 21st century regulation an an update on the president's reform and wrote about stop crying over spilled milk, but just to set the record straight, everybody in the town loves to blame all the problems in the world on the previous administration, but sometimes we have to give credit where credit is due to the previous administration, and the spilled milk rule actually was proposed in the federal reg strer on january 15, 2009 was a few days before the president took the oath of office; is that correct? >> yes, and our final rule is much more aggressive in its deregulation than the bush proposal. >> all right. give the former president credit when we talk about that. i do have to follow-up on some

of the oira questions. the acos, in fact, and mr. chairman, if i may, i ask in today's "politico" the secretary health of human services said it's time to redraft the rules. it gives a good description. aco's, a concept started with the physician group practiced under secretary my call in the previous administration. aco's, well, perhaps not my individual favorite, may have been a bipartisan approach to bringing down the cost of delivering health care in this country, particularly within the medicare system. many clinics across the country had embraced this concept, but they were left with a mishmash of regulation that they just threw up their hands saying we can't do this, it doesn't work, and yet, it worked in their

demonstration process. one of the things the secretary found is they put a 2% savings before the aco got to participate in any of the shared savings. there was a 2% bare your, and under the rule, it's 2% to almost 4%, so what they found under the secretary was only four out of the ten practices as i recall in the project data, only four were able to meet that bar and now we've, in fact, increased that bar and made it higher. is that really a positive step in this regulation? >> the rule is proposed, and you're comments and those of your staff as well as those of your constituents are not just welcome, but needed. we got this right. >> just to be clear, we got a hard deadline, do we not, in the affordable health care act of january 1, 2012. this rule has to be revised or reproposed and the cling r clinics have to assimilate this

data, digest the data, and decide whether or not they can meet the statutory and financial requirements that are significant by january 1, 2012; is that correct? >> if we could no four months produce 600 pages of lookback plans with hundreds of rules to be revised, then we can get it done on the schedule. >> you can get it done, but i'm talking about mayo clinic and others, are these organizations able to do the complex financial analysis that's going to be required in order to meet this january 1, 2012 deadline? >> the statutory deadline? >> yes. >> we'll do our best. >> you told ms. blackburn no more enterer ferns was necessary, but i submit to you we do need to amend the sacred document to allow more clinics more time to analyze what you're going to put forward. look at the -- well, what is the

minimum financial outlay that a clinic has to come up with to institute an accountable payroll organization by your reckoning in >> i don't have a figure for that. this is -- this is a proposed rule where it's all these issues are under discussion. >> well, the figure that's begin is like $1.8 billion, but others say it's between $11 million and $25 million. it's a significant investment. aisle a doctor. doctors should be in the driver's seat. as a patient, i want my doctor in charge, not my health plan or the government to be in charge. i don't want the insurance company in charge, but the doctors are in a poor position to be able to manage the financial outlay because not only do you have to pay the startoff costs of all of the things, ancillary personnel, the health records, and everything required for disease management, care coordination, but you've also got to manage against the financial risk of taking on a

group of patients who have a set of chronic illnesses which is ideally what the aco is managing. here's the problem. we have to figure out what to do with the sustainable growth rate formula, and many think an aco model is the way to private to payments so we stop paying for stuff, but pay for illness. you delivered a regulation so confusing, the people who purport to do this are walking away, and we have six months to fix the problem. >> well, i appreciate that, and you're clearly a specialist in this. we need your help to get it right. there was a controversy or an eoc regulation under the american's with daicialt act. chamber of commerce raised questions about lack of clarity and overreaching, and the first people out of the box to celebrate what the eoc eventually finalized was the chamber of commerce, so i hope

we can fix this. >> i'll submit a question in writing that deals with the fda and medical devices because we've heard a lot of testimony about that in this committee. it's an extremely important issue, and the fda guidance documents under development by the agency and how the streamlines process is going to impact though is of critical importance not for the manufacturing in the country, but for america's patients and america's patients in the future so thank you. >> thank you. >> gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. you know, one of the things that's frustrated me after 35 years in public life one way or the other, working with regulatory agencies and being in regulatory agency is this huge gap between the intention of the legislation and the actual application. good example would be wouldn't

you agree that any environmental law that's being implemented in a matter that hurts the environment, you know, may not be obviously was not implemented in the manner that the -- with the legislative intent. in other words, would you agree that no environmental law should hurt the environment? >> sounds right. >> give me an example of what we've had for a long time in san diego? clean water act requires going to secondary activated sludge for sewage treatment. oceanography, roger, the father of the greenhouse gas issue, stood up and demanded that we take a second look at the law, and, as you know, we require that you do environmental assessment. the environmental review said do we not implement the law would be the best environmental option, that there was negative environmental impacts, the

habitat to the ocean in reducing chemicals, the air pollution, but the bureaucracy still is caught on this issue that don't confuse us with the scientific facts. we have the law and the law says you've got to do this no matter what, and we've been fighting this battle for 20 years, and we still are running into this issue. don't you think that the administration has two ways to do this? either make the call like the judge did. we have to have a judge with a club and a county health department suing epa to force him not to put this in. that's interesting coalition there. remember, the county, the environmental health is run by five republicans. either accept that or come back and ask us to change this law to allow the item to be done. how would you propose we handle that kind of conflict? >> well, i don't know the particular controversy though. i know some of the names there.

the first obligation of the executive branch is to follow the law so it's profoundly to be hoped that following the law is environmentally desirable and by and large that is the case, the clean air act as noted previously -- >> it's the clean water agent. >> the clean air act has good data -- >> okay. >> on overwhelming health benefits, but there's good data on the clean water act also. there may be no choice -- may not be available for the executive branch to say we're not going to implement the law and go to congress. >> okay. let me interrupt there. i served six years on the resource board and ten years on the air board. it was quantified. you spend this much money and save this much. clean water act does not do that. >> right. >> probably because it predated

the clean air act and it's not sophisticated enough. wouldn't you admit maybe we should sit down and be talking about quantity mying the -- quantifying the clean water act because the clean water act was an act to really allow pollutants. chicago dumping into the ohio and polluting everybody to new orleans rather than clean up the mess -- >> oira's role is a narrow one of implementing what you told us to do, so i wouldn't want to comment just in my little domain on what you should do tomorrow, but i would say the executive order makes a strong plea with cost on benefits, and that would certainly apply to the clean water act. >> let me shift over. is there anything in the endangered species agent that requires mitigation for disturbing habitant. >> no, there's not.

>> is there anything that requires when you go in to clean out a flood control channel, you have to go back and mitigate every few years, remit gait for that again even though you originally mitigated. >> i'm pleased to say there's nothing like that in the act, but just note the department of interior in its lookback plan referred specifically to streamlining the requirements under the endangered species agent and taking another look at that. >> i've run into it where it's not just an impact on local government as communities, but displaced public space, parkland because you've got agents under fish and game and wildlife creaming bloody murder that we have to get our popped of flesh from you, four to one, to make up for somebody else's problems, and i don't know, do you know anywhere in the endangered species act that allows agencies to make a permitee mitigate for

other people's violations? >> the way i phrase it is a short statute. it doesn't require what you particularly described. i think it's authorized, the secretary of interior has a lot of authority under some broad terms so i believe it's not required, but it is authorized. >> mr. chairman, i think the one thing in the rule making were so many of these things were done by -- in the rule making process that was never included in the legislation that was passed by the representatives of the people in the united states, and i think this is one thing that republicans and democrats ought to be able to work at getting the act back to where it was meant to, make sure the clean water act is cleaning up and helping the environment, not just fulfilling a bureaucratic agenda and hurting it, but the clean air act is implemented to protect the public healthings not just running up a cost, and i hope that both sides can work on this one, and i appreciate your testimony today. >> i thank the gentleman. the gentleman from virginia is

recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and i do thank you for spending time here and appreciate what you're doing. we have to roll back some of the regulations that are killing jobs, and it really doesn't matter to me who gets the credit, as long as we get the job done. in the earlier question you were kind to say you'd look into with the toxicology program related to formaldehyde that affected jobs hundreds of jobs on the northern ends of the district, 15,000 -- thousands of jobs across the nation and particularly some well-needed jobs in the southern end of my district which my district is about the size of new jersey, and interestingly the science there is also similar in its belief that there may be the national toxicology program may be labeling that as a reasonably anticipated carcinogen although there's, you know, huge deal on

that, and most science indicates it's not a problem. if you can add that to the list, i'd greatly appreciate it looking at that. it's interesting because my predecessor and the congressman wrote a letter last year detailing questions, and i can get you a copy if you'd like, and i followed up with the congressman this year asking for an answer to the questions because the main thrust of the question were we have all these jobs that will be impacted, and yet the science doesn't seem to back up the ruling. i ask you to take a look at that. also related to jobs, obviously i'm from a coal district and i know the members are surprised it took me this long to get the coal, but i come from a coal district, and as we've heard today, there's a lot of regulations out there, and i really wish we could quantify as congressman bilray was just

saying because we want clean water, clean air, and clean jobs. that's a balance to see whether or not you get your bang for your buck. my opinion is everybody on this committee knows is that a lot of regulations proposed and the newer regulations relating to mining of coal have very little positive impact for the environment. i won't say they don't have any, but they have very little at the cost of huge amounts of jobs and huge usage of coal in the district and in this nation, and one of the things i think is interesting and i think this applies both to the formaldehyde as well is these products will be made. the question is are they made here? if people get cancer, we have to put a stop to it. if you talk about comb and some of the things -- one of the things interesting is we've had testimony here that we actually may be creating a worse problem with coal by shipping the jobs overseas. we're still using the products, they still come back here, they are made in china and india and

you name it, places that i didn't know about when i was in high school that, you know, now are on the map and competitors of ours, and we ship our coal there, and they ship their air pollution back to us because it just take ten days according to a nasa study to get the air to come from the desert to the eastern shore of virginia, and as a result of that, i'm concerned that not only are we getting a small bang for our buck on the regulations proposed and that are coming out and that have some that are already implemented, but we're actually increasing the air pollution in the united states by shipping these jobs off to countries where they don't have even the reasonable regulations that i think everybody would agree the clean air agent did bring us in its early days, and so i think we have to be very, very careful with what we're doing and that we're using the clean water act to actually, i think in my opinion and some others who testified here, inadd veer tently with good intentionings

dirty our air. >> i just want to point out that i agree with you about the fact that we're here to implement the law, and sometimes there's problems and god knows i didn't want to touch clones and hair sprays. you mess with a ladies chanel number # or whatever it is, there's real props, but in u.s. versus arizona just filed last year, this administration claims in that that the executive branch has the eighty to pick and choose what laws to enforce. to me, that's extraordinary, but that's the position of this administration that the executive have the right to choose when not to enforce the

law, and they got that on record. if can be prayed -- if it can be applied to immigration, why is it not publicble to the other regulatory groups? i leave that with you to take a look at it and how it may affect your latitude in straight ping out some of this problem. i yield back. >> does the ranking member have any concluding comments? i'm going to let you go. i just have one comment. you previously testified that you disagreed with the crane report stating that the current regulations cost american businesses $1.7 trillion. are you aware that the crane report was a report commissioned by the obama administration's small business administration in 2009? >> yes. what i'd say is i wouldn't say i disagree. i say i hope this is not a subtle difference. i don't agree. i don't think it's been supported, that number has not

been supported -- >> i think your answer is you do not agree with the crane report. >> yes, the number i don't believe has a solid foundation. >> i just want it on the record you disagree with the crane report. >> yes, i disagree with the analysis in the crane report. >> i see you won the prize here for fore beerns today. thank you very much, and we welcome the second panel. >> thank you. >> i'm going to ask namings concept -- unanimous consent that the opinion in the "politico" be put part of the record. without objection, so ordered. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> we'll have you gentlemen sit down at your convenience. i'll point them out before i swear them in. mr. james, a senior research fellow at the heritage foundation. mr. phenomenal covax, a senior vice president at the u.s. chamber of commerce, and mr. david goldston at the natural resources defense counsel, and with that, gentlemen, you are aware that the committee is holding an investigative hearing and with doing so have the practice of taking testimony under oath. do you have any objection to taking testimony under oath? no. the chair advises you the rules of the house and rules of committee you are can be adviced by counsel. do you want to be advised by counsel today? no. please rise, and i'll swear you if --

in. you swear to tell the whole truth nothing but the truth so help you god? you're now under oath and subject to the penalties set forth in the united states code. now, if you would give a five minute summary of your written statement, we'd appreciate it. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and ranking member. i appreciate being invited here to discuss executive order 13563 which calls on agencies to eliminate the outdated and unnecessary rules. this is certainly a very positive first step, and we said that many times. i want to bring to your attention congressman dated this in 1980 in the regulatory flexibility act, and it's been a struggle to get it implemented, so it's a good start. now, having said that, one of the concerns and we hope that the oira moves forward with it is we have a long way to go.

if we're going to deal with the jobs issue, we have to look at the economically significant regulations which have been defined by the administrator, permit streamlines that really creates jobs, and frankly, we have to begin looking at the standards for code review because they have a lot of implications on how the regulatory process works. in talking about jobs, i want to highlight one point with testimony, and that is some of the agos like the environmental protection agency have in each one of the mandate to do a continuing jobs analysis, and it goes through the rest, and this is to my knowledge, this has never been done. the regulatory process has been growing for years. this is not news. since 18976, there's been 170,000 new regulations, and the chamber has always said we need a lot of these regulations. some are just business practices, so when we go into

the regulatory process, we have to go into it in a way in which we understand what it is we're trying to do. the concern on our part seems to be the fact that the economically significant regulations have increased draft dramatically from 2005 to the present they've gone from 137 a year to 224, and these are significant because they do impact large parts of society and many industries, so when we take a step back, how did we get here? congress has been addressing this issue to try to bring it to some control since 1946. i mean, this is 65 years of congress doing this. you enacted the add minute straitive act to bring the public in, and it was to have a discussion of what the regulatory process is all about and to get the kind of comments a lot of which frankly, you're getting here today. several thicks happen to today.

first is congress began to pass broad and vague laws and you asked the agencies and the body to fill in the blanks, and the agencies were glad to fill in the blanks. in the 1970s you had the courts in the chevron decision for the first time award deference to the agencies. two things were going og simultaneously. one is congress was giving the agencies a lot of expression over the laws, and deference. that literally tipped the skill as to how the regulatory process worked, and it was from that point forward that congress struggled to get it back, and it's been unable to. just to go over it, and it's in the testimony, but since 1980 on, congress has looked at -- has enacted the regulatory flexibility act, unfunded mandates, information quality, paper reduction, jobs analysis provisions, and we could go on, and each one of these, the congress has struggled to get control over this, and it's been

unable to, so a few of the suggestions that we have, not that any one of them should take preamps over any other one, but there are -- and we are to look at this, and one is if you're going to focus on the regulatory process, you need to focus on those few 100 regulations a year that really make a difference. you have so many things in place, cost benefit, health analysis, you have that. we got to find a way to make them work, and i think they can work quicker than the 200 large regulations than the 4,000 other regulations that occur. you got the reigns agent before congress. that puts congress in the driver's seat and should be considered. you can require economically significant rules too for the agencies to actually have a higher standard of review. for example, all regulations right now, the smallest and the most min mall and the largest are all subject to what we court

review for what we call arbitrary capricious meaning if the agency finds anything in the record that the agency supports, the agency wins. that tipped the playing field because the agency can put something in the report. you might want to consider giving that a higher standard of review, maybe for the 200 economically significant regulations, you have a formal rule making. you can also up, since the courts give deference, require all leglations to be substantial to evidence. you can put review on many of the regulatory statutes that you have already enacted that way the public can help you implement the regulatory process, and then finally, i think in the final analysis, you know, i'll always -- i hate recommending anything to the congress, but the constitution does give you soul legislative power, and i think at this point in time, that legislative power because of the regulatory process is shared. thank you. >> thank the gentleman.

welcome, your opening statement. >> chairman stearns, ranking member, and members of the committee. thank you for allowing me to testify on this issue. all executive branch agencies to submit plans for review on regulations on their books. our add min straiters had progress of the initial review at the agencies. the report was encouraging as they identified a substantial number of obvious leets and unnecessarily costly regulations. at the same time, the reforms proposed so far constitute only a very small step towards the rolling back of the red tape the american economy needs. much more substantial reform is required. this is not a new issue. it's been increasing over the past three decades to republican as well as democratic administrations. during the present administration, however, the rate of increase reached unprecedented levels. according to figures from data

from the government accountability office, federal agencies promulgated an unprecedented 43 major regulations during fiscal 2010 alone imposing annual cost calculated by the agencies themselves at at least $28 billion. only a handful of rule makes were reduced to $1.5 billion. it is in this context that president obama launched his regulatory review initiative. to address the issue, the president prompted a review the rules, a welcomed step, but the department agency submit plans were existing regulations, however, is not a new ground breaking idea. they have been required since 1993 under president's clinton's regulatory of review. there's little evidence such plans had any impact. moreover, the obama initiative was hardly government wide and

excluded independent agencies like the commission, the securities exchange commission and the new federal protection bureau, and so the president excludes from scrutiny the producers of red tape. i understand that oira invited independent agencies to submit plans on their own, and apparently they almost uniformly declined to do so. there is precedent on this in prior reviews of regulation by administrations notably in the 1991 review of the bush administration, it was made clear to independent agencies they should participate, and they did. frankly, a president who has his appointees serving independent agencies can purr suede them to -- persuade them to participate if he expresses his desires strongly enough. i don't think that was done in this case. now, despite the limitations it has as reported has meaningful

results. overall, the executive branch agencies are identified over 100 possible rule changes for the purported potential savings in the short term of about $1 billion. for an administration up until now reduced this to nothing, this is significant and encouraging as that is as the administration's acknowledgement that regulations have cost and that regulators spend time in the day to review restrictions an mandates they imposed to determine if they are ?es and effective. still, it is too soon for america to breathe a sigh of relief. now it's the low-hanging fruit of regulatory excesses that should have been plucked years ago. the milk has a potentially dangerous oil was in place since the 1970s. it was submitted to epa as early as 2007. the fact it took four years to accomplish this is less than notable achievement as a sign of broken system.

many more actions are suggestions for change at a later date. of the 31 reformings identified in the -- reforms identified in the epa's regulatory plan, nearly half longer termed actions, they are marked for a closer look sometime in the future. moreover, the regulatory lookbacks are exceeded by new regulations which have been or will be promulgated thus while the $1 billion in claimed savings in the near term from the action to identify from the administration is significant, it is swamped by the nearly dozen new rules costing more than $1 billion each adopted in the last two years. in other words, the savings expected from the initiatives in the near term has been counteracted 11 times over by new regulations that have been adopted. there are more in the pipeline.

until this new regulation is stopped or narrowed, burdens will continue to increase. let me finish by saying help is needed by congress as well. i have my written testimony of recommendations for reforms that can and should be taken legislatively including establishing a date for federal regulations, create a congressional office of regulatory analysis to provide congress with its own capability to analyze and review regulations and requires congressional approval for new burdens on the private sector. thank you for your time. >> i thank the gentleman, and welcome, and you have five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you ranking member and members the subcommittee for having me here today. i'll try to run quickly through 14 points to summarize some of the points in my written testimony and issues that have come up this morning. first is regulations are needed to safeguard the public, neither individual action nor the marketplace can yield such public goods like clean air and

clean water. second, repeated studies have concluded that the benefits of u.s. regulations outstrip the cost. third, studies have generally found the impact of regulation on jobs is neutral to slightly positive. .. two thirds account and the chamber of commerce's testimony.

there may be a difference in destination perhaps. sixth, looking down the basis of all of that, while any governmental or two d. is fundamental system. event, it's reasonable effort to improve safeguard we look forward to the detailed proposals would make amount in august. it's focused on criticizing future rules that can be seen in part as a tacit acknowledgment that passed rules are not as problematic as they predict it. nine contrary to some of the claims in the chamber of commerce makes senate testimony, epa does not simply cave when lawsuits are filed in the suicide unmerited disloyalty. 10, proposals to book than the current regulatory system should be opposed. they run counter to historical experience. the public opinion and the public interest commend measures

like the rant that of dismantling the system of public protection is particularly bigger. or postals are designed to bias the regulatory process by changing besiegers. this part because it would not support changes in underlying laws they are designed to enforce. this is done would be far less predictability we have today. 13 regulation by providing cleavers of the road helps produce a functioning marketplace and economic prosperity. and last, in conclusion, congress should not accept claims of regulatory harms at face value and should not make radical changes to the system which has the heart of the public at a reasonable cost. thank you. >> thank you from a gentleman. i'll start with my questions.

mr. kovacs, it did the regulations impede the accountability to hire new workers for new jobs? you just saw the unemployment rate higher. >> within her testimony, we have a discussion of what we call project, no project, which is -- >> we usually ask for a yes or no. can you say yes? >> yes. >> is that part of the problem with a hybrid of unemployment, which is approaching 9.1% is your feeling is due to regulation. we know we had mr. waxman said he believes in regulation and so forth. in your opinion, it contributed to the unemployment. >> the answer is i am not an economist, a look at the project, no project study because that gives you the answers you need. >> i would have money. >> at this project, no project.

>> okay. i think both of you indicated and i think third chum limited to commit the idea of independent agents these and i think all of us are concerned. don't independent agencies that issue regulations also contributes significantly to the total burden on the economy, the independent. is that true? i'll ask each of you. mr. kovacs economists are trained to come mr. goldston to it be a burden on the economy? >> they contribute regulations, certainly. >> okay, all right. were you surprised that a 30 preliminary draft plans released by the white house on may 26, there were none from the regulatory agency other than this committee's jurisdiction, such as a federal communications commission and the federal trade commission in the clear regulatory products safety commission and regulatory

commission? >> now, i was not surprised. >> i was surprised there was not at least one or two. the next mr. gholston. >> i am not sure i had an opinion on that. there is the constitutional issue of uppity they can be required to do it. that's the reason they couldn't obviously choose to submit plans. >> do you think there is anything more that the train i could do to encourage them to voluntarily submit to retrospective analyses of existing rules and set out the president's executive order? start with you, mr. kovacs. >> the president suggested and decided not to do it. >> is insanely testimony, the president can make clear when its request is very serious and when it is for show. i think he could have done more. >> mr. goldston.

>> i have no expertise, but i imagine they could've done more. >> i think mr. gattuso, it is too soon to breathe an early sigh of relief with resident of imus january 2011 "wall street journal" op-ed, for a turncoat will set that out of balance placing unreasonable burdens on businesses that have had a chilling effect on the growth in jobs. do you think after that particular op-ed that an executive orders 13693 were any closer to achieving what mr. sunstein has cited as its aim of nurturing quote, they can listen culture of retrospective review and analysis that the executive branch? >> i think we are closer, but we are dealing with micro milliliters perhaps of moving forward. >> micro milliliters, okay. >> you think the congress should mandate a law that all agencies should contact periodic

retrospective reviews? >> i think he rarely had in 1980 with the regulatory flexibility act 610. >> so it is not implemented. >> you would agree that we should -- that the agency should have a retrospect to have mandate to look at the regulatory environment in their department? and you agree also? >> definitely. >> and mr. goldston? >> there is no harm if they don't become the substance of what agencies are doing. many statues by reply regulations to be updated which means the previous practice. >> i understand your testimony. you believe they're two distinct categories of regulation in the primary focus of oversight by congress and the administration should be those regulation that are economically significant. in your view, what is the most of the way to address this click >> there are several ways.

one is that they have a higher standard for you within the courts. for example, when a court reviews a regulation, they treat they refused the same assets at his greenhouse gases or if it is training for an employee. and what needs to occur because when the court gave deference to the agencies, they literally kept the balance in the agencies. and the way to address that would be to require the agency on those major rules to go through a higher standard of review, which could be a form on the record hearing are some unlike osha has come a higher grade. and to have the court review under the substantial evidence test. >> my time is over. it's just remarkable as you pointed out the regulatory flexibility mandate no one is doing it. and so, it is really disturbing to think if we mandated congress

and yet none of these agents these are implying. >> the first testimony i gave 13 years ago -- >> my time has expired. >> thank you thank you very much, mr. chairman. i agree, regulatory reforms that a maddeningly slow rate and i also believe here but verbal testimony seems to be a bipartisan problem, seems to happen under republican and democratic administrations. isn't that correct? do not that's correct. the problem sometimes of yes or no answers. so here's a question for a yes or no answer. sorry to pick on you. is today's jobless number that came out, which we are all upset about caused primarily by oath or regulation? yes or no? >> i have no idea. i'm not an economist.

>> all right, thanks. let me ask you -- you said we should really target these economically significant regulations, which have increased since 2005, again on a bipartisan basis. as i regulations that cost $100 million or more. is that right quick >> is broader group than that. but it also include -- >> that is a term of fires. >> and i can't disagree with that. i think that's probably a good idea, but i would also say that the cumulative effect is, smaller regulations can we, even though it's not one regulation, a small business has to comply with a number of regulations that for them might add up to a heavy burden. so we shouldn't ignore the smaller regulations while we're focused in on these economically significant regulations,

correct? >> that's correct. that is why i was saying when the standard of review enunciated the approaches it is very important. so that is one of the ways you might be able to get it. >> i think that's an excellent suggestion. one of my questions is because there is then different legislation. one of the things you and mr. gattuso also said that he supported was the idea of having both houses of congress do regulation that has the economic significant regulation, correct? and in your written testimony, you said that there were about 180 regulations like that they were issued in two dozen eight, which was the last year the bush administration. is that correct? >> yes. >> your answer is yes? okay. now, here is what i learned

about. in 2008, that same year, we were in session 118 days, but there were 180 such regulations. and i would assume it is not your view that every economically significant regulation should be repealed, right? some of them are useful, right? >> no, i'm not here today saying we should repeal anything. >> right, what you're saying is there should be a higher standard of scrutiny, which i agree with you at my concern is if you require all those things to come to congress and congress is only in session a few days a year, we might not get to reviewing all of those regulations. you understand that? >> let's say there is a new regulation and it's an economically significant regulation. so it would come to congress for review. if congress did not review that

regulation, what would happen if they would imo. isn't that correct? >> that's correct. i don't have much time left. so that might affect a regulation that was bad regulation or good regulation, right? it is a great big malice that comes down cosette regulation. >> nocona puts congress in charge. >> i hear what you're saying. i want to just ask you a couple quick questions about the clean air act, which has recently asked the epa to do a report to the clean air act and the court said they needed american jobs and in fact it presented 18 million respiratory illness as, 850,000 asthma attacks, 674,000 cases in 205,000 premature deaths.

and also, there is monetary value of $2 trillion by 2020. mr. goldston, i am wondering if you can tell me whether you agree with the study that was done. >> most studies have looked at the job in health impacts of regulations show benefits of the house benefits. but the clean air act in particular. >> now, to comply with the standards, this design manufacture solution reducing technology. and so, a lot of people say the clean air act has treated hundreds of thousands of domestic child in the field of an iron mental type elegies and generated $300 billion in annual revenue and supported 1.7 million jobs. so my question to you is, do you think federal regulations like these can support economic growth and foster job creation? >> yes. again, most studies have found a

mutual to not benefit the jobs overall. and that is on the whole. so yes, absolutely. >> the latest time expires. mr. bembry is recognized. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. let me go through what i call the good, bad and ugly. and you know my background in california. so let's use california for a national strategy on regulatory oversight, especially environmental staff. the resources board, one of the most successful environmental agencies that are implemented has reduced pollution. the air in california is twice as clean with the earpiece started off. and the population is twice as much. are you aware that the mandates of those were there now, there is a mandate that caught to

effectiveness must be conservative before passing any rate, right? >> i certainly take your word for that. >> and obviously has not been a major barrier to the protection of the public health and environmental strategy. success speaks for itself. in fact, let me tell you somebody who worked six years but that program. 16 total between 10 years of theater district. it actually help us. and i'll tell you one of them is i get upset about this i find people here freak out about that as if it's anti-environmental. when i found one of the great tools, even for myself. i got held up by that and stop from implementing the regulation at top is good because we have to look at that. don't you think that both democrats and republicans and everybody else in washington could learn something by looking

at the cost effect is mandate and the weight arp has handled it as being sent into posts i should be able to agree, looking at trying to learn from that and integrating to her federal program? >> everybody obviously should look at the range of experience. the federal clean air act has been affect us all. >> would you agree -- would you say that? and not come back on you and say, was there another agency that has implemented the clean air act but if that is much reduction unscarred? >> not that i'm aware of. >> the plan to send her some portions of the clean air act, the standard how to implement it, economic are allowed to take into account in other parts of the clean air act where can i

mix are allowed. >> are using the tv and federal government has recognized leadership to the point where we have had carveout and not just federal government, but other states have adopted our standards as being the gold standard for clean air, right? >> that's my understanding. >> with talk about the ugly. av 32, and environmental strategy was put into a legislation, the sequel still applies to the implementation of the greenhouse. now, that was created a situation to where now, my scientists who have a situation to where now, my scientists who have alternative to fossil fuels, using california financing and research is forest to leave the state to go to production. they are actually leading into any production in new mexico for a good reason because under the regulations, it will take 10

years class to go into production worried new mexico it is nine months minus. the difference. and this is i would say the bad side of it and showing how the legislature said they cared enough about the environment, but didn't care enough to exempt it from environment to regulations that stopped the implementation. i may point out this is the same legislature that extent at a football stadium and industry. it is not absurd. doesn't this tell us some dinner when we go to implementation or we take our we've got to do what it takes to make implementation practical? >> i don't know if this specific case you're talking about is a general rule. as a new yorker come it does not hurt me to hear tales of the california state legislature. i don't know the specific case.

>> i think the problem was that not understanding the great goals, create standards for legislators to do, but it is tough for them to take the hit on the fact regulatory obstructionism is a major barrier to innovative environmental and economic growth. i guess the other issue i bring up is a good example and you are aware of it because you are working on this. we are required to go to secondary sewage without needed sludge. when you have the oceanographers telling us it is going to not only hurt the environment, but when we do the environmental assessment, implementing federal law in certain instances hurts the environment to where sierra club and environmental health department said the federal government to stop it. don't you think we really need to go back and start looking at the outcome based, the benefit and how it affects real world,

read it and just what it was meant to do? >> again, i don't know the specific case, but judging by outcome, it makes a lot of sense, yes. >> i thank the gentleman. the gentleman from virginia is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you to mr. chairman. mr. goldston, i believe very mildly put the rules have got numbers balance,, placing unreasonable burdens on business would have a chilling effect on growth and jobs. my understanding of your testimony is you disagree with that? >> i would say is a broad conclusion i disagree. that does not mean there are no rules that could be changed. >> so that i am being fair with you, i will tell you that actually is the line that i agree with, probably my version can be put on steroids, but that is a line of president about ms. january 2011 "wall street journal" op-ed piece. so it is not just me. it's also the president that thinks we need to do something about this and that is why i was

very pleased that mr. sends teams spent so much time with us because it was one of the few things they might agree with the president administration on, but this is an area where we can all come together and recognize that it does have these regulations have an effect on jobs in my district in particular, which is the ninth district of virginia, a large district could some would call liberal. others might not. it's heavily dependent on manufacturing and mining. we do have a university or two in the mix comes the biggest heavily dependent on that. if you see the effects of these regulations. you indicated in your comments that you felt like if we started rolling back regulations, it might be less predict the bull. i'm wondering if you have the opportunity to hear testimony or notre dame came and testified in 2004 they attempted for what

they comply the epa regulations will be that the epa has backed off of his regulations, but they were concerned about it because they spent bowling for dollars to comply with what they called the epa, only to find out a few years later that wasn't good enough that they were going to be able to qualify as a valid boiler if the regulations came into effect. these were folks who are really trying. i just can't agree with you. i believe we need to do more to make things predictable. mr. kovacs, on page 12 of your prepared statement, you've got a copy. i believe a thing that is very similar sort of regulations come into effect at that time. whether mac is now -- is on the back burner if not off the show

completely. but you look at all those colors from over there and see, if a member of the organization, doesn't matter which agency, whether it's epa, that much coming out coming to think that is predictability in regulation? >> well, it is clearly not predictability. whatever is going to change, i simply would like to make a point and that is we've been talking about jobs all day. if jobs are really being created by all these rules, the environmental protection agency should be implementing continuing jobs that have gone under all the other rules. i mean, there are mechanisms. if you go through everything the congress is done for the last 30 years, you have restrictive alternatives. it's never applied. you've unfunded mandate any time it's over $100 million.

you have within each of the environmental statutes some form of this continuing jobs announcement. we have it there. it is not being done. there are ways to bring resolution to this issue. going back to your question is yes. that is an enormous amount of regulatory uncertainty. if you look forward in this help her, which i'm not an expert on, we went from the 137 at 224. that chart is going to go this way. >> if i understand your answer in general your other comments as well, what i'm hearing you say and correct me if i'm wrong, but i hear you say is if as some would like to think regulations actually create jobs, they should embrace the request that they established what jobs they are creating what the impact is on jobs because these regulations are so good for jobs. they require me to detail the

jobs affect the regulation would come out that these regulations are helping everybody. and so the epa could and others not to get behind the train and call for more data to show these regulations are in fact creating jobs if that is true. is that what you're saying, sir? >> absolutely that is what they should do. congress has mandated other statutes, but i would go one step further. cpa is a proprietary model. it doesn't use public files as required under the data quality act. it should begin releasing all this model so we can see the assumption. they should go apply at a data quality act, which the administrator said today they had editors a good way of testing statistics, data. the agencies have written since congress passed in 2000, agencies have written about. the only thing it says is that the agency sought to open up their data in the most up-to-date data to put that in the record and allow the data to

be peer-reviewed and tested within the system. that hasn't occurred since laws passed. >> might have us up, mr. chairman. >> we are ready to close. one thing is the frustration that routinely the federal agency ignores retirements than such laws as mr. kovacs mentioned that regulatory flexibility act. that is a concern for either party bipartisan issue to think they routinely ignore that. and we really had a responsibility to make that comply. so with that -- >> i just point out to the gentleman. i completely agree that there should be some explanation by these agencies can epa and others about in fact what the

impact of these regulations should be on jobs. in that sense, mr. kovacs says by most of the existing laws requires the analysis. my concern about this, which the gentleman refers to is it doesn't just say use shall submit to congress how much have any jobs it creates. it submits his regulations to congress for approval or disapproval and if congress doesn't get around to doing it. it may be useful regulation that we can all agree on. if that is an issue, got to go much further than just the job issue. >> gentlemen, do you want to comment? >> i made the train act to last week. i do support the rain fact in the comments are valid. my reaction was to the chain. >> already. i think my colleagues. and with that, the subcommittee -- we had 10 days to submit to the record opening

statements or any questions they might further ask for you folks. thank you. the subcommittee is adjourned. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]