yet what you just said is you don't have the authority to overturn laws. i missing the department of energy is one of those areas you can have oversight over? do you intend to have discussion if they decide to ignore the law based upon a new standard that's not even in the law? >> i should say fidelity to lock is ever first foundations and that's the requirement of everything we do we oversee the doe rulemakings, so if there is rulemaking authority in the demand we would as a matter of course engage with them and if there isn't something as an honor of course we would engage with them on, we would be happy to engage with them. >> i think it's extremely valuable if you can report to the committee on that issue because law is quite clear but that a part of energy is doing that is supporting that look at

the new standards is also quite clear and we need to have your response. will you submit it? another issue has to do with impact of the health care bill of small-business is. according to the administration estimates its regulations are going to force employers as much as 80% of small businesses coverage the next two years and that is a big concern. are you aware of that assessment of impact? >> that particular number was not aware of but i know of the general concern. >> when you get cost-benefit analysis and we are seeing numbers grow in terms of the cost of the health care bill and we see estimates that are not 9 million people will lose their benefits of 30, 40, 80 million even of those exceeding with the estimates to provide health care and equal or double that amount may lose health care and so along those lines have you been

pushed in any way to move rules through quicker despite information like that? >> no can you believe finalizing any of the rules based upon how the agencies have handled or incorporated public comment and response from the business community? >> the basic answer is yes and we often engage for lengthy periods with agencies because of those public comments and i spend a lot of personal time on the website netz regulation.gov study in those comments. the only qualification is as you suggest fidelity to the wall is our first obligation and if the law requires action or action by a certain we have to respect that. >> when republicans at the white house this week the president was asked questions by the epa regulation looking at cost benefit analysis how would we look at that in terms of the impact on jobs as well and that

was the standard for all we had to adhere to and of the congress wanted to do something otherwise we should change those law and certainly i agree with him once level of the land is there but the question also becomes of how you act. you're in a position of considerable authority and so on these areas of delay or pushback have you ever done so to any agency can you give an ex symbol of how you have pushback and how you need to delay putting on this regulation until we analyze it or until you come up with a cost-benefit analysis? >> 100 laurels have been in with drawn from the review and the reason for the withdrawal is sufficient engagement with issues of cost and economic impact so you can see that. you can also see often the final rule comes out a lot different from the proposed rule often it's a lot less expensive and less burdensome and sometimes

proposed rules to start finalized because there aren't significant concerns from the standpoint you have raised and the agency review that involves not just the opposite information regulatory affairs the department of commerce, the ek economic advisors plays a role. >> how about pushback, healthcare rules? have you done any of that? >> our first obligation with respect to the health care will is to obey the law. >> what have you pushed back? >> i wouldn't want to phrase it pushback. we worked with the agencies to make sure the costs are as low as possible and make sure the burdens are reduced. you may have noticed with respect to the grandfathering rules there was an amendment to the rule that responded very concretely to the concerns from affected sticklers about excessive burdens and there has been a lot that has been done and we and others have been participating in that in trying to make sure that the implementation --

>> i'm not sure i'm getting an answer. has it happened? >> let me reword it this way because employers routinely change but keep the same benefits to cut health care costs without any change in coverage. in the interim final rule or the grandfathering plans issued in january, excuse me, june of last year employer plans lost the grandfather status for changing the carriers regardless with their benefits remain the same city you believe health and human services should have instead proposed a rule open to comments of stakeholders who could have advised the own decision before the problem began? >> what i say about that is the interim final rules receive comment and the hhs should be and is, has been highly responsive to those comments in the particular case you give so responsive as to amend in a hurry the rule to respond to some of the most concerns and we

all discussed that. it's also the case there were q&a la guidance clarifications that were very responsive to concerns raised buy exactly the people to whom you refer and that's good governance. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> i see no one on the democrat side. we will go to the chairman emeritus joe barton from texas for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> congressman burgess was speaking to us some rules in texas, and i'm going to follow that but in a little bit different way. are you familiar with the 2.5 rall that the epa is, getting to

replace the care standards that were ruled not in compliance with the clean air act several years ago? >> yes ibm. >> are you aware that i think just this week or maybe last week the epa disallowed texas state implementation plan and put down some requirements that if implemented are probably going to shutdown 25% of texas electricity generation capacity? >> and the clean air transport draft? >> it's but just came out. >> that oral is under review now, and so my understanding is that nothing has been done along the lines used just described.

>> i want to give you an opportunity to demonstrate real accountability. my understanding is the office of that you hold is the president's direct link to reviewing all the various regulations except those that are specifically exempted by the order in other words, you're the president's man who makes sure that all these myriad agency regulations do pass some minimum test for cost-benefit and things like that. and you're supposed to review every significant order etc., etc.. i want to read you what the epa said about this interstate transfer decision they just

handed down. it says all this proposed action is not a significant regulatory action under the term of the exit of order 12866 therefore not subject to review under executive order will 866 and 136553. it's going to shut down 25% of the power generation and texas that's not significant? do you consider it significant? >> under our executive order it has $100 million of annual cost or significant impact on a sector area that counts as a significant so if you like i will definitely look into that. >> i want you to do more than definitely look into it. i want you to do something about it. if your agency to disagrees with

the regulatory decision can you stop it? >> if there's a regulatory action we have the authority to stop it to the extent consistent with law. we have seen 100 withdrawals of rules and that speaks for itself. >> i'm going to read you something. this is generated by the state of texas so that's the source. it says the only way to achieve the epa's be have contemplated the emission reduction mandate by 2012 compliance which is next year will in fact be to cease operating of the affected units from the year leading to the loss of jobs, shutdown of mines and serious risk to electric

reliability. now keep in mind, texas is in compliance in terms of the standards. keep in mind the regions affected by texas, st. louis and i think baton rouge have just been declared in compliance and get the epa has come out in the last week and stipulated by next year texas has to achieve an additional 34% reduction in the answer to emissions. we achieved a 33% reduction the last ten years and the next six months we have to achieve 34% more or shut down the plant's. i think that is pretty significant >> i think you said one of my favorite words of english language and that is proposed.

this is a proposed rule, correct? notte final? >> from the standpoint of those concerns that's excellent news and has happened the last two years something's been proposed not deemed significant and further assessment and public concern it has been deemed significant at the final stage and there has been oira and saltzman commesso -- we will definitely take a look at that. >> my time is expired but i'm going to work with chairman stearns and ranking member degette and chairman upton and ranking member waxman. we are going to follow-up on this, and we are going to expect -- we are going to work cooperatively with you and your staff. but if you have any authority now is the time to exercise it. >> thank you, gentlemen. mr. solomon is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman for

holding this hearing and mr. sunstein for being here. what is the process for determining whether a regulation is subject to executive order? >> the basic idea is it is significant meaning does it have $100 million annual cost on the economy or benefit by the way and $100 million in in pact dennett can be deemed significant also if it affects a factor or an area so there can be something that falls short of the $100 million threshold but nonetheless an economic effect or generates novel issues of policy or law. so the net is wide but it doesn't include routine or mechanical kind of daily monday in things. >> i have right here a proposal to a disapproval of oklahoma's

implementation plan for the regional i and i talked to you a little before about that. epa proposes to disapproved the plan and they did what they were told to and the achieved the goals that were supposed to be achieved coming yet at a much less cost, yet the federal government stepped in and sit know we are going to implement our federal implementation plan which has a much more aggressive time line and will cost ratepayers almost $2 million what i'd like to know did oira review this proposal? >> federal implementation plan we would review the decision to go forward with that. a disapproval of the state implementation plan isn't a rule. so that we would not review. >> i've introduced a bill recently called the treen act and i talked to a little about that. requires a cumulative analysis of the regulations that intact america's manufacturing energy

prices to understand how they will impact the competitiveness and job creation. will you and the administration supports this? >> three words used, the a cumulative cost competitiveness and job creation that are very much our focus prominent in the executive order and this is something daily we are attending to. with respect to legislation, my own plane is a narrow one of the implementation and i defer to others on that issue. >> i talked to the white house and the president about this and the scene supportive but i don't know if they are telling me that to placate me, it could be, but mr. sunstein you are an intelligent man there's no doubt about it and in the administration you are highly regarded what you say carries a lot of depth and wait and will you tell the president you think that he should sign that bill? >> i tend not to tell the president -- >> i think he would listen to

you so. he doesn't know all this stuff like you. if you come in and a guy like you is going to say okay i think we will do it he might have done that when we were the colleagues at the university chicago. >> he's good at some things and you're good at other things and i think you could be a big impact on him on this and i hope you can because i've never -- i go around my district oklahoma, around the country, i never heard people talk about the epa like they are now. people are tuned in this is costing and everything that is thomas passed down to consumers. it's not on the businesses, they just pass it through so we have to keep that in mind and it does affect competitiveness in jobs and the economy. mr. sunstein, you talked -- you said good things today and i hope he will support this because i think it's something we should do and i don't think it's too much to ask to do cost-benefit analysis of the global competitiveness and jobs. >> appreciate it. >> the gentle lady from

tennessee is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. try. mr. sunstein, i think you can tell that we are all hearing from our constituents and they are frustrated with what is coming from this administration. i started in january dillinger listening sessions to our employers and our districts. they were jobs related listening sessions. i mentioned that to you the last time we talked and they are incredibly frustrated with as one of my constituents said you know, we used to get an update on i will, periodic one page update. now the regulation comes in and reams of paperwork, and it's such a heavy burden that the jobs numbers today should not surprise you all because what you're doing isn't working. so this should be instructive to you, and i hope we can work with

you on this and i know that you all are saying we've got a draft proposals that are out there we need input, and what the input is coming back to do is you are on the wrong track. so if you are on the wrong track, sir, please advise the administration to change what they are doing. now, i know that the executive order is the 16563 that we are discussing. independent regulatory agencies are not to be subject to the review. but these agencies are coming in by using your words, encouraged to do so on a voluntary basis and to perform the retrospective analysis of existing rules and you hoped they would do that is that correct? >> that's correct. >> i have a june 1st letter to the editor in "the wall street journal" where commissioner from

the cpsc notes that under the obama administration the cpsc, and i'm quoting her, has ignored the recent direction to look for in the eliminate burdensome regulations. we are just too busy putting out new regulations, and of quote. i've got to tell 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 preliminary draft plans that are supplied by the agency by oira may 18th and released on the white house website, did any of them come from the fcc, the ftc, cpsc, ferc or the nrc? >> nope. >> what will be your next step to address it? >> i'm hopeful, and i said in writing and i will say right now

that we would very much like the independent agencies to engage in this look back process. >> i've got to tell you the american people are hopeful for jobs and you'll troubled. they are getting tired of this and they are expecting us to take some action. and what you are doing with sending out all these regulations is wrong if it's going to have a $100 million in pact we are going to pull it in here and hold dewaal accountable and the american people are going to hold you accountable for this. you've got to find a way to get these agencies to get some of this regulation of the book. let me ask you about one and a half minutes left the accountable care organizations. health care in the tennessee is a very important industrial sector for us. the proposed rule on the accountable care organization is incomprehensible. huge it's incomprehensible. there is a group representing some of these organizations such

as the mayo clinic for the administration saying that more than 90% of its members would not participate because the rules, not the rule has written are so onerous that would be nearly impossible for them to succeed. i'm hearing the same thing from my constituent companies, in addition the regulations were stated to be overly prescriptive, operationally burdensome and the incentives are too difficult to achieve to make this voluntary program attractive. one of the major problem seems to be the medical groups have little experience in managing insurance risks in the administration blueprint rapidly exposing them to potential financial losses. what has oira world and in reviewing the rule today for the account of your organization?

>> the quote fugate is reminiscent to the meaningful use rule which the hhs proposed a while back. >> and there are problems with that, too aren't there? >> we are hearing about those problems with the meaningful use role. >> and can potentially of -- >> are we going to speed the process of? >> i would like nothing -- >> how we help to speed that process up? >> there are two things. first, this very hearing in your interest in making sure what is on the plans are not implemented already or are not on each fast-track that they are implemented in a hurry. your ideas what should be on the plan that aren't on the plan are very welcome with respect to that the rule is you raise i said is a little pitiful. >> should we retrieve the rulemaking authority and address it still charlie? >> i would say the act has a

mechanism and the word proposed not just because i recently married but also because the fundamentally constructive nature of proposed rules or interim final where you get a chance for people to fix things. i've heard the concerns to which you point and our role will be trying to address those concerns. >> 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. they are fatigued with the talk. >> thank the gentleman from colorado. stomachs before mr. chairman and mr. sunstein for appearing to answer some questions. do you believe they have an overregulation problem in the united states?

>> yes or no answer i am pleased to give, yes. >> u.s if you disagree with some of the others we have a price tag in mind of the overregulation but i hope to be able to cut the leadership of the agencies to cut three existing cost down very significantly. >> with the cost can be right now and what we can say is we already cut hundreds of millions and in a short term will be able to cut a billion. if we aren't able to cut billions of this process the would be a surprise to the >> executive order 563 specifies that regulations should promote job creation and regulation should impose the least burden on society. when were the your office of edify with our rules promote job creation or whether they will result in job destruction? >> okay what we have been doing is working carefully with the

agency's credit and guidelines approach we've been working with agencies when a role has potential job impact to make sure that is addressed fully. >> will you be issuing guidelines for the analysis to identify the rules? >> it's an interesting question whether this should be done by a guide line verse is rule by roel basis and we've been focusing on 530 plants in the last month. >> you will not be issuing guidelines. >> we are focusing laser light on the job impact of rules and you can see actually with of rules with strong or amended in the last month in part because of concerns about the job impact some of them very prominent so this is something we've been doing on a daily basis. whether this should be done through guidelines or not it's an interesting question it's consistent with the executive order and also some words on

this to focus on job impacts and rules whether guidelines are useful or not as i say that's an interesting question and very worth considering. >> under the process you're considering that are you going to require methods of analysis that account for the direct and indirect impact or will your office follow the epa lead? we had testimony from the assistant administrator of the epa and ignored the job losses that resulted from shutting down facilities. >> i believe that testimony was focused on a rule issued before the recent executive order, and under the recent executive order job in pacts have been and will continue to be discussed. >> but it requires a look back so they should have done a look back on that. >> well if epa, the role you are referring to is a proposed rule where there is extensive set of comments including comments that involve job impact and would be very surprising if those impacts

were not carefully addressed before the rule was issued in terms of look back process we are very much concerned with the prioritizing the look back so as to get job growth going. >> there are a number of studies i have one right here in my hands a number of studies that show health effects associated with job loss, health effects and impact on family and back on education, if the rule is expected to shut down a facility, shut down a business or reduce employment, do you think the cost to americans as a seated in the shutdown should be considered under to exceed of order? >> i'm aware of that empirical literature it's an interesting set of findings. what i would say is the job in pectorals definitely should be addressed whether the health impact still are a consequence of job impacts should be addressed is a little bit of a frontier's question of social

science i know the literature to which your pointing and existing allin the documents don't require that, but it's certainly worth thinking about. >> right now you're not taking into account impacts on children or families when they lose a job as a result of -- >> to take account of a job in pacts which as i say is a central focus of ours is to consider job impact on families and children. the word job impact in ordinary language especially in the current economic environment, even before the word jogging pact naturally calls out adverse effects on families and children. >> are you aware of rules of the department of transportation real regarding the counties tens of thousands of not more dollars each? >> yes and i am aware the secretary of transportation is very concerned about that and pulled back on the rules. >> so they have a pullback on the rules? >> absolutely. he personally has been in the

two engaged. 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 convincing concerns about the unjustified cost have been well heard by the department of transportation. >> i think the gentleman's the time is expired. mr. griffith is recognized for five minutes. >> the executive order 13563 states the regulatory actions must be based on the best available science. your office has primary responsibility for helping the president and chief the subjective. you may be aware there's a pending science decision of the national toxicology program that involves the listing status of formaldehyde and an upcoming report on carcinogens. this listing status is important as the basis for the regulatory actions that may be taken now or in the future by the epa and other federal agencies and in

addition affect the market place purchasing legal decisions in the near future. my understanding is that the studies and the data sets reviewed by the ndp and its on willing decision making process are the same as those used in the draft of formaldehyde assessment by the epa. as you may know the national academy of sciences recently called that epa draft assessment into question and raised serious concerns suggesting the assessment is in need of substantial revision at the very best. i assume you agree the government must of consistent, coordinated and scientific positions on matters of public health considering the inconsistent positions of fundamental science issues between the bodies can you assure me that you will personally be involved in retrieving this issue and insuring any policy decision made by the ndp will reflect the best available and sound science including recommendations and conclusions of the national academy? also, oira from times times has

engaged in the academy of sciences to review the scientific evidence and provide an assessment will you engage on the questions at hand in the report prior to this release? >> thank you for that. our domain, our central demand and falls regulation and will making and the best available science crucial to that and we care a lot about the national academy of sciences i work closely with the president's adviser john holguin and the office of science and technology policy to make sure the science is right on the issue raised its not rule making in the sense with our normal domain, but i can promise you that in the next 24 hours i will discuss this with john holder in. >> let me let you know why i'm concerned that it. we heard the regulations are good and in some cases i'm not sure they are always good for

jobs but sometimes they are and sometimes they aren't but formaldehyde is of great concern in the county alone we have an industry that employs over 600 people. we are also looking at an announcement in the next week we are going to lose jobs in that same county. the county is 17,000 people come and we are looking based on regulations over the course of the next couple of years we have a good chance of losing it of regulations go into effect, and you can do the multiplied years and realize that in the areas where the money tends to stay in the community, and i am talking about the county, not one count of all the town sat up to 17 so the county that has the 600 jobs based on the industry that uses formaldehyde is extremely significant and it's not the only county in the district where jobs can be impacted by these regulations, so i ask you to look into that. let me switch over to another subject of interest in the district and that is the regulations we do appreciate that the epa did decide not to

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

have begun november. >> that's correct. >> i appreciate that. thank you very much and i appreciate your work on trying to save jobs like so many others that is the main concern in our district, and we hope that you have the presence here and can convince him to some of the regulations that have already gone into effect and not propose and not willing to affect whether they will cost jobs like the regulation would have done. >> thank the gentleman from texas mr. green is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman and mr. sunstein. i would like to talk about the importance of regulations on protecting the economy and an advance of the hearing you wrote german upton and chairman stearns sharing our concerns of burdensome regulations and investment and chasing jobs overseas. i have an industrial base and i share that concern. although i am concerned about some of my republican colleagues that the regulations regardless hurt the economy, and let me

give you an example of the years of deregulation brought the market to the point of collapse in 2008. the federal reserve had the authority to stop the practices that fueled thus the prime mortgage market and chairman greenspan refused to regulate the industry. the security exchange commission relaxed its that cattle will in 2000 for aligning investment banks to increase the ratio to 33 period one. the treasury proposed legislative efforts for the transparency and oversight concerning foot trading in energy derivatives. the office of thrift supervision and control remained for protecting home buyers from predatory lending and was the result in the fall of 2008 from the united states collapsed this economic crisis created a recession called the -- causing 8 million americans to lose

their jobs. from the t.a.r.p. oversight panel the concluded had regulators given adequate attention to any of one of the key areas of transparency in fairness we might have averted the worst aspect of the crisis. mr. sunstein, this oversight panel concluded the lack of regulation was a primary cause of financial crisis. my first question is do you agree with the findings of the oversight panel and is this a case where the lack of regulation harmed the economy and caused the nation to lose millions of jobs? >> in general agreement with that. >> the increase of government, any increase of government rules and regulations, do they hurt the economy? >> depends on the rules in the regulations. some do and some don't. >> hopefully we learned our lesson the we have to keep learning a lesson we saw during the financial crisis targeted effective regulations can provide and receive cards for

the economy and we hope we remember the government regulations can play an important role in protecting the country and citizens but on the other hand i see a lot of what i think our release. silly regulations and how did they get to that point? and i tell people congress is the only institute known to man that can turn an elephant into a draft. sometimes i think the committee is coming up to the regulations can do the same thing. mr. chairman, that's -- i appreciate the opportunity to ask these questions. >> i thank the gentleman, and mr. sunstein, we are going to do a second round, so we want to to much longer. i will start out with i want to go back to the chart up there. i think we have given you a copy of the chart. did you know that that charge came from the web page regnf.gov?

>> i did not but it's one of m >> i did not but it's one of my favorite and 3 regnf.gov? >> i did not but it's one of my favorite and i trust it. >> assuming that that information is correct if you look at the draft again, you will see that the fell one graph shows the number increasing in the number of regulations that have economic significance in that review by the oira from 2008, 2009. do you see that? >> i do. >> he would assume it came from your web site that that's accurate? >> i would. >> then you go to the second graph and see that during the same time, particularly in the 2000, 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. the information came from your web site that you approve, it's accurate, you agree that the first graph is correct and the second is correct, so i guess

going back to the first question where you disagree i guess that you would now agree the second chart shows less time and review of the regulations and you would have to agree with the chart. >> i tell you what i want to see before signing off on that the left hand chart says economically significant rules are reviewed and the right-hand chart says average duration of the regulatory review. most of the rules review it are not economically significant. so, what i believe is the case, the why would want to see the chart to make sure, is that in 2010, our average duration for the rules in general is pretty close to the predecessor. i believe that's true but i want to see the chart to make sure. >> well, i'm glad you agree that the charts are accurate. i think that you are parsing your words here by saying the actual wording of our title you might not agree with. >> it's not semantics.

we review significant rules that are not economically significant. economically significant or just a well under 50% of the rules we review. so, what we want to compare is the significant rules of the average review time or the -- >> okay. all right. it sounds like the chicago professor at lot. i think the point we are trying to make is you have had more economically significant rules in the years from 2008 to 2010 and at the same time the actual review and economic impact has gone down so that's the point we want to make and we want you to understand that you might come back with a little different interpretation but these can 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 you testified that the decision to

include the end of life care rolls into the medicare regulation was inappropriate and the american people deserve to see the content of the rules before they are finalized. do you still agree? >> absolutely. >> are you aware that on march 3rd, 2011 and appearance before the subcommittee on health, psychiatry sebelius freely admitted that she made the decision to public this regulation without notice our public comment. were you aware of that? >> i was not. >> that is based upon what he said she did not comply with that. have you ever had any discussion with secretary sebelius about this submission? >> secretaries sebelius was very responsive to the concern that this had not been adequately ventilated by the public and that was promptly corrected on exactly the ground he stayed and that was the secretary's

decision. >> so here we have in the care who rules in medicare, controversial to say the least. and she agreed that she had not even sought public notice. don't you find that as a word preposterous? >> i think what happened is that long before anything like that went into effect the correction was made and there is a good thing. >> but you agree she was incorrect by not asking for public comment? >> well, hhs i think what they formally said is not the haven't asked for public comment but it hadn't been adequately ventilated by the public. >> ventilated? not in the sense of a year but -- >> do you think those particular rules, and of life care should certainly have asked publicly for public comment and in a very clear manner unambiguous set of the american people have

confidence? that seems to be basic wouldn't you agree? >> that's why the secretary amended the rule. >> was your office every from the decision to include this regulation? >> we saw the regulation -- >> yes or no? and answer is no. were materials provided by the hhs about the regulation to you? >> the regulation was presented to us. >> could you segment those to the record for us? >> the regulation is the same that was published. >> but i had asked for the materials, not the regulation, the materials. >> i don't believe any independent materials were provided. >> has your office ever been contacted about the possibility of including and of life care rules into future regulation? >> no. >> at this point do you feel that the analysis for the end of

life care rules are sufficient by the administration and a comment period that it's an adequate? >> would understand is the provision to which you object has been eliminated and i support the secretary's decision. >> and so we don't think it will ever come up and again the rule for the end of life care? >> we are in the business of reviewing rules that come before us i would defer to the secretary. >> but your understanding is by her unending and pulling this that there is not going to be any further end of life who rules or are they going to be amended -- >> i would defer to her on any such issues. >> all right. my time is expired. >> i recognize the gentlelady. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. sunstein, in your testimony

you talked about how initiatives described in the preliminary if regulatory fullback plans by the agencies to potentially save 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 imposed by the airlines. it's 1.5 million hours. so that 1.5 million hours has been eliminated already. i mentioned the epa rule it also exempted biomass from the greenhouse gas permitting requirement. something that was of great interest to the volume as industry. it's a three-year exemption particularly launder that will have significant economic consequences, and now what was announced they will finalize $500 million burden reduction

initiative, and we have a number of initiatives that actually work announced long before the president's executive order promised over 60 million hours of annual burden reductions and i don't know how much an hour is worth but even if it is worth relatively little, which i don't believe that 60 million ellers turns into a lot of money. >> as you described in your testimony, now that you have had the comment turkomen the public process i think you said now through august of the agencies are actually going to be looking at a more exact way that they can cut regulatory burdens and start implementing the plan on would assume august from september; is that correct? >> exactly. >> i hate to do this to you but i suggested to the chairman that we have you come back in the fall after the labor day and talk about what progress has been made over the summer

because just like you, we are very committed to comments and regulatory reform. it's like i said to you before, at least my view i always been a proponent of the regulatory reform but i don't think the regulation is the necessary -- i don't think the regulations personally have values attached to them. i don't think that they're inherently good or bad. i think some regulations are helpful and they can protect the public interest and save money, and i think some are overly burdensome. i think that is the view that you share and the administration shares, correct? so if you can come back and let us know what kind of progress you have made, i think there would be helpful. would you be willing to do something -- >> i would be delighted. >> one of the things the executive said is that he wants to tayler -- the president wants to taylor regulations to cause

the least burden on the society, and a lot of our concerns on both sides of the always the concern about regulatory burdens on small businesses. so i am wondering if you could talk to me about what you see all ready and not what you see coming ahead this summer to reduce the regulatory burden specifically on small businesses. >> on the same day that the president issued the executive order, he issued a memorandum on small business, protecting small business from justified regulation, and with the memorandum does is two things. first it reiterates and underlines the requirement of the bigot pachauri flexibility act an extremely important statute for small business. second, it goes further by saying if an agency is not going to have flexibility for small business such as a delayed compliance, they are partial or total exemption simplified reporting requirements

specifically explain itself. now we have seen in the last months some prominent actions by capital all departments to eliminating burden for small business. sometimes reporting burdens, sometimes not reporting burdens and sometimes regulatory burdens. and in the two important cases by pulling the rules back so as to engage in the small business community to see if there is a way of doing it would be minimal the burdensome on them. >> one of the things i noticed i was thinking about this when i talked to businesses in my district small and large, one of the great frustrations is obsolete regulations that have reporting requirements that are based on lack of technology and now that the technology and moved ahead and they say why can't we just report electronically, why do we have to sell all of these forums, too? is the administration doing

anything to specifically address those concerns? >> absolutely and we have heard the same thing. it sounds more small potatoes than it is. small businesses we can do it electronically. you are having us do all this paperwork which is a mess for us. if you look through the plans you will see numerous initiatives from numerous agencies that they were going to go from paper to electronic and we have a little precedent here actually not so little, the department of treasury has a paperless initiative that's going to save $500 million in the next few years by a eliminating the use of paper. taxpayer dollars we hope to transfer that. >> let me ask if you can get somebody from your staff to send an e-mail listing all of those initiatives so we know what's going on and communicate that to our constituents. thank you. >> the gentlelady's time is

expired. dr. burgess is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman and we are appreciative of you spending so much time with us today. you wrote a piece for "the wall street journal" 21st century of regulation and an update on the president's reforms. you talked about let's stop copying over spilt milk but to set the record straight everyone in this town loves to blame all the problems on the world on the previous administration but sometimes we need to give credit where it is due to the administration and the spilled milk for will actually was proposed in the federal register january 15th of 2009, which was a few days before the president took the oath of office. is that correct? >> our final rule is much more aggressive in its deregulation than the bush proposal. >> all right, give the president credit when we talk about that. i do have to follow up with some of the questions ms. blackburn asked because the apco insect

mr. chairman if i may ask today's politico deputy secretary health and human services now at the hudson institute senior fellow at the hudson institute said it's time to address the rules and gives a very good description they actually are a concept started with the group demonstration project under the secretary michael levin in the previous administration and while perhaps they are not my individual favorite, they may have been a bipartisan approach to bring down the cost of delivering health care in the country particularly with in the medicare system. many clinics across the country had embraced this concept. but when they were left with a mismatch of regulations they said we can't do this. this doesn't work yet it was working in their demonstration projects in psychiatry lippitt's administration. one of the things he found is that they put a 2% savings

before they got to participate in the shared savings there was a 2% barrier and into the rule it's now 10% to almost 4%. so what they found an undersecretary leavitt was only four out of the ten practices as i recall the position practice demonstration project data only four were actually able to meet the barker, and now we have in fact increased the bar and meet the higher. is that a positive step in this regulation? >> the rules proposed in your comments and those of your staff as well as those of your constituents are not just welcomed but are needed so we got this right. >> just to be clear we've got a hard deadline do we not in the affordable care active january 1, 2012? so this rule has to be revised or repos. the clinics have to escalate the state of and decide whether or not they can meet the statutory and of the financial requirements which are

significant ball by january 1st, 2012, is that correct? >> if we could in four months produce 600 pages of look back plans with hundreds of rules to be revised and we can get that done on the schedule. >> you can get it done but i am talking about a guy singer and mako clinic, i'm talking about gunderson lutheran. are these organizations going to be about, through the complex financial analysis that's going to be required, in order to meet its january 12012 deadline? >> the statutory deadline, yes? >> well, we are going to do our best -- >> use it to ms. blackburn no more legislative interference was necessary but i would submit to que perhaps we do need to amend this secret document to allow clinics more time to analyze why you're going to put forward. what is the minimum financial outlay clinic is going to have to come up with to institute an accountable care organization by

your reckoning? >> i don't have a secure for that. this is a proposed rule where all these issues are under discussion. >> the figure that's given is like $1.8 million that the hospital association estimates it's going to be between 11 to $25 million. so it's a significant financial investment and doctors should be in the driver's seat. if they are going to deliver on the promise as a patient i want my doctor to be in charge. i don't want my health plan to be in charge, i don't want the insurance company to be in charge. but the doctors are in a poor position to be able to manage the financial out late because not only did you have to pay the startup cost of all of the things, the ancillary personnel, the electronic health records and all the things required for the disease management care coordination, but he also have got to manage against the financial risk of taking on a group of patients who has a set of chronic illness which is ideally what they are going to

be a managing. and here's the problem we have. we are trying to figure out what to do with the sustainable growth rate for mia lee and many people think the model may be the way we can visit to a different way of payment so we stopped paying for stop and pay for wellness and you deliver to us a regulation that is so confusing that the people who report to be able to do this are now shaking their heads and walking away, and we have got six months to fix the problem. >> i appreciate that and you are clearly a specialist in this and we need your help to get it right. there was a somewhat analogous controversy over the regulation under the americans with disabilities act, chamber of commerce incidentally raised many questions about lack of clarity and overreaching and the first people out of the box to celebrate what the eeoc finalized was the chamber of commerce. so my hope is we can fix this. >> i'm going to submit a question in writing that deals

with the fda and medical device because we've heard a lot of testimony about that in this committee. it's extremely important issue and the fda guidance documents under development by the agency and out of a streamlining process is going to impact those it is incredibly important. not for the manufacturing in the country but america's patience and patience in the future. thank you. >> thank you. >> the gentleman mr. bilbray for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. you know, one of the things that's frustrated me after 35 years in public life in one way or the other, working with regulatory agencies and being in a regulatory agency is the huge gap between the intention of the legislation and the attwell application. gooding symbol would be wouldn't you agree that any environmental law that is being implemented in a manner that hurts the

environment, you know, may not be obviously was not being implemented in the manner with the legislative intent. would you agree that no environmental law should hurt the environment? sounds right? give me an example what we've got. we've had for a long time in san diego. the clean water act requires going to secondary activated sludge for sewage treatment. the institutional father of the greenhouse gas issue stood up and demanded that we take a second look at law, and as you know we we require that you do environmental assessment. the environmental review said not implementing the law would be the best environmental option that there are negative in their middle impacts, the habitat to the ocean introducing chemicals, the air pollution, but the

bureaucracy still is caught on this issue that don't confuse us with a scientific fact. we have the law and is is you got to do this no matter what. and we have been fighting this battle for 20 years, and we are still 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 had to have a judge in the sierra club and the health department suing the epa to force them not to put this in, that's interesting coalition because remember the county of environmental health is from my find republicans. either accept that or come back and ask us to change of the law to allow the items to be done. how would you propose we handle that kind conflict? >> i don't know the particular controversy. i know some of the names. 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 -- the clean air act is the wonders particularly good data on overwhelming health benefits but there's good data on the benefits of clean air act also so have to follow the law. ..

>> chicago dumping into a river that went to the ohio and dumping pollutants into ohio rather than cleaning up their mess. >> well, our role is a narrow one of implementing what you've 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 that the executive order makes a very strong plea for quantify cation for costs and benefits, and that would apply to the clean water act. >> let me shift over. is there anything that requires four to five to one mitigation for disturbing has habitat >> i don't believe so. >> no, there isn't. is there anything in the endangered species act requires when you go in to clean out a flood control channel, you have

to mitigate every few years, remit gait for that? >> i'm pleased to say i'm confident there's nothing like that in the act, but just note that the department of interior in its lookback plan referred spectically to streamlining the requirements under the endangered species act and taking another look at that. >> i've run into that where it's just not an impact on local community, but displaced public space and park land because there's agents under fish and game and fish and wildlife screaming bloody murder that we have to get our pound of flesh if 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 to allow for other violations? >> it's a pretty short statute, and 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 term, so i believe it's not required, but it is authorized. >> mr. chairman, i believe 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 representatives post of the united states, and i think this is one thing republicans and democrats can work at, getting the act back to where it was meant to, making sure the clean water act is helping the environment, not just fulfilling a bureaucratic agenda and hurting it, that the clean act is implemented to protect the public health, not just running up costs. 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 appreciate you what you're doing. we have to roll back some of

these 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 my earlier questioning, and you were kind to say you'd look into it in regard to the national toxicology program remitted to formaldehyde that affected jobs, hundreds of jobs on the northern end of the districts, affecting thousands jobs across the nation and particularly some well-needed jobs in the southern end of my district which is my district that is about the size of new jersey. 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 huge debates on that. as a matter of fact, the science indicates it's not a problem, so if you can add that to the list,

i'd greatly appreciate you looking at that. it's interesting because my predecessor wrote a letter last year details question, and i can give you a copy if you'd like, and i followed up with congressman this year saying, hey, do you have an answer to the questions because the main thrust of those questions were, all right, we have all these jobs that are going to be impacted, and yet, the science doesn't seem to back up the ruling, so i do ask you to take a look at that. also related to jobs, obviously, i come from a coal district and i know the rest of the committee members are surprised it took me this long to get the coal, but i do come from a coal district, and as we've heard today, there are a lot of regulations out there, and i really wish we can quantify as congressman bilray was just saying because we all want clean water, clean air, and clean jobs. we have to have 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 the regulations proposed in the newer regulations related to the 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 use of coal in the district and in this nation, and one of the things that i think is interesting and this applies both to the formaldehyde as well. the products will be made. the question is if nay are made here? if another country wants cancer, that's fine, but the bottom line is when you talk about coal 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're ships coal over there, and they ship their air pollution back to us. as you know, it takes 10 days according to a nasa study for the air to get 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 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 act did bring us in its early days, and so i think we have to be very, very careful with what we're doing and we're using the clean water act i think in my opinion and others who testified here inadd vertenly to dire -- dirty our air. i yield the rest of my time.

>> i agree with you about the fact we are here to implement the law and sometimes there's problems, and god knows every source abroad i didn't want to touch clones and hair sprays for consumer productses. you mess with the ladies' chanel number 9 or whatever it is, you have real props. but u.s. versus the arizona just filed last year -- this administration claims in that that the executive branch has the ability to pick and choose which laws it wants to enforce. look at that file because to me it's extraordinary because that's the position of this administration that the executive has the right to choose when not to enforce the law, and they've got that on record, so if it can be applied to the issue of immigration, my question is why wouldn't it be

publicble to these other -- applicable to the other regulatory groups. i leave that with you to just look at it to see how that affects your latitude in straightening out the problem. i yield back. >> does the ranking member have concluding comments? i'm going to let you go. i have one comment. you previously testified that you disagreed with the crane report that stated that the current regulations are costing 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 nots been supported -- >> well, i think your answer is you do not agree with the crane report. >> yes, the number i don't believe has a solid --

>> i just want it on the record that you disagree with the crane report. >> yes, i disagree with the analysis of the crane report. >> well, thank you. i see you won the prize for forbearance today, and we thank you, and we welcome the second panel. >> thank you. [inaudible conversations] i'm going to ask unanimous consent dr. burgess asked that troy's opinion in the "politico" be put part of the record. without objection, so ordered. [inaudible conversations] we'll have you gentlemen sit down at your convenience, and i'm going to point out who they are before i swear them in. mr. james is a senior research fellow at the research

foundation. mr. william is at the u.s. chamber commerce, and m. david goldston is a fellow at the research center. you are aware this is an investigative hearing and in doing so we have the practice of taking testimony under oath, do you have any objection of taking testimony under oath? no. the chair advises you the rules of the house and committee and you can have counsel. do you desire to be advised by counsel today? no. in this case, please rise, and i'll swear you in. please rise and raise your right hand. do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help you god? you are now entitled under oath in the united states code. now, if you would give a five minute summary of your written statement, we would appreciate

it. >> thank you, mr. chairman and ranking member degette. i appreciate being invited to be here to talk about the unnecessary rules. this is certainly a very positive first step, and we've said that many times. i would like to bring to your attention congress first mandated this in 1980 in the regulatory flexibility act, and it's been a struggle to get implemented so it's a good start. having said that, one of the concerns and we hope that the oira moves forward with it, but we have a long ways to go. we have to look at the economically significant regulations defined by at administer, permit streamlining that really creates jobs, and frankly, we have to begin looking at the standard for court review because they have a lot of implications as to how the regulatory process works, and as we're talking about jobs,

i just want to highlight one point in the testimony, and that is some of the agencies like the environmental protection agency have, and each one of the statutes a congressional mandate to do a continuing jobs analysis, and that's in the clean air act, and it goes through the rest. to my knowledge, this has never been done, and it's been on the books for decades. the regulatory process, look, it's been growing for years. this is not new. since 1976, 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. when we go into the process, we have to go into it in a way to understand what it is we are trying to do. the concern on our part seems to be the fact that the economically significant regulations have increased 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 in many industries, so when we take a step back, how did we get here? congress has been addressing the issue to try to bring it to some control since 1946. i mean, this is 65 years of congress doing this. you'd enacted the administer procedural act, and at that time it was 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 to a lot of which frankly you are getting here today. several things happened on the way to getting to today. the first is congress actually began to pass very, very broad laws and you asked the bodies to fill in the blanks, and the agencies were glad to fill in the blanks. then in the 1970s, you had the courts in the chevron decision for the first time award deference to the agencies so two

things were going on simultaneously. one is congress was giving the agencies a lot of discretion over the vague laws, and, of course, deference. that literally tipped the scale as to how the regulatory process worked, and it's from that point forward congress struggled to get it back and has been unable to. since 1980 on, congress looked and enacted the regulatory flexibility act, unfunded mandates, information quality, paper reduction, job analysis precision, and we can go on. each one the congress struggled to get crock over this and has been unable to. a few suggestions we have, not that any one of them should take preference over any other one, but there are some, and we should look at this and one is if you're going to focus on the regulatory process, you need to focus on the few hundred regulations a year that make a difference. you have so many things in place.

you have cost benefit, jobs analysis, constructive alternatives. you have that. we have to find a way to make them work and you can quicker in the 200 large regulations than 4,000 other regulations that occur. you have the rains act before congress to put congress in the driver's seat and should be considered. you could require economically significant rules for the agencies to actually have a higher standard of review. for example, all regulations right now, the smallest and the most minimal and the largest are all subject to what court review for what we call arbitrary and capricious meaning if the agency finds anything in the record that the agency supports, the agency wins. that really tipped the playing field because the agency can putting? in the record. you might want to consider giving that a higher standard of review. maybe for the 200 economically significant regulations you put

and have a formal rule making. you could also up since the courts give deference, you can require all regulations to be with circumstantial evidence. you have reviews already enacted so the public can help you implement the regulatory process, and then finally, i think the final analysis, you know, i 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 you, and your opening statement. >> chairman stearns, ranking member, degette, and distinguished members. we were to submit plans for review and regulations on their books. last week and this morning, our

administers reported initial progress of the review at the various agencies. the reports was encouraging as they have a number of obsolete and unnecessarily costly regulations. at the same time, the reforms proposed so far constitute only a very small step towards the roll back of red tape the american economy needs. much more substantial reform is required. this is not a new issue. it's been steadily increasing over the last three decades to republican as well as democratic administration. in the present administration, this reached unprecedented levels. according to figures compiled at the heritage foundation based on gay that given by the government accountability office, federal agencies promulgated an unprecedented 43 major regulations during fiscal 2010 alone proposing annual cost calculated by the agencies themselves of at least $28 billion. in the same period, a handful of rule makings were completed that

reduced burdens of $1.5 billion. it is in this context that president obama launched his regulatory review initiative. to address the issue, the president promised a government wide review of rules which was a welcomed step, but it is the existing regulationings, however, is not a new or ground breaking idea. they have been required to prepare plans since 1993 under president clinton's executive order under regulatory review. there's little evidence such plans had any impact. moreover, the obama initiative was hardly government wide. it excluded independent agencies such as the federal communications commission, the security and exchange commission, and the new consumer protection bureau, and in so doing, the president excludes from scrutiny the largest producers of red today, and i do understand that oira invited agencies to submit plans on their own, and apparently they almost uniformly declined to do

so. there is precedent on this and prior reviews of regulation by administrations notably in the 1991 review by the bush administration. it was made clear to inner agencies they should participate, and they did. frankly, a president who has his appointees or independent agencies can persuade them to participate if he expresses the desire strongly enough. i don't think that was done in this case. now, despite the limitations, the initiative has as reported by the oira team has meaningful results. overall, the executive branch agencies 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 regulation on virtually nothing, this agenda is significant. as encouraging as that is, the

administer's acknowledgement that regulations have cost and take time and day to review the mandates imposed to determine if they are necessary and effective. still, it is too soon for americans to breathe a sigh of relief. many last week are the low-hanging fruit of excesses that should have been plucked long ago. such as milk being a dangerous oil was in place since the 1970s. it's been submitted to the epa as early as 2007. the fact it took four years to accomplish this is less than notable achievement as a sign of the regulatory broken system. many more actions are merely suggestions for change at a later date. of the 31 reforms identified in the epa's regulatory plan, nearly half are termed longer term actions, the officials are marked for a closer look at sometime in the future. moreover, the proposed regulatory rules are exceeded by

the new regulations that will be promulgated thus while the $1 billion in claimed savings in the near term from the actions identified by the administration is significant, it is swamped by the nearly dozen new rules costing more than $1 billion each which have been adopted in the last two years. in other words, the savings expected from the initiative 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 torrent of new regulation is stip stopped or narrows, burdens will continue to increase. let me finish by saying help is needed from congress as well. i have my written testimony of recommendations for reforms that can and should be taken legislatively including establishing a sunset date for federal regulations, creating a congressional office of regulatory analysis to provide

congress with its own capability to analyze and review regulations, and requiring congress nailing approval of major regulations that place new burdens on the private sector. thank you for your time. >> thank you, gentleman. welcome, and for your five minutes -- >> nawng -- thank you, mr. chairman and ranking member degette. i'll run through 14 points to summarize the points in my written testimony and issues that came up this morning. first is regulations are needed to safeguard the public, neither individual action nor the marketplace can yield such public goods as clean air and clean water. second, repeated studies concluded 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. the phrase job-killing regulation may come off the tongue, but one is tripped up looking for the data to back it up, and this does not account

for the indistrict benefits of regulations like a stable banking system or a stable system to review drugs. fourth, studies found estimates of what a regulation costs exceed the cost of implementing a regulation often by a large factor because the estimates cannotting the well for technology change, and they are based on information of parties with an interest of producing higher estimates. fifth, the congressional research service found the number of regulations has not increased wildly and the count of major regulations differs from the count in the chime beer of commerce's -- chamber of commerce's testimony. sixth, looking on the basis of all of that while any governmental activity like any other human activity can be improved, there's no indication there is a problem with the u.s. regulatory system. seventh, we look forward to

reviewing the proposal when they come out in august. eighth, industry's focus on criticizing future rules are an acknowledgement past rules were not as problematic as predicted. ninth, contrary to some of the claims that the chamber of commerce makes in the testimony, epa does not cave when lawsuits are filed and sue and subtle narrative is faulty. ten, proposals to up end the regulatory system should be opposed. they run counter to historical experience, the public opinion, and measures like the rains act which can dismantle should be opposed with vigor. proposals like rain are arranged to bias the regulatory process hopelessly in industry's favors by changing procedures because the industry knows the public would not support changes in the underlying laws that the regulations are designed to

enforce. 12, in the end, even industry is harmed by the proposals because the system would lead to far less predictability than we have today. thirteen, by providing clear rules of the road produces a functioning market marketplace and economic prosperity. last, congress should not accept claims of regulatory harms at face value or make changes to the regulatory system that safeguarded the public at a reasonable cost. thank you. >> i thank the gentleman. i'll start with my question. did it impede the ability of businesses to hire new workers to create jobs? >> well, i think -- >> we just saw the unemployment rate was higher. >> within our testimony, we have a discussion of what we call project, no project which -- >> what we do in the committee is ask for a yes or no if

possible. can you say yes? >> yes. >> is that a problem with the current high rate of unemployment reaching 9.1% and your feeling is because of regulation? mr. waxman believes in regulation and so forth, but in your opinion it's contributed to the unemployment? >> i am not -- the answer is i'm not an economist, but, yes, look at the project no project study because that gives you the answer you need. >> that gives more defentive information? >> yes. >> and the name again? >> it's project, no project. >> okay. i think both of you indicated, and i think the third gentleman did too the idea of the independent agencies, and i think all of us are concerned. don't independent agencies that issue regulation also contribute significantly to the total burden on the economy, the independent, isn't that true? >> yes. >> i'll ask each of you.

>> yes. >> yes. >> mr. goldston, is that true that regulations from the independent agency contribute to the burden on the economy? >> they contribute regulations, certainly. >> you don't think they affect the -- okay. all right. were you surprised of the 30 preliminary draft plans relosed by the white house on may 26, there's none by the regulatory agency such as a federal communication agency, the regulatory commission, the product safety commission, and the federal energy regulatory commission? >> no, i was not surprised. >> degette? >> i was surprised there was not at least one or two. >> mr. goldston? >> i'm not sure i have an opinion on there. there's the constitutional issue whether they are required to do it. there's no reason they could not choose to submit plans. >> do you think there's anything

more that oira could have done to regulate independent agencies to voluntarily submit retrospecktive analysis of the rules as set out in the president's executive order? >> no, the president suggested it, and just decided nod to do it. >> as i said in the testimony, i think the president is -- i think the president can make clear what is for sure and what is for show. >> i have no expertise on that, but i think they could have done more. >> you indicated it's too soon to breathe early a sigh of relief with the president obama's january 2011 "wall street journal" op-ed saying "rules have got out of balance places unnecessary burdens on business with a chilling effect

on growth and jobs." do you think after that and the executive orders 13653, we're any closer to achieving what mr. sunstein cited as a consistent culture of review and analysis throughout the executive branch? >> i think we're closer, but we're dealing with a few micromillimeters perhaps of moving forward. >> micromillimeters, okay. ..

many statutes require regulations to be updated periodically which means -- >> you agree because the understanding your testimony you believe there are two distinct categories of regulation in the primary focus of oversight by congress and the administration should be those regulations that are economically significant in your view what would be the most effective way to address this? >> there are several ways. one as they have a high your review within the courts. for example when a court refused a regulation, they treat their review the same as if it is a greenhouse gases or training for an employee, and what we expect

to occur because when the courts give deference to the agencies they kept the balance in favor of the agencies and against congress and the way to address the would be to require the agency on those major rules to go through a high your standard of review which would be a formal on the record hearing or something which is a hybrid hearing and then to have the court reviewed under the substantial evidence test. >> my time is over it's just remarkable that as you pointed out the regulatory flexibility act mandates these agencies do it and no one is doing it and so i mean, it's really disturbing to think the we mandated congress and yet none of these agencies are complying. >> the first testimony i've ever gave 13 years ago was on that issue and -- >> my time is expired. >> the gentlelady is recognized. >> thank you very much mr. chairman.

i agree the regulatory reform works at a slow rate and i agree with your written and verbal testimony it seems to be a bipartisan problem since republican and democratic administration isn't that correct. circling up on the german's creston here's the problem with a yes or no answers 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 upset about cost primarily by overregulation, yes or no. >> i have absolutely no idea. i'm not an economist. >> okay. >> let me ask coming you said we should target to these economically significant regulations which have increased since 2005 and again on a bipartisan basis. those are regulations that cost $100 million or more; is that

right? >> it's a broader group than that but it also includes -- >> that's a term of art, and i can't disagree with that. i fink that is probably a good idea but i would also say that the cumulative effect of other regulations, smaller regulations can be, even though it's not one regulation as 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 small regulations while we are focusing on these economically significant regulations, correct? >> that's why i was saying when the standard of review and how the agency approaches, it is very important. >> right. >> so that's one of the ways you might be able -- >> i think that's an excellent suggestion. one of my questions is because there has been different legislation proposed command one of the things here and

mr. gattuso also said you support it was the idea of having both houses of congress to approve any regulation that has this impact and economically correct? and in your written testimony you said there were about 180 regulations like that that were issued in 2008 which was the last year of the bush administration. is that correct? >> those are government numbers, so yes. >> your answer is yes. okay. here's what i'm concerned 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?

>> i'm not saying you should repeal anything. >> but what you're saying is there should be a higher standard which i agree with. my concern is if you require all those things to come to congress and it's only a few days a year we might not get to reviewing all the regulations. do you understand that? >> there's nothing being proposed that would go retro -- >> let's say there's a new regulation the obama administration is proposing and it's a significant regulation. >> so it would come to congress for review. if congress did not review that legislation what would happen is a would be in all, is that correct under that legislation? i don't have much time left. so, that might affect a regulation that was a bad regulation or a good regulation, right? it's a great big amount that

comes down and kills that regulation. >> it puts congress in charge. >> i hear what you're saying. i want to ask a couple quick questions about the clean air act because recently mr. waxman asked the epa to do a report on the clean air act and what the report said is the act created american jobs and in fact it prevented 18 million respiratory illnesses, 850,000 asthma attacks, 674,000 cases of and 205,000 premature deaths. and also, there was monetary value of $2 trillion by 2020. i'm wondering if you can tell me whether you think you'll agree with these studies that were done. >> those studies that have looked at the job and health impacts of regulations show benefits of the health benefits and show -- >> of the clean air act?

>> the clean air act in particular. >> the updated solution standard this must manufacture a solution reducing technology. and so a lot of people argue the clean air act has created hundreds of thousands of domestic jobs in the field of environmental technologies and generated about $300 billion of annual revenue and support it 1.7 million jobs. so my question to do is do you think that federal regulations like these can support economic growth and foster job creation? >> yes. and again, those studies have found in a mutual net benefit of jobs over all has been on the whole so yes, absolutely. >> thank you very much. >> the time is expired. the gentleman from california mr. bilbray is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. let me go through a scenario i called the good, the bad and the

ugly. you know my background in california so let's use california as a test platform for a national strategy on regulatory oversight especially environmental stuff. one of the most successful environmental agencies ever implemented has reduced pollution by the year in california is twice as clean as it was when it started off. and the population is twice as much. are you aware that the mandate of those there and now, there was a mandate that cost effectiveness must become served before passing, right? >> i would certainly take your word for that. >> and it obviously has not been a major barrier to the protection of the public health or the implementation of that environmental strategy.

the success speaks for itself. in fact let me tell you as somebody that works with that program, 16 total between the ten years at the district and six years on the board, it actually helped us and i will tell you one of the things i get upset about is i find people here free doubt about that as it is antienvironmental. where i found one of the great tools, even for myself, i got held up by that and stopped from doing it implementing a regulation i thought was good because we have to look at that. don't you think that both democrats, republicans and of devotee also is washington could learn something by looking at the cost effective mandate and the way they handled it as being something that both sides should be able to agree looking at trying to learn from that and integrating it into our federal program? >> everybody should look at the range of experiences. they think the federal clean air act has been effective as well

and its operating under its general lost fees. >> but would you agree -- when you say that and i will come back on you and say was there another agency that implemented the clean air act that had as much reduction? >> not that i'm aware of. >> the point is under some portions of the clean air act the standard is selected is based on health but then the decision not to implement it which is what you're talking about, economic -- >> the epa and federal government has recognized the leadership to the point we've had carved out and not just the federal government but other states have adopted understand words as being the gold standard for the clean air, right? >> that's my understanding. >> now let's talk about the ugly. a.d. 32.

an environmental strategy was put into the legislation. but it's still applied to the implementation of our greenhouse gas. now, that was created, a situation to where now my scientists who developed alternatives to fossil fuels using california financing and research is forced to lead the state to go to production in mexico for a good reason because under the regulations it would take ten years plus to go into production where in mexico it is not in the months . big difference. and this is -- i would say the bad side of it is showing that now the legislation said they cared enough to put in the a.d. 30 to but not enough to exempt

from environmental regulations that would stop the implementation and let me point out it's the same legislature that xm did a football stadium and industry, so it's not like an absurd. doesn't this tell us when we go to implementation or stick with goals we've got to do what it takes to make the implementation practical. >> i don't know the specific case you're talking about as a general rule certainly as the new yorker it doesn't hurt me to hear tales of the california state legislature. but i don't know the specific case. >> the problem was not only understanding the great goal, the great standards are easy for legislators to do but it's tough for them to take the hit on the fact that regulatory obstructionism is a major barrier to the innovative environmental and economic growth. i guess the other issue i would bring up is a good example of, and you were aware of it because

you were working on this, we are required to go to the secondary sewage was activated sludge sue the government to stop it don't you think we need to go back and start looking at that outcome base, that cost-benefit and how it really affects the real world rather than just what was meant to do? >> i don't have the specific case but judging by all, i think makes a lot of sense. yes. >> thank the gentleman and the gentleman from virginia is recognized for five tenet. >> thank you. mr. goldston, i believe very mildly put rules have gotten out of balance placing burdens that

have a chilling effect on the roads and jobs. my understanding of your testimony is you disagree with that? >> i would say as a broad conclusion i disagree. that doesn't mean there are no rules that can be changed. >> so that i am being fair with you i would tell you that actually is a line on the agree with probably out of president obama's january, 2011 will street journal op-ed piece, so it's not just me but also the president and that is why i was very pleased that mr. sunstein spent so much time with us because it is one of the few things i might agree with the president's administration on the this is an area we can come together and recognize it does have these regulations do have an effect on jobs and my district in particular which is a this is a large district some

would call it for all and heavily dependent on manufacturing and mining we have a university or to in the mix but it's heavily dependent on that and we see the effects of these regulations. you indicated in your comments that you felt like if we started rolling back regulations it might make things less predictable. and i just wondered if you had the opportunity to hear the testimony of the committees where no per game came to testify that in 2004 they attempted to comply with what they believe the epa regulations are going to be in regard to the boilers and the epa has backed off of its border regulations, but they were very concerned about it because they spend millions of dollars to comply with what they thought the epa wanted only to find out a few years later that that wasn't good enough and that they were not going to be able to qualify as a valid boiler of the new

regulations had come into effect, and these are folks who were really trying and i just can't agree with you. i believe that we need to do more to make things predictable. and if i might ask you on page 12 of your prepared statement you've got a copy of this or a similar charge before of all the new regulation coming into effect and if not its on the back burner but you will get all those colors from over there and see if a member of your organization, doesn't matter which agency with your it is epa osha demint you think that's predictability in regulation? >> it's clearly not

predictability. whatever is going to change, i would like to make a point without being sucked into the yes or no and that is we've been talking about jobs all day, and if jobs are really being created while these rules and the environmental protection agency should be implementing the jobs analysis it's got under 321 and the other rules. there are mechanisms if you go through everything that congress has done for the last 30 years you have the least restrictive alternatives. it's never applied. you have unfunded mandates any times it is over 100 million there's an entire list of issues. you have within each of the environmental statutes some form of this continuing jobs analysis. we have it there. it's not being done. so there are ways to bring a resolution to this issue but going back to the question yes, that is the regulatory uncertainty but if you look a going forward between this

health care which i'm not an expert on in financial services, we went from the 137 to the 224. that charge is going to go this way. >> a fight understand your answer in general and your other comment as well what i hear you say, correct me if i'm wrong, what i am hearing you say is if as some would like to think regulations actually create jobs and they should increase congressional requests the establish what jobs they are creating and what the impact is because the regulations are so good for jobs a requirement to detail the jobs effect of the regulation would come out the directly helping everybody and so the epa and the administration and others get behind the train and can actually call for more data to show the regulations are in fact creating jobs if there is true. is that when you are saying? >> that is what they should do. the congress mandated it in the other statute but i would go one

step further. epa uses proprietary models. it doesn't use public models as required on the data quality act it should begin releasing all its models so we can see the assumption should go in and began applauding the act which the at mesh -- administrator gave a hint it's a good way of testing the statistics, the data, the information. the agencies since congress passed in 2007 they have literally written that out and the only thing that the agencies are to open up the data for the most up-to-date data is to put it in the record and to allow the data to be peer reviewed and tested within the system. that hasn't occurred since the law was passed. >> mai tais up mr. sherman. >> we are ready to close. one thing i'm getting out of this panel was the frustration of routinely the federal agency ignored the requirements contained in such a law as was

mentioned the regulatory flexibility act, the information quality act, and the unfunded mandates reform act that's the concern for either party, a bipartisan issue to think that they routinely ignore that, and we really have a responsibility to make them comply. so if i -- >> mr. chairman, if i may. i would point out to the gentleman from virginia, i completely agree that there should be some explanation by these agencies of the epa and the other agencies about what the impact of the regulation should be on jobs and why the existing laws require that analysis. my concern about this act which the gentleman refers to is it doesn't just say you shall submit to congress how many jobs it creates it submits the

regulations to congress for approval or disapproval and if the congress doesn't get around to doing it then it might be a useful regulation we can agree on and that is the issue that goes much further to adjust their jobs issue. speed the reference i made to the treen act, which we had in the subcommittee last week i do support the act and the comments are valid. >> all right. i think my colleagues and with that the subcommittee -- we have ten days to submit for the record in the opening statements or any questions we might further ask for you folks so thank you and the subcommittee is adjourned. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations]

now congressman charlie rangel sits on the house ways and means committee and we talk about the federal debt ceiling. this is a half-hour. new cresco new york congressman nearlie rangel of new york of the ways and means committee and joint committee on taxation back at the table this morning. this thanks for being here. i wantst: good to be here again. get your take >> host: wanted to get your eake on what happened at th white house yesterday meeting between the democrats and the t guest: it was a real, solidng communication. we had a very serious problem. we were not getting much cooperation from the majority republicans as they were insisting on destroying the medicare program. and, of course, older americans are very concerned. they have no clue about what the substitute would be.

we received assurances from the president that the social network of our great country will not be destroyed in order to balance the budget. there were the assurances that we wanted, and this was the confidence that we gave to our president. host: medicare trustees says at the system is set to go bankrupt even earlier than predicted. how is it possible to preserve medicare as it is structured right now? guest: i think we have to take a look back a second. if we do not deal with this immediate problem, if we do not worry about it now, we do not have to worry about what will happen with medicare. the president of the united states took into consideration every aspect. experts were brought in from all over. medicare, and the protection of

medicare, the expansion of medicare was a key part of the program. $500 billion of duplication was provided. even more important than that was the fact that the whole idea of bringing down the cost of medicare is to make certain that, one, which prevent people from getting sick, and two, the way we reimburse providers is based on the quality and the value of the service that they have given. that is what the president's medical program is about, including medicaid and medicare. host: some people argue that as long as you have a fee to serve as model, those costs will escalate because there is nothing to clamp down the provider from ordering tests or whatever. how you keep the costs of the medicare program and medicaid

from escalating and costing more to the taxpayer over time? guest: we have had several pilot projects. if there is something that the democratic majority missed, if there is something in the plan that does not answer the question specifically that you are asking, it would seem to be the majority should be able to say let's fix that. but if i remember the testimony that some of these committees had in the house, how do you restrict over-building or preserve the quality of care and avoid people sending patients are around in order to increase the amount of money that they get, as long as you going to have fee for service, their income has to be based on the number of procedures as they call it they give to a p

atient. keeping patients well will help fiscally. if hospitals new, there was something wrong with that picture, they give you ideas of what they can do to avoid the repetition of the services that are not needed, give it a try. we have to give it a try. the testimony is there. i must say that the questions should be asked -- i am just saying you are going to destroy obamacare. if you come into office saying this is the last time we are going to hear from the president, our mission is to destroy him -- here we are now in may, we are not even talking about jobs. everything we are talking about is dismantling services to people and avoiding increasing revenues at any cost.

it is mad. it is insane for intelligent people lot to be able to discuss what the solution has to be. what is it? reduce spending and borrowing and raise the revenue in order to bring some sanity to this great country moving forward. host: so for you, there is a twin description. guest: there is no vested political interest in this. all they are concerned about is our country survives with credibility fiscally, and sick people get the basic care that they deserve and work so hard for in this country. host: but the economists do not get a vote. that is why it is important to understand your view. guest: i get to vote. it reminds me how many people are out there that really do not

know what this vote is all about. i do not think there are a lot of americans going to sleep at night wondering if we are going to raise the debt ceiling. especially the jobless people, i do not think they are concerned about whether or not we will have a default on obligations close to $15 trillion. it seems to me there is a group of people out there that do not vote who have a massive influence on how we vote, and i am talking about our spiritual leaders. you may say that is a heck of a reach for a politician, but i do not think so. there is nothing we are talking about in this debate that is not very true in nature. i would just like to believe that we are talking about the miracle of raising a child. we should protect that child's life in order to become an adult .riti

you have to respect the outlets. you are not supposed to cut health care away from them. if you talk about preserving what god and nature has given to us to have an environment to feed people and to have pure water, these are the things to me that, if we could hear from our religious leaders and say we are now in getting involved in politics, but you have a basic obligation, the human side, and that is not just the united states of america. i think the whole world depends on what we do. host: we have been waiting all morning for the new jobless numbers. here they are. employers added 54,000 jobs in may, the fewest in eight months. the unemployment rate has risen to 9.1%. do you have a reaction?

guest: the longer people believe that we have no clue about what we are doing and how we are going to get there, the longer people have invested in the united states of america believe that it is possible that the ceiling might fall on us, the less likely they are to make investments. this is true of wall street that has had the ability to raise a trillion dollars but yet they have not releasing the need to invest to create the jobs that are necessary. it is a vicious circle. we have to have people working. we have to concentrate on jobs. we have to have people have confidence in our market so our smaller businesses can have the ability to hire people. if they are not hired, then they are not buying, and this thing gets worse. i think we owe it to the investors of the united states to bring a more positive look

that politicians are more concerned about the welfare of citizens then they are of who is going to win the political battle. this has been forecast. the president and economists have said it is going to get worse before it gets better. we have a rough problem, and both of us have to give. we are not going to be irresponsible and reckless and allowed this thing to get worse. a host: i am anxious to get callers. let me take a couple calls. this is your first visit back since your ethics procedure. i would like you to talk about that after a couple of calls about what you would like people to understand about that experience. george, go ahead please. caller: good morning. i am concerned that when you refer to small businesses in light of the economy the way it

is now, we are talking about taxes. i think both the democratic party and the republican party needs to work together to see how taxes are reduced across the board. period. no question about it. anything that will bring this economy it to the brink of disaster, which is a continued spending and waste in government -- i appreciate your position because a lot of folks that become part of the government and were there for many years forget about making payroll like some of us do. there is no bank loan and us money, so we have to raise our own capital, save it, and use it to hire people. we have to spend our own money in order to fund our businesses. we get taxes from our first year of business, you take 30 percent out, where do we put that money back into our business is so that we can find it to keep

growing. host: what kind of small business do you have? caller: it is a technology business. guest: we need you more than ever to maintain that our leadership in the world. technology is where that investment has to be. to have small businesses and encouraging people to come in at what level they to come in is where america has been in the past. no one can challenge the fact that we can and should reduce the rate of taxes that we have on individuals as well as corporations. we talk about it. we had hearings yesterday at the ways and means committee and everyone agreed that 35% is too high and we cannot compete with people who continue to do that. but the same token, they agreed to in the tax code, there are

trillions of dollars of waste that are there, preferential treatment that was given to given to oilntives to give a companies and yet we are not even asking for a fairer tax. taxes under the corporate structure are lower than they have ever been since the 1950's. if we reformed the system, we could encourage small businesses, the heart of our recovery -- we cannot wait for the multinational corporations to bring that money back from overseas and create jobs here rather than abroad, but we can give incentives to provide for small business to get health insurance and to provide it for their workers, to appreciate expenditures that they make, and provide every incentive, because the heart of america's economy is not big business.

it is small business. it has to be people that are working to be able to buy the goods and services that you have it. tax reform, tax reform, tax reform. if you eliminate the unnecessary credits and waivers and deductions and preferential treatment, we can get to a rate that will allow you to be competitive. everyone agrees. host: the next call is from texas. walter is a democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. this is the second time i have gotten in. i think a lot of these problems are the president's problems. i am a democrat saying that. the president had the opportunity to get out of afghanistan when he did not have a partner. he had a chance to say, listen, i am going to stand -- i will extend the tax cut for people

making less than $250,000, and he did not stand on that. he led them all go through. he couldn't let them expire -- he could have let them expire. he did not do that. this all could have been avoided had he just took a stand and had some backbone. i am just disgusted. thank you. guest: i do not blame you. i think the whole country was disgusted. i do not think this is a time that we can say what would have been. if we did not get involved in vietnam, if bush did not take us into iraq, if we were not in afghanistan, if we did not have these ridiculous tax reductions, we would not have the deficit. if the wars that bush started were put on budget, we would not have had to go to china at to borrow the money.

you can blame who you want. but what do we have to do about it to fix it now? now is the time to come to get there and make certain that we are strong enough to be able to have debates as to whether or not we should pull out of afghanistan. i do not think we should have been there in the first place, but that is not going to help us resolve the problems that we are facing today. host: someone on twitter asks the following question. guest: they told us that if we were to consider reducing the corporate rate to allow them to be more competitive, that instead of keeping the money overseas where they do not have to pay american taxes, that it would be willing to invest in the united states of america. they said by investing in the

united states at a high corporate rate, they actually lose money. the full committee, republicans and democrats, a reformation of the system. everyone asked the question -- if we reduced the rates and closed the loopholes, would you accept that these loopholes be closed and not look at it as a tax increase for people who do not pay their fair share cholesteric they said that they would. the president has to put his foot to the fire. we save money. we have a more equitable distribution of the burden of government, and there is no question that the tax structure now encourages our multinational companies to invest overseas and create jobs overseas rather than having the jobs right here in the united states of america.

host: our next call is going to come from new york city. i would like you to talk about your own ethics situation in congress which is centered around your own payment of taxes. what is the message that you want to send to them about that experience? guest: that the tax code is too damn complicated. the truth of the matter is it was a political time of the year where you could take a member of 40 years with legislative experience, not a blemish on his record that served his country well, say that he committed no crimes, no act of corruption, no self in richmond, but he violated the house rules. as a result of that, the timing means we have to show him that we mean business. at the end of the day, i think that what you learn from it is,

one, never ask to be investigated for 20 years as i did, two, a small piece of property that i had a foreign country and did not pay taxes on it -- actually, taxes were paid each and every month and each and every year. they were paid to the government in the dominican republic. i did not receive any income. whatever in, was received went to reduce the mortgage that was there. had my accountant been more attendant, i would've had no tax liability at all in the estate of america. people like to say that i was convicted of 11 counts of violating rules. charlie rangel trying to raise money to help minorities in the city college of new york to be able to compete intellectually

and academically and having a school that would train them for public service. to be able to make a contribution back to this great country. when they looked at it, they said did you do this on official stationery? i thought what was doing was official. two, did you not put stamps on this postage? i said no. it is official. why should i? did you get other people to help you in the office? of course i did. i thought it was official. anyone would have to tell you that it is totally unfair to take one event n to stretch it to cover eight. at the last day, by the end up with a new attorney. they came up with a new sink in

the ethics committee and said we do not have to bring witnesses for any of this. they had what they call summary judgment. two and a half days without a witness and what people were saying, and the record indicates we have to get rid of charlie rangel before this congress concludes. due process was never a consideration of what happened to me. i have written a book, and quite frankly, that is kept me going to such an extent that nothing has happened in my life as terrible as what happened in 1950. since that time, it is not just the fact that my life was saved or speared, but have had a contributions to the ways and means committee, a public servant, reelected by my constituents, and 80% victory

after the incidents occurred. and on your program, which clearly indicates i still have a contribution to make it to the congress and to the country. it was a bad experience. based on my life, i really have not had a bad day since. host: a very quick, and for you -- a very quick comment for you. how is your working relationship with your colleagues? guest: extraordinary. as a matter of fact, i would really encourage those people who know any member of congress ask what do you really think about charlie rangel. it is very moving the number of my republican and democratic friends who wished that this would never have happened. a waiver, being a political climate, they did not want to be in a position to explain their support for me for fear that it may be misconceived as not

being the highest ethical standards. i want to make it abundantly clear. those of us to get involved in the public and tell them we expect to be treated on a higher ethical standard than most people -- i do not think it is plain to say that you have just been on treated fairly. the record will have to speak for itself, and the record is there. i committed no crime. i was not trying to enrich myself. i violated no rules intentionally. it happened at the wrong time, and they brought it up without a hearing. they did have a hearing, except that i was not there. host: let's get back to your telephone calls. new york city, thank you for waiting. you are on the air. caller: thank you very much. every time i hear about medicare,i blow up. the republicans -- paul ryan and

his republicans love it. they don't give a damn about people. i live in new york. you change plans every year for medicare. you give a barrage of all different plans coming in. you can go to a diner and it will tell you about the plan. ok. i don't go. i have been told by various administrative administrators where i go. i have been told i have a daughter that works in it d.c., a corporate health-care lawyer,

who does not deal with the medicare side, but i have heard about various things through her. i am 73. i worked until 67 and a half. i knew the plan i was going on to. a medical advantage plan. host: is the bottom line that you do not want medicare to change? is it too complicated? caller: i am sorry. i am furious. at the bottom line is, you have to be very, very highly sophisticated to do what paul ryan wants to do. he is going to give youa voucher and you're going to opt for your -- glenn host: let me interrupt you. we want to get an answer.

the current medicare system is already complicated as seniors get vouchers. guest: she is lucky that almost the entire new york city delegation agrees with her. we do believe that no one that reaches a senior age, especially at 80 years, can be shopping around with a voucher asking an insurance company to cover us when we are the people who are vulnerable. i think that the american people -- even those people who want to say they want to keep big government out of medicare -- they recognize more and more that this is an issue about americans. whether a republican, democrat, or conservative, we have to preserve medicare as we know it. i hope that spiritual leaders would recognize that health care for infants and aged people, please, no matter what political persuasion you have, call your

congressman and tell him what you honestly believe about our national responsibility to poor folks, sick folks, education, housing, shelters, and all those things that regard to the lesser of our brothers and sisters. host: the next phone call is from idaho. tim is a republican. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for your comments. number one, it just seems like, you know, all i hear is that elected officials have been complaining about social security and medicare and they say it is costing too much. it is going to bottom out. prior to this, and they knew what was going to happen, and they did not take action against it. number two, you know, obamacare,

i think it is appalling that calling it obamacare is disrespectful to our president. he is a great president. like you said, he inherited a lot of what is happening right now. i am retired military. i go to the va. while in the military, it was basically a socialized medical program. i in 61 years old. they take care of me and show me dignity and respect. you know, everybody is required to have automobile insurance. why not everybody have medical insurance? take the insurance companies and limit the amounts they can charge these people. if they are taxed, the immediately raised their rates. they make a profit. all of these ceo's and corporations make a profit, but it is not trickling down to small businesses and the people.

guest: let me thank you for the service that you have provided our country. i would hope that all veterans do not believe that they are getting good medical treatment get in touch with your congressperson because we owe them, especially those who fought for our country. let me make it abundantly clear. a social security, medicaid, and medicare expenses have nothing to do with the deficit we are facing today. it is true that we will be reducing expenditures, but that is not why wwe have this deficit. it is the fact that we went into a war that in my opinion we should not have been involved in, where we got troops all over the world, and god knows if it was not for oil we would never have been involved in

afghanistan or iraq. the whole issue as to what we are not paying off the interest on our debt is costing us -- the interest goes up the longer we have this. you are right on target. we can protect our people and make sure health care and education is out there, and we can have a fair rate of taxes if only we reform the existing system in to give confidence to the people that we borrowed money from -- investors -- to let them know that we are alive and well and have a domestic differences, but at the end of the day, we are going to be secure financially and responsible to our obligations. host: we have about two minutes left until the house comes into session today. david is an independent. good morning. caller: thank you for your military service.

you princes of politics -- look at your rings, your cufflinks. do not u -- don't you feel entitled? all of you politicians, i think, everybody ought to be voted out. you have been there too long. guest: this great constitution of hours allows you to say that. unfortunately, the community that was raised in and still live in, over 84% of them thought i was the best person that should represent them in the united states congress. i have to respect all americans. i would hope that you understand that. but thank you for your compliments about my service. i hope to continue to serve. host: you are corn to be the last one this morning.

caller: thank you for your service, mr. rangel. i just wanted to say that i agree with you, that we need to be helping the less fortunate and loving they labor. i am sure that jesus was a democrat. i am going to get some t-shirts made and then say that. i think the last election reflects one thing. the citizens united case allows to be politicians to be bought legally, and it looks to me that they got in there and bought a whole lot of freshmen, people that did not have their own minds and brains and programmed them. we are running out of time here. what do using about the campaign finances?

guest: i think is wrong. it is unfair. this is not a democrat or republican thing. it is whether or not the average american hopes and dreams that they can serve and get elected in politics without having to go through the sources mentioned by barbara. i do not want to overstate the case about spiritual leaders, but there's a lot of morality involved in what we are trying to decide today and i just hope that the silence you hear from religious leaders and not speaking out on the issues of war and peace, the economy, health, education, i hope that i do not get myself in any more trouble, but i do hope we hear from them. host: we detest speculation that we might have the first $1 billion election coming up. guest: i think we should be decent and i think we need to recognize to the rest of the world and what $1 billion can be used for.

this is what every great nation should be known for, not just bring each other down politically and charge the economy $1 billion for it. host: how will you vote on libya resolutions? guest: i will be voting for the president to explain to us, which i really thought he should have before invading

..

>> so that we can slowly

transition to go back into the cable enemy hands. the rates increases and the security forces here in logar in particular making great strides both with the afghan national army and the intelligence director. my point* of view the five months we have been here coming credible progress has been made with the police, specifically in other provinces and what the afghan government is

attempting to do is to give security back to the people. vf and local police have a program by rich the community get trained and local communities the partnership for oversight and they are equipped and paid by the ministry of interior so easily is exactly where the afghans need to be. they are in a critical time of transitioning the security over to the afghan. >> from a security

standpoint looking at the afghan army patrolling securing the population making a connection with the local people to show they are a capable force. police transitioning from counterinsurgency operations moving into those functions we will start to see transitions may see that very close to those that is write outside the location. several police tried to get out i really think it is just demonstrating telling people your government is working for you. doing development pasting on the findings that we have

been show that they have capable forces that can allow for transition at some point* in time. i think security overall is on a positive trend. i definitely think we're making improvements. one way is that people are being fed up with violence. but also to work out ways to care for themselves? when you start to do that which we are starting to see some success but it is down the road. it is is a battle ground.

do move through the area which is necessary? >> but then to sue the consequences. what we see is encouraging is how people regularly coming here to the district center and any other government agents that we have here to engage them to ask for help year and teethirty waiting for the people to solve their problems, that is a significant and it separate functions. >>

[inaudible] >> there is an ebb and flow is the way i describe it. not as if everything is on a positive trend of the time. sometimes you take a few steps back. it is a constant buzz street and reassessing a need to do with the security perspective. that is a reassessment of where you need to go and what is the next up? >> to the best of your knowledge had to gauge the opinions of the people regarding the stands? >> the few who are tired of fighting program are a man of the fights going on around them.

i think might urgency is that as the minority of people. thinking is a danger of themselves but the constraints of the daily lives for paying about security. i do not think the people look to us to provide our security. they understand they need us but we're just there but what the people really want in here from the people of baraki barak they want security. a positive step in my mind. another letter showing we're really working through the afghan forces and if people want them to provide for their needs. that is another step in the right direction.

>> >> many hearts and minds. >> you do think like that? >> what we've tried to do is facilitate army and the police say are -- above all important things. but the way we go about it is it is not us helping them to speed bump but it is ours >> check to just walk up. [laughter] >> i am sure you could.

>> they live right here with us. just on the other side. the police are here as well. pretty much everything you need is a one spot regarding baraki barak we're just now getting into the warmer months of the year. we expect activity to increase and also from a security forces perspective. but they are capable. they can communicate and provide security and the leaders player pretty well. >> what do they need from you? quote we could provide them

like some planting which is the goal. so we could help you to organize the way to resupply yourself. >> badges supervisory level but the partnered level the buy the same number of them, they operate the lead to an them down somewhere don't look like prerecord doing better than them. >> actually doing pretty well here and baraki barak.

i know there was a number of factors though when you have a district over 180,000 people and we have 43 or 45 increase that is to cure the population. since increasing demanding of felicia and. cement cattery go about doing that? >> fourth day d could should -- and if there is the altercation, we are calling the police to know that something nearby that they can handle that. the dave obery -- beef up the security mission but it is very important they can

focus with saying they will lose the trust of the people that is paramount right now. the numbers to keep increasing. we work with what we have. as far as facilitating to help them secure the district. from the afghan perspective speaking of justice and and . >> whenever you are quality off, there are better things >> i don't know how out this has gotten me any stronger

over the last year but how does that factor into his assessment of how you move forward? >> it can go a couple of ways but go we have to set priorities and then talking to run a partner perspective with the afghans. we are talking into selling bracelets or take those priorities and move forward. and then to reassess and make sure and just hope you do the right thing.

>> what do think is the most revealing part of your mission here? >> but the other two are different but she does have other problems and it can be frustrating when you don't have an understanding of why and how things are being done. it is frustrating. i think that is why just in case. we have the overall negative roach -- negative roach and i think they get up pretty well. it is a pretty normal function today we go

somewhere it is a more secure. it is a good time to practice the communicating skills of people. we have already retired a foundation. [inaudible] >> like we have been filled as policemen, though job is relationships, to show the people every day. two hours a day or three

hours a day someone makes a difference a. [inaudible] >> did they eat well with the people? was there anything from what you would defer? as the virus they keep us a send back there.

[inaudible] did you get rich and? [inaudible] >> they think of ways how we can control her with reinforcements. >> i believe it is mike the

task to stand up to the afghan national security forces through train partnerships shoulder to shoulder operations to like i told you cannot have the counter insurgency without first securing the people. they're rights more effective than we are. if we could give them the training to allow them to go out to operate effectively in the military for police and security forces them and then we could not take that paper and also put on 10 1/5 they are not secure yet.

the more we could push it to areas that are more secure. >> it is an important part of the task but to bring it to your level, . >> you let your support there. >> that is fine. >> number one, but -- it is very satisfying when they hear soldiers talk about the same thing that i talk about.

they tell stories of the strategic corporation and our source of u.s. makes the decisions every day. >> somebody that they decide to do it could affect the government -- governing body and they understand the importance of what we're doing here it is also the decision making that they do every day. probably been answered your question, respect. >> you're there to protect the afghan people and the national security forces and

the. >> unless they're standing and they have a different culture. we have to understand where they count from the. >> why do come down to a soldier levels or the afghan culture because. >> why don't we hear about it in america anymore? it is very challenging for all of us. the important thing is we are all human beings with respect and you have to understand they live in a different culture. we have all heard.

>> everything an aide to do as the commander to accomplish my mission in afghanistan. when this is over as swimsuits began to change, obviously you can tell me where we have to cut back. but honestly i do not see that at this point* and whatever i need from this congress. >> if you could tell us to one thing to those that represents a portion. what would that be? >> that is why they are right triad put mine in

there but it is usually critical to the success of the u.s. armed forces in afghanistan. it is going much better and one of these days that it is not worth fighting anymore but i will sit here to say i believe that it is and going in a right direction and with the same amount of focus we have been given to this, we can accomplish the strategic goals of the nation here in afghanistan.

>> the security in afghanistan, mine is mostly in the east with a little bit to the south there is so lot of large-scale open combat. and headquartered of the taliban. the violence depends on where you are. the province is just south of kabul which is an agricultural which we have strong relationships places like logar to date are ied galleries where the troops, a large:since presence is trying hard to lock the provinces down in order to protect kabul but every step they take their

threat and by eight ied as per year that are killing hundreds of troops and many times that number of afghans every year. i was caught up been the ied explosion in the province of logar and the u.s. army engineers whose job is to find the ied before they hit the other troops. >> what are we doing here today? >> any class quote obstacles and also to protect the

afghan negative show. >> it is important because of the ability to move freely. >> day rollout in the gigantic vehicles very tall with the robotic arm and then another that has a scanner on the front for scanning for bombs and then also for protection. >> it is practical to conceal a bomb sony will this go up and down and skin

for its hoping it would blow up one of their vehicles so even though the world ms. generally protected. it is hard to destroy them. they take a higher proportion of casualties than most units >> they are a little less acceptable to maybe even travel on foot. to walk up and down the roads tuesday and with the world war ii sell medical detectors if they ever hear

kb they get on their hands and knees too gently uncover whatever is lying underneath. and if it is the ied they back away and call in the bomb squad. the army from logar was checked. they will come in and drop the pieces of and blowing it up in times. this is. >> i am hitting down the road than the smaller roads. they led us into a nomadic distance but one company

controlled by that logar province, that base is done harm to but two days later there we're struck by an ied and the insurgents follow that up with rockets and gunfire called they complex ambushed and two soldiers were killed. >> we just conducted what is proven to be successful with the threat in afghanistan those that use a mechanical tools available then to find a more ied than any other. it is proof we have no disadvantage is lowered greater risk but to change them.