separately model a housing sector, but we -- we have not looked at a proposal that targets a large swath of mortgage interest deductions either for new loans or existing -- >> because i think that would be very important for the committee to understand in terms of the economic impact if that was removed. second thing i want to get back briefly to this cap or if the 15% on capital gains was increased. again, you mentioned earlier my question -- there's a question as to how many folks if you raise that percentage, would it be -- would folks not bank as much or save as much? would they spend it? what is the impact on jobs if that 15% capital gains tax was

raised in terms of the spending power that folks will have taken away because they won't have that income for themselves? have you done any studies on that at our or not? >> we -- >> particularly reflected with the higher tax rate in earlier years. >> well, congressman upton, under present law that 15% rate moves to 20% in 2013, and, again, we have not recently had any, really any requests to analyze a broader change to raise that rate, so we have not undertaken, you know, a macroeconomic analysis, and i don't even think we've done one of our conventional estimates recently for a change in that rate. >> okay. the last question that i have is, i know earlier this year former assistant treasury

secretary pam olson told the senate finance committee that if the amt survived tax reform, that the committee should go back and start over. i'd like to think that we would have the same view among the 12 of us here. what are the compliance and complexity issues involved as it relates to removing the amt? i know as i understand it as it was first put into place, the view was it was going to impact about 16 american families, and today, of course, it's tens of thousands, so what -- what advice do you have as it relates to that? >> well, the amt was redined in 1986, and really the intent of congress in 1986 wasn't per se a small number of higher income families. it was really -- it was really

to say we are broadening the base and we wanted to put some overall cap on the ability of people to take special deductions or exclusions that remain. now, that in and of itself did not automatically target at any particular income level. the targeting was by the exemptions. complexity -- the fact you run a dual tax system, and, you know, you plan or you have to prepare your taxes under one schedule and then go recompute under a different schedule. you know, obviously additional time taken, additional complexity, additional chance for error. i think everyone on our staff, of course, you know, recognizes that a number of people are

frustrate with the dual system, a difficult policy problem that i know the members face. >> co-chair recognizes congressman clyburn of south carolina. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. barthold, thank you so much. i have two quick questions. when testifying last week, i asked a question about unemployment and what impact that number of has on the deficit. could you give me some idea as to whether or not you think there's any correlation between that unemployment rate, job growth, and the deficit? >> between job growth and -- >> job growth -- let me ask another way. reducing unemployment, dropping unemployment to 8.6%, can you give me some idea what impact that has on the deficit?

>> well, i'm sure that doug probably gave a more precise estimate. >> i assure you he didn't. he said he'd get back to us. >> okay, well, then, i'll wait for that too. [laughter] the general principle that he's going to do is to get lower unemployment, you're getting stronger economic growth. stronger economic growth means there's more national income meaning our tax base is expanding so if we could magically get more economic growth, you know, doing nothing, then the deficit would decline from increased economic growth, and so -- >> so there's a correlation. >> i, too, will wait for doug's analysis on that. >> let me ask you what impact would lipton payroll taxes have if they were to lift that cap? there's $106,800 today. if that were moved to 212, 215?

>> we have not had any cause to estimate a proposal such as that. if the joint select committee wanted to explore that, we could provide an estimate of that proposal. >> mr. chairman, would it be okay to ask for -- i'd like to see some analysis -- >> okay. we'll provide. >> maybe incrementally up to doubling it. >> okay. so wage base of $212,000 was your -- >> or maybe -- maybe $150,000-$212, ,000 a couple steps. >> halfway marks? >> yes. >> okay. >> i'd like to see -- you'll get back to us with numbers as to who is paying how much?

i know i've been hearing talk of late about whether or not the low income pay their fair share of taxes. could you provide us with some kind of a profile of who the taxpayers are and what kind of taxes they are paying? >> okay. we have, forboth ways and means and finance, for some hearing work have provided some analysis like that. i'll assemble that and i'll get that to the joint select committee members. >> i would very much like to see that. thank you so much, and i yield back. >> chair recognizes congressman camp of michigan. >> well, thank you, mr. chairman. the joint committee on taxation regularly publishes data on average tax rates paid by americans, do they not? >> well, actually we don't make it a routine practice, but we end up for work for your committee and for the finance committee often preparing that information. >> and you have recently published data on that? >> yes, we have.

>> and it's made available to the public. >> yes, yes it is. >> you're not alone. the irs also does this. >> the irs reports with a lag because they report on actual compilelations of tax returns filed. >> and congressional budget office does it too, do they not? >> using slightly different modeling assumptions, but, yes, they do. >> according to the recent joint committee on taxation, and i just want to go with this point of millionaires and billionaires pay lower rates than middle class families which is out there in the public domain, and i just want to go at this point. >> certainly. >> on taxation data on income, social insurance, and excise taxes, americans with incomes between $50,000-$75,000 pay a average tax rate of 12.8%, and americans with incomes over a million dollars pay an average tax rate of 23.6%. >> that's income and payroll taxes combined, yes, sir, that

sundays -- yes. >> that sounds correct, and the irs backs this up. every agency does it a little bit different analysis, but they also have the most recent data saying on individual tax rates, americans making a million or more pay 23.3%, so that closely tracks what you say, but they say americans between $50,000-$100,000 pay an average rate of 8.9%. >> okay. >> and cbo has similar analysis according to their most recent data on federal taxes, and that's income, social insurance, corporate income taxes, and excise taxes, and household income. the top 1% of american households who earn the average with a category of above $1.7 million pay an average tax of 31.2%, and middle income families pay an average -- that's between an average income of $60700 pay 14.2%.

in america, it's just not the case that millionaires and billionaires pay at a lower rate than middle class families. >> that's -- >> and -- >> that is why i was trying to clarify the question whether mr. buffet was talking about marginal tax rates or talking average tax rates. what you're reporting are all what we refer to as average tax rates, taking total amount of tax paid dividing by total income. >> well, frankly, mr. buffet needs to give his secretary a raise. [laughter] i also want to talk about the comparisons in income of salary versus capital gains, and they are different, aren't they in >> one's return to investment, the other's return to labor effort. >> and in common parlance, one is taxed twiced?

>> capital gains from equities from stock, the growth in the value that gives rise to the gain is in most cases from increased earnings by the business and the business is taxed at the business level as you noted. you can also have capital gains on other capital assets that are not in corporate form. >> but for the average american in terms of the rhetorical discussion here, capital gains is taxed twice, salaries are not. now, salaries are deductible by business entities, are they not? >> that's correct. >> that's another difference >> isn't that correct? >> that's the single level of tax. >> right. so the comparison of the two is not actually comparing two like commodities or two like things which is the point i want to make. i appreciate your comments and the work the joint committee on taxation does on analyzing tax data. it does track with the irs and cbo are also saying about

average tax rates paid by both middle income and high income americans. thank you for your testimony, i yield back. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> congressman mr. van jhollen is now recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. we're talking averages of averages, average taxpayers over certain income levels. one of the ideas of trying to make this fair is to make sure that no individual taxpayer can take advantage of a lot of special preampses, and i would point out that the top 400 richest americans all making over $110 million a year and making an average of $271 million a year paid only 18% of their income in income taxes in 2008 effective rate, but what i really want to turn to is the larger conversation about tax expenditures that has been discussed by many tax experts for a long time, but got more popular as a result of simpson-

bowles who looked at this. there's a number of ways to deal. one is to look them over and decide to eliminate them or a subset of them. that could be used to reduce the deficit, raise revenue, and also buy down rates. another way to do is it along the lines of the one of the proposals that the president made is for higher income earners, for example, the 35% rate, say their deductions would get the 28% deduction level opposed to 35% so that higher income individuals weren't getting, you know, a disproportion gnat benefit from the deduction. a third way, and this is what i want to focus on is to not look at any particular deduction, but to find a way to limit the overall number of deductions, and then you don't have to necessarily get into a fight

whether this has important policies or another policy. one way that's been done in the past was something named after former congressman peas, don peas, still an aspect of the tax code which sort of phases out your deductions based on your income, and one of the concerns raised by some people about that, including republican colleagues 1 it changes indirectly or the top marginal rates, but there's another way to go about this, and i want to explore that, and this is in the interest of searching for commonground, and martin felledstein, economic council under president reagan. he's wrote about this in "wall street journal," the solution to the national debt. read about it in the washington wash, how to cut the -- "washington post," how to cut the deficit without raising

taxes. i want to read a portion of the article. . it says, "there's a way to cut deaf sifts without cutting taxes. it subsidizes a variety of things." he says with respect to the bowles-simpson proposal, "eliminate all tax expenditures raising trillion a year in tax revenue using all but $80 billion of that to cut taxes and i think that devotes too little money to deficit reduction in a time where fiscal deficits are dangerously large." he goes on to present another alternative because as you pointed out there may be tax expenditures whether for policy or political reasons people are not going want to go to after. he says let's get at the over all issue." "congress should cap the benefit taxpayer c's receive from the combined effect of different tax expenditures.

it could be set as a cap of the individual's adjusted gross income and subject to an absolute dollar amount. my question to you, that approach, does if address the concerns some have raised with respect to the so-called peace's approach in that the approach being presented does not affect the top marginal rates of the marginal rates? >> the short answer is yes. do you want me to explain why? >> yes, if you could. again, this is offered in the spirit of finding commonground here. >> by contrast, the provision base -- basically says if you earn more income, i take more of your itemized deductions away. that is the effect as it's drafted of increasing your marginal rate by 3 #%, so if you're otherwise in the 31%

bracket, your effective marginal tax rate on earning additional income, and if you're subject to the peas' provision is 31%. what professor feldstein proposed is a cap based on adjusted gross income. as your gross income goes up, the cap actually goes up, and so if the cap were binding on some taxpayers, the affect the proposal would be to i earn an additional $100, well that will increase my allowable deductions by whatever the percentage cap is so i may increase deductions a little bit which means my taxable income goes up by $100 or if the cap is binding slightly less at $100 leaving the marginal tax rate either unchanged or in some cases will

reduce it. now, i, too, read the "wall street journal" op-ed piece by professor feldstein, and we have state income taxes deductibility and the state income taxes are generally at a rate above 2%, so the state income tax would generally go up, and increase your itemized deductions meaning it's a wash. you would not get the reduced marginal rate effect, but you would be held -- >> at the federal level, there could be a reduction. >> not if you're in a state -- >> and i would -- >> you would never increase the marginal rate. it would only hold it constant. >> i just urge my colleagues to take a look at this concept. >> the co-chair recognizes co-chair senator murray of washington. >> thank you very much. i wanted to ask your opinion about this notion that tax

expenditures are just another form of government spending. i've heard chairman, the fed reserve, former chairman alan greenspan, and martin feldstein was just referred to arguing tax expenditures are a difference in form of a different kind of government spending. what's your assessment of whether tax expenditures are another form of government spending in another package. >> well, senator, that's the construct of the tax expenditure is to say where am i doing something special? there's a lot of different ways that government policymakers can choose to do something special. you could have a direct subsidy, or you could have a subsidy through the internal revenue code. in that sense, you think of tax

expenditures as spending by another name. now that sort of begs of question of why, you know, on policy merits, the congress decided to do it this way. in some cases a direct spending program could be easier to administer and more efficacious, could require fewer rules. it's possible that the opposite could also be the case, that it could be, you know, easier to administer a tax benefit than, you know, a specific new government program. remember, it's -- it's the notion measured against an idea of a more theoretically pure income tax saying where i'm deviating from that is i'm not measuring income correctly or not measuring income theoretically correctly and putting a value to that deviation, and so i could have said, here, measure someone's

income correctly and then provide a subsidy related to whatever the activity is that you wanted to do. >> okay. well, we have heard over and over and over again about the need to review and reduce redundant, waste offul, inefficient government spending. the budget control act, which we just did, cuts a trillion dollars over the next ten years. that's a very important step in that direction. these budget discussions and cuts are impacting directly a lot of people now as we try to put together appropriations bills so people in the committee are watching the pain. we've reduced and eliminated programs that benefit students, police officers on the street, reduced support for programs that keep people in emergency sheetedders rather than homeless. i mean, these cuts have an impact, however, we have still largely left untouched whether it makes sense to keep a whole

host of the tax expendtures, whether we should continue mortgage interest tax breaks for a yacht that qualifies as a second home. whether the entire amount of the $8 billion charitable request for her care of her dogs should be left up touched, whether kentucky horses should be given special tax breaks. we have a tax credit for employees on former indian lands in oklahoma which is now covering two-thirds of 245 state, so, you know, maybe some of these tax credits make sense, maybe they don't. we've had an intense discussion here about earmarks. we have not had an intense discussion about tax expenditured. i wanted to ask you if you see any policy reason why we could not analyze or consider individual tax expenditures for can candidates outside of comprehensive reform or wait for reform for the whole system?

>> senator, those sort of decisions are in your hands. i mean, the tax writing committees in their oversight role are looking at a number of the provisions all the time, so i guess i don't have an answer that's better than that for you. you can certainly explore the merits of different provisions. >> thank you. i yield back. >> the co-chair recognized senator kyl from arizona. >> following up on senator murray's question, are tax expenditures another form of government spending -- in looking at the ten items listed under tax expenditure in table 3, isn't it the fact one of those, the earned income tax credit is scored as government outlays? >> that's true. >> second, relative to representative's line of questioning, just to put a little bit of an exclamation point on this, what -- let's say

you're a teacher, you hold stocks, have a pension, it's got stocks and companies, you get a devra dividend from that. the value of what you receive is affected by what the corporation first had to pay in its corporate taxes; isn't that correct? >> that's the point. >> so the old saw that corporations don't pay taxes, people do is actually true? so when -- and i presume that warren buffet's income is largely derived from passive income of one form or another, dividends or whatever corporate earnings there are on his significant investments, so to really calculate what he pays 234 taxes, you'd also have to know what companies he's invested in paid in the way of corporate income taxes, would you not? >> to figure out the full burden --

>> and that's true of anybody else with stock investments for example. >> yes. >> thank you very much. >> i will yield to senator portman. >> thank you, madam chair. i'd like too dig deeper on the individual side now that we're there and back to the basic question, what should the burden be? we talked about that, taxation on a weak economy, and then what's the best system? looking at your testimony, starting on page 35, you talk about the simpson bowles approach, and you make the point that some of the revenue estimations are different than some of the general reporting from the simpson-bowles committee because there are interactions between some of the tax preferences; however, my

general question for you is have you all had the opportunity to do an analysis, to do a revenue estimate of the simpson-bowels proposals? i know it's a menu in essence. >> the short answer, senator, is no, and that's for the reason i elaborated on in the testimony which is because underlying the idea of eliminating tax expenditures needs policy calls on what, you know, what the members intend to do, what effective date the repeal mortgage interest deduction -- would it be for mortgages or all -- >> didn't provide enough specifics to come up with a score? >> there's a long -- if decisions were made, we would get to work, but there's a lot of decisions. >> but do you disagree with their menu? do you think their analysis is is inaccurate based on the

reduction of certain preferences? >> well, i think i have to disagree some. what they're saying is if you gave -- you know, if you gave several hundred billion dollars over a ten year period, that that would enable you to achieve, you know, x percentage point reduction in individual rates. that part of the analysis 1 probably, you know, reasonablebly consistent with the analysis that we'd do. the point i was making is that you can't take this top-ten list here, add it 7, and say, oh, that money's available to reach that same amount -- >> because there's transitions, timing issues -- >> and even some of these estimates are tax expenditure calculations that do noting the for taxpayer behavior that would occur if you eliminate them. >> some of the interactions. well, that would be helpful to give you more specificity as to

timing and specificically, you know, -- specifically, you know, which preferences we're talking about. the scores are value l. i know you've done this for senator wyden and his good work, and senator coates this year. i know there's tax estimates on the individual and corporate side; is that correct? >> well, you know, officially, we never comment on work we do for individual members, but if senator wyden told you that we did work for him, we did. >> i just revealed a great secret here. there's been a lot of work done on the impact of some of these changes and preferences -- >> we have done work on a number of provisions that are like a number of things that people want to look at when they talk about modifying tax expenditures, but, again -- >> yeah. >> it matters what you want to do. >> can you tell us what the cost of eliminating emt under the next ten years under the current

law baseline? >> yeah, i think so -- >> 1.7 -- >> i think we're a little bit about 1.1 or $1.2 trillion. >> with or without extension of the tax cuts, current policy or current law? under the current law baseline? >> that's under present law which assumes that -- >> e limb in this case of all of -- elimination of all bush tax cuts. >> yes, allowing them to expire and the current amt patch. >> which affects the amt costs; correct? >> correct. >> how about a patch? what is a patch under the scenario of current law assuming that we are -- it's about 600, 650? >> i think it's closer to 800 billion. >> okay. that -- then that again

assumed -- sounds like the two two rates do not expire or assume current law 1234 >> under current law. ..

>> some of the mp effect has built into the present law. the way our macroeconomic analysis has taken us, we take our commend showing modeling analysis and use that to determine what the effective correct tax rates are in different classes of taxpayers on wage income and they return of saving. your specific question is have we done an analysis that made says maintaining present law except for a change in the a and t., we have not done such a an analysis isolating it. >> thank you very and chair. >> senator kerry. >> i was reminded a little while ago somebody mentioned the tax reform act i guess a baby six. i had the pleasure of voting to get rid of the 70% and come down

to i think i originally chose 28, 14. >> 14 and 28. >> we found we couldn't make it work. we popped it up to 33 and then there were these incremental changes so we had some experience with this process. what i would like to ask you first of all is, the tax expenditures are substantially higher today, are they not? then they were immediately after the tax reform act of 1986? >> senator kerry tax expenditures are a measure of the value for example. >> both in total size and as a percentage of tax receipts.

they are substantially higher than they were immediately after 1986. >> well, a nuance i want to add is the calculation of the tax expenditure depends upon the tax rates. since tax rates today are higher than they were immediately after the 86 act absent anything else. >> but the tax expenditure per se hasn't been responsible for the growth. it is not the tax expenditure that suddenly change. it is other things, is it not? choices we made about what to provide as a preference perhaps and that is what the last figure in my short packet indicated was that congress has made policy decisions. i want to come to that for a minute because i think it is important for all of us to connect. i think we have to understand the relationship between those choices. the actual tax expenditure itself post-86 is substantially the same as the one we have today.

but other things that have -- for instance, are some of the growth in tax expenditures attributable to the increase in the tax rates? >> yes, that was the point it was just making in measuring the value. >> so that is one increase on it. another increase, didn't we contribute to their relatively substantially when we asked the preferential on capital gains and dividends? >> that is one of the larger taxes. >> that increase that expenditure? likewise the incentive of retirement savings. >> retirement savings are as i noted here, it makes our top 10 list. >> right. and in total those are the things that's most substantially contributed to the growth of tax expenditures, the policy choices we made? >> that policy choices that congress has made are factored

in to change the tax expenditure budget. i will note that we did include in the appendix to the submitted testimony a list of all the tax expenditure items added since the 80's. >> that's right in that is very helpful and i think we need to bear fruit. what i want to try to bear down is all of the major proposals -- i consistently hear colleagues on both sides of the aisle and i share this. it would be great if we could simplify. it would be great if we could create roe growth outcomes. it would be terrific if we could broaden the base of on the interest rates. are those worthy goals that we are pursuing? >> improved efficiency, more growth? it sounds like a. >> most of their proposals to do those kinds of things envision reducing the sort of six marginal rates and bring them

down to three rates. that is what you hear most often, and a lower rate, corporate rate, the 25% seems to be the one that is ringing bells these days. is it possible in your judgment to structure a system that lowers the rates, broadens that days and improves progressivity and creates growth in your judgment? can you envision that based on your experience all these years in doing this? >> it is feasible. as a tempering factor, remember that it is often the case in policymaking the goals will be in conflict, reducing tax rates sometimes is in conflict with reducing what you perceive to be the overall fairness or equity of outcomes. improving efficiency can mean that sometimes things are made more complicated rather than

less complicated, so there can be lots of trade-offs. there are lots of different policy decisions, but it is a worthy thing to try. >> is it -- boyle and 86 for instance we tried to get really super simple and we created those to rates but then we had that tax bubble that got created as a result. just as a matter of helping people to understand the difficulty here, can you talk about that? >> how that bubble came about. >> how the bubble came about? >> what i'm getting at is can we create a system where you have two or three rates and you don't create a bubble? >> the bubble sort of -- you remember the bubble was marginal. it was about marginal rates. what the bubble did wasn't phased out the benefit of the

standard deduction, and the lower rates if you are above a certain income level. so while the bubble had this range of income over which the marginal rate of tax was 33% and then the marginal rate of tax drops down to 28%, the effect of the bubble via eliminating essentially to such a taxpayer the benefit of a zero rate of tax of standard deduction or the personal exemption or the 14% bracket had the affected by the time you were at the end of the bubble, your average tax rate was 28% but everywhere in the bubble your average tax rate was less than 28%, less than 28% but increasing so the bubble promoted overall progressivity but had the parents of -- well that didn't have the appearance. it had the actual effect of a marginal tax rate of 33% for someone in the bubble range and then the marginal tax rates

dropped back down to 28% eon the bubble range. but the person beyond the bubble range had a higher average tax rate than a person in the bubble or a person beneath the bubble. >> so it is all very simple. >> sort of a technical point. >> it is an important point. i appreciated. thank you. >> thanks very much madam chairman. i want to go back to the topic of capital gains because i just think this is very important. the one observation that i want to make is that i think it is abundantly clear that it is the investment of the accumulated capital that makes economic growth possible, and any policy that diminishes that accumulated capital is very very dangerous in terms of its implications for economic growth. congressman camp and senator kyl both observe that when capital gains are imposed on depreciated

value of a stock, it is almost certainly a form of double taxation because the underlying stock has been -- had the income associated with attacks in the first place and that is certainly completely true. i would like to make another point about this which has to do with inflation. mr. barthold i am sure you would agree in the post-war era our economy had no sustained periods of deflation. we had inflation of varying levels but consistently. and we charged -- we impose a capital gains tax on the nominal gain in the value of an asset on the real gain. so, that is to say that we impose a capital gains tax on the inflationary gain. is that true? >> yes, that's correct. we tax nominal values throughout the revenue code. >> if you had a sustained period were inflation averaged a 3% as

the math works out in 24 years the value of assets double. i shouldn't say the value, the nominal price doubles that get the real value hasn't gone up at all in that scenario and yet we would still impose a capital gains tax, wouldn't we? >> that's correct. >> so in effect what we are doing in the case of assets that appreciate in value is the appreciation were due only to really the loss of the value of the dollar and inflation, hewitt had zero real gain and yet you would pay a tax so you would literally be paying a tax despite having no gain. in real terms. is not true? >> that is correct, sir. >> so it seems to me that this phenomenon has long been part of the the recent database we try to mitigate that by having the capital gains rate that is lower than ordinary income tax rates. >> that has been one of the stated policy rationales. >> thanks and i will yield the balance of my time.

>> under agreement we had agreed each member would have an additional minute. mr. barthold you have been generous with your seat time here. in the interest of being a good example i will yield back my time. representative becerra do you have one additional question? >> i do and i will make rapid use of my one minute. mr. barthold very interesting here because i think everyone it would agree that the tax code is neither simple or transparent and the reality is that complexity, the opposite of simplicity is what helps people hide what they should pay in taxes. so, if you have complexity and at the same time you don't have transparency which is act like complexity in helping you hide your income, you could get away without paying what would be your otherwise fair share. now it is really fascinating the way we treat corporations because there is this concerned that we tax twice income that

comes from a corporation because ultimately the individual is the one who pays the taxes. are in the americans forced to form a corporation? >> no, sir. corporate is an elected form. >> writes so if it is so bad why are so many people forming corporations because they get certain benefits by doing so whether i'm a tech site or otherwise so i think we have to recognize complexity and transparency weather on the corporate side or individual site should be removed so we can truly understand how we get to a fair tax code. i yield back. >> representive van hollen. >> thank you madam chairman and to pick up on mr. becerra's question because we have heard a lot about the double taxation of capital gains, but isn't it true that there are many assets that get the preferred 15% capital gains rate that are not subject to another layer of taxation? real estate, commodities, s

corporations? isn't that true? >> yes, i made that point briefly. mr. camp was discussing that. >> do you have any idea how that compares in magnitude to the overlapping? >> off the top of my head i don't. our staff has looked at that and i can, i can report back to the committee on, what the irs creates a sale of capital asset files where we get detailed information on what sort of assets do people realize in reporting capital gains. we will run some tabulations on the silko file and i will make that available to the members of the joint select committee. >> thank you mr. barthold. >> thank you very much. i want to thank the witness today for participating and all of our members who were here today as well. i remind all of our members that they have three business days to submit questions for the record and i would ask the witness to try and respond isgrigg is

possible. so all of our member should submit their questions by the close of business on tuesday, september 27. and with that without objection the joint committee stands adjourned. [inaudible conversations]

>> the joint chiefs of staff joint chiefs of staff have agreed to remove the question regarding one's sexual orientation from future versions of the enlistment application. and it will not be asked in the interim. >> this week marked the end of "don't ask don't tell," the policy that kept openly and personnel from serving in the military and more than 14,000 discharged servicemembers can apply for reinstatement. follow the history of "don't ask don't tell" on line, all archived and searchable at the

c-span video library. the environmental protection agency plans to enforce 3-year-old smog standards that will put in place into the bush white house. the bpa will wait until 2013 to move to stricter air quality standards. the head of the bpa, lisa jackson, was asked about the changes at this house energy and commerce oversight hearing. it is about two hours, 50 minutes. >> good morning everybody. the subcommittee on oversight investigation will come to order. and i will open with my opening statement. ladies and gentlemen this past january, president obama issued executive order 13563 to improve regulations and the regulatory review process. noting that a regulatory system quote must protect public

health, welfare, safety and our environment while promoting economic growth, innovation, competitiveness and job creation end quote. with job creation in the nation's economic recovery the focal point the subcommittee has sought to get a clearer understanding of the agency regulatory action under this administration. today in our seventh hearing in this effort we will examine the epa regulatory planning analysis and major actions taken. well we agree with the principles outlined in the executive order we are disappointed that epa does not seem to have followed those principles. time and time again over the last three years we have seen the epa issue and oppressive new regulation that has dramatically raised the cost of doing business in the united states and indeed have driven numerous american companies out of business altogether. the epa is unquestionably an important public health

regulatory agency, which has contributed to the tremendous improvements in clean air, safe drinking water and environmental quality over the past 40 years. it is also an agency that wields tremendous influence over the essential ingredients of economic recovery, the cost of manufacturing, construction and power production. the reliability of energy and the certainty of future rules and standards in the decisions that drive the nation's commerce. since the beginning of this administration, epa has issued or proposed a number of large complex and expensive rules. the pace of these rulemaking of such is not always clear. epa is fully considered or inform the public about the potential negative consequences of its actions on the united states economy, job creation and our ability to compete with countries around the world.

when i considered the decisions in the first week of the administration to pursue and endangered for greenhouse gases. this want of regulatory predicate for setting fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks and epa estimated cost of about $60 billion. the president announced the prospect of this new regulation at a rose garden ceremony, but there was no public discussion about the fact that the new regulation also would have automatically triggered new permitting requirements required by the clean air act for all stationary sources of greenhouse gas emissions. these permitting requirements meant that 82,000 stationary sources annually would need to obtain pre-construction permits, another 6.1 million sources would need to obtain operating permits. epa estimated that absent a rulemaking to exempt the

majority of the sources, the permitting costs alone would be $193 billion over just a three-year period. the cost of operations are not initiating new projects was never taken into account. to avoid this absurd and self-imposed economic calamity, epa issued quote tailoring rules to exempt most but not all sources but left open the possibility of sweeping more entities into the new permitting regime at a later date. this affects the entire u.s. economy as the future of greenhouse gas permitting exists under a cloud of uncertainty. now in another case in january 2010, epa chose to reconsider ground-level ozone standards that just recently in 2008. although the proposed standards would potentially sweep vast areas of the nation into noncompliance and cost upwards

of $90 billion per year, the agency's thoughts to rush and issue final standards just eight months. the agency missed that deadline but was still promising to issue final standards and tell the president himself, recognizing that issuing such a rule would cause him severe electoral problems in the next election. recently requested that the administrator refrained from issuing the ozone rule at this time. the resident is on board however with issuing onerous new regulations in 2013. after the election. just yesterday this committee reported legislation that would provide adequate time for the epa to develop standards for hazardous air pollutants for boilers and cement plants after became apparent that epa's complex and admittedly rushed rulemaking results and requirements simply unachievable in the real world.

under the clean air act the resource conservation recovery act and various other statute epa appears to be rushing forward with rulemaking is that just don't make sense for those who know what it takes to implement them and those concerned with ensuring we simply have a vital economy. it does not appear the president stated priorities were thoughtful, transparent and sound rulemaking have taken hold at the epa. i'm particularly interested in learning about epa's future regulatory plans and how the cumulative impact of his rules inform its planning. does epa consult adequately with other agencies? does epa operate openly with effective stakeholders, stayed in the public? these are important questions. i look forward to our discussion with the honorable lisa jackson. with that i recognize the ranking member diana degette. >> thank you very much mr. chairman for convening this hearing. i think oversight directed

towards ensuring efficient and effective federal regulation is an important endeavor and i'd like to work with a majority to have efforts to root out unnecessary and wasteful regulations. as a long-time member of this distinguished subcommittee i believe the purpose of this committee is to investigate what can be done, not to forward the political agenda so i know we are going to have a heated discussion today but i think we should keep it focused on exactly what regulations we are talking about, what but the purposes and in fact if they are necessary. to that end, i'm delighted to welcome our witness today. it epa administrator lisa jackson. administrator jackson oversees implementation of some of the most important legislation ever passed by congress and it is my view she is one of the most gutsy and effective members of the administration, so i'm glad to have her. the main topic of the conversation today will be jobs. i know that my colleagues on the

other side of the aisle will assert that environmental rules and regulations are stifling jobs and harming economic growth but this is simply not the case. we need to keep in mind the purpose of the clean air act to protect the health of americans. now come in 2010, alone, the clean air act prevented 160,000 premature deaths, millions of respiratory illnesses, 3 million lost school days and 13 million lost work days. by 2020, the clean air act's total benefit to the economy will reach chu trillion dollars outweighing costs more than 321. the clean air act and other environmental -- do something else. they create millions of jobs and in they could create millions more jobs if it weren't for the inaction of this congress to pass climate change legislation. compliance of the clean air act

generates investment in design manufacture installation and poutn.ion of equipmentredu the environmental technology and services sector has grown steadily since the acts accident option generating $300 billion in revenue and supporting nearly 1.7 million jobs in 2008 alone. the clean air act rules recently announced by the epa will only add to this remarkable record. for example, investments spurred by the utility of toxins rules will generate 1.5 million new jobs by 2015. these will be high paying skilled professional jobs that cannot be outsourced. district chairman one of the biggest is this committee could take to boost the economy would be to pass laws over to legislation to combat climate change and usher in an era of clean energy. now you don't need to be a democrat to believe this. you just need to live in the science-based world.

two years ago when this committee passed landmark climate legislation, we heard from business leaders that there were billions of dollars sitting on the sidelines, just waiting for clear rules of the road to be drawn up for the nation's energy future. i just met with the colorado room at the electric folks yesterday who told me the same thing and these business leaders continue to ask congress to act. just last week for example the american energy innovation council led by people like bill gates, venture capitalist john dower and general electric ceo of jeff immelt implored the federal government to invest in clean energy technology. i want to read to you from these leaders recent reports, catalyzing ingenuity. quote on innovation it is in the core of economic future prosperity. new ideas are the key to fostering sustained economic growth, creating jobs in new

industries and continuing america's global leadership. of all the sectors in the economy where innovation has a critical role to play, the energy sector stands out. ready access to reliable, affordable forms of energy is not only vital for the functioning of the larger economy, it is also vital to people's everyday lives. it also is significantly impacts the country's national security, environmental well-being and economic competitiveness. mr. chairman here is what this leader concludes. quote, unfortunately the country has yet to embark on a clean energy innovation program commensurate with the scale of the national priorities that are at stake. mr. chairman this committee should listen to these titans of the economy. we should be passing legislation to unleash americans innovation and create american jobs in the new energy economy. instead unfortunately this congress is sitting on the sidelines pretending that scientific and economic reality do not exist.

in march, every single republican member of this committee voted against the overwhelming scientific consensus to deny the very existence of global climate change. many republican members are using this solyndra debacle as an excuse to give all-out cuts to energy bunning. this denial of her -- is bad for the economy and bad for the environment. so i'm glad to have this discussion about the rules and regulatory reform efforts and i hope we can come together in a science-based discussion to talk about new energy and the new economy. thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you the gentlelady and i recognize a chairman for the full energy and commerce committee, that's anguished gentleman from -- mistruths and. >> throughout the year this committee has focused its oversight and legislation on the mitigating of the job destroying impacts of burdensome -- the subcommittee's examination of the raided her principles this

helps to sharpen our focus on important gaps between the administration's rhetoric and reality. the rhetoric which i agree with is that we should implement reasonable and achievable rags to riches of the health safety and well-being of the american people. we recognize that well-being must conclude economic growth and healthy job creation. the president has talked about the importance of cost benefit analysis to ensure that regulations do more good than harm. in reality unfortunately as the regulatory onslaught from epa that is just trying jobs and stifling economic growth with financial burdens and uncertainty. in some cases the cost benefit analysis is completely absent. ..

and decision-making in the first place. we want to epn administration to comply with its own principles as outlined in the present executive order and regulation. today will hear directly from administrator jackson to learn just what steps she plans to take to ensure that these actions will match the administration's regulatory redrick and i yield to my friend, the chairman emeritus of the committee, mr. martin. >> thank you, mr. chairman. welcome again, not an administrator. it's good to have you with us.

there are many things that are ailing our country right now, not an administrator. and it seems that your agency appears to be at ground zero, a fair number of them. since president obama took office and he became deep in a straighter at the environmental protection agency, epa has rushed to issue rules on greenhouse gases, which the congress reject it in the last congress, i was on, which our president just reject it several weeks ago. paul ash, eyelash and cement industries, which the industries are strenuously object being to. my home state of texas, last year the epa reads out the flexible air quality permit rules that had been in place from us 20 years starting with president clinton. just recently, the epa announced across state air pollution rule,

or texas coach wasn't even included in the full six to go to expect it to a sound somewhere between 25% and 40% of the reductions. this is somewhat puzzling since our monitors indicate we are in compliance and it's an epa model that seems to indicate in certain states that might be a problem. the cost of all these rules is in a billion dollars annually resulting in thousands of jobs lost. just last week in my state, in my congressional district, company subject to the air pollution announced the closure of two minds in reduction or closure of two power plants and in my district alone is probably going to cost in the order of magnitude 1000 jobs. we have a president who says we need to create jobs, not destroy jobs. we have a president who says we need a regulatory environment

that has a cost benefit analysis. and yet your agency, and epa seems to ignore these admonitions. it has is if there is for evil genie at the epa that is bound and determined to but every regulation possible on the books as soon as possible, regardless of the economic consequences. i hope today, not an administrator, that we can get into some of the specific rules. we have a number of very specific questions that we want to ask and as always, we look forward to having the answer them and tell us where your agency is paired with that, yield back to your >> the yields back. or three seconds. dr. burgess, do you want to take five, 10 seconds? >> yeah, let me submit my entire opening statement to the record. want to remind the administrator

as we have had to remind every cabinet secretary, every head of the federal agencies that although you work for the executive branch, congress is coequal. when we ask for stuff, you need to produce it. we have been stonewalled in this committee over and over again in those states have to stop because the american people are asking serious questions. they want answers and it's up to this committee to get those answers for them. >> i thank the gentleman. >> mr. chairman, and i stress the gentleman from texas to provide for us examples of where you can epa has stonewalled, not now, but for the record because this statement has been made and baked to see representation. >> particularly title ii. >> i would like to see documentary -- >> victim friend from california is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this is our seventh year in and will be told by our colleagues across the aisle, epa needs to a better job.

we will hear them say they need to do better analyzed regulations before finalizing. they need to listen to concerns about proposals before acting. at this hearing is in about reform. it's just a continuation of a long series of attacks on our argument and public health. this is the most anti-environmental house of representatives in history. so far this congress, the house of representatives has voted again and again to block action to address climate change, to halt efforts to reduce air and water pollution, to undermine protections for public lands and coastal areas and to weaken protection of the environment in other ways. mr. chairman, my staff prepared a database last month on every anti-environmental vote taken in this congress. the tally was 125. 125 votes to weaken the clean air act and the clean water act,

to make our drinking water essays, to weaken environmental standards in dozens of different ways. this is an appalling and dangerous environmental record. and it should come as no surprise that this record of anti-environmental those shows little concern for crafting well analyzed policy that takes the view of all stakeholders into account. today, the house will begin consideration of the trade act, a bill whose passage will block actions to clean up smog, soot and toxic air pollution from the nation's power plants. when this bill is considered coble votes on amendments offered by chairman whitfield unrepresentative latta. the whitfield and then it will eviscerate the ability to require power plants to require pollution controls. the latta amendment will reduce 40 years the clean air policy, allowing our national goals for cleaning to be determined by

corporate profit, not public health. they will not agree that we need to have a hearing on the latta amendment before reversing 40 years of excess at the clean air act. the republicans will not clarify the bill on industrial boilers to prevent years and years of litigation and delay. we should hear from states, industry, public health groups and other stakeholders before voting on these radical clean air amendments. these amendments are being considered to an egregiously flawed process, a stark change from the way this committee has traditionally handled important clean air legislation. we should at least understand what you do before voting on them. and we are sitting here criticizing epa for all the work they put into their regulations before they issued them and yet, we are going to pass laws, at least pass it through the house

without a single moment of hearing, just because some representatives want to and maybe the republican party wants to respond to big business and forget about the safety and well-being and health of the american people. today's hearing will provide an opportunity here for the administrator of the epa. i'm pleased to welcome lisa jackson. this is not the first time. i'm not sure how may times she's had to appear before this committee. but i think she is time to draw the dreadful things the republicans are accusing her of doing because she's spending most of her time here to listen to complaints from the republicans about regulations, some of which they haven't even proposed in the republicans want to repeal it. i will ask the administrator about a whitfield and latta amendment. that will serve as some opportunities to examine these issues and do a good lesson opportunity to hear from the epa administrator of the impacts of the entire republican

environment agenda. mr. chairman, do you want some time? i have a minute left if any of my democratic colleagues. i yield the balance of my time. >> well, here we are again. representative waxman has said clearly we are witnessing the most anti-environmental house of representatives in american history. my colleague from texas, the former chairman of this committee was citing some other things that has been happening in texas as a reason to undo some of the regulations that you proposed. but i just wanted to point out that under governor rick perry's tenure, texas has become far and

away the largest come in the nation's largest co2 emitter? if texas were so country is mr. as advocated in the past, it would be the eighth biggest polluter in the world. so it is high time that the environmental protection agency continued in what has been a bipartisan tradition of protect being our environment, protect and to help americans. by the way, not destroying jobs in any way, for creating an opportunity for new 21st century clean jobs. i yield back. >> generally yields back. >> with the generally the yield? >> out of 10 it's expired some so we're going to move now to the not an administrator. >> not an administratorcome your way at the committees hold

hearings by doing so has had the practice of taking testimony under oath. do you have any objection to taking testimony under oath? the chair then advises you that under the rules of the house and the rules of the committee, you're entitled to be advised by counsel. he desired to be advised by counsel during your testimony today? in that case, if you please reason right is your right hand. do you swear the testimony you're about to give us the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god? you are now under oath subject to penalties set forth in title eight teen section 1001 of the united states code. you may now give a five-minute summary of your written statement. please begin. >> thank you. chairman stearns, ranking member transfix another said the subcommittee, i appreciate the opportunity to testify in the environmental protection agency's regulatory process. it is a priority of the epa and

in this administration to ensure that our regulatory system is guided by science and that it protects human health and environment in a pragmatic and cost effective manner. one means by which this administration has made this priority clear through executive order 13563, which includes director for federal agencies to develop a regulatory retrospective planned for periodic review of existing significant regulations. under the direct discount epa has developed a plan which includes 35 priority regulatory reviews. recent reforms already finalized are probably proposed are estimated to save up to $1.5 million of the next five years. let me be clear. the coronation of the epa is protection of public health and environment. that mission was established in recognition of a fundamental fact of american life. regulations can and do improve the lives of people. we need these rules to hold

polluters accountable and keep us safe. for more than 40 years they've carried out their mission and a proven track record at a healthy environment and economic growth are not mutually exclusive. the clean air act is one of the most successful environmental laws in american history and provides an illustrative example of this point for 40 years the years the nation's clean act has made steady progress in reducing threats posed by pollution and allowing us to breathe easier. in last year alone, programs implemented pursuant to the clean air act amended the 1990 estimated to have saved over 160,000 lines. spirit americans more than 100,000 hospital visits and prevented millions of cases of respiratory problems including bronchitis and not. few of the regulations they gave us these huge gains in public health run controversial at the time they were developed. most major roles have been adopted amidst claims to be bad for the economy and bad for employment.

in contrast, the doomsday predictions, history shown again and again we can clean up pollution, create jobs and grow our economy all at the same time. over the same 40 years since the clean air act was passed, the gross domestic product of the united states grew by more than 200%. for some would have us believe that job killing describes epa's regulations. it is misleading to say that enforcement of our nation's environmental laws is bad for the economy and employment. it isn't. then they should never have to choose between a job in a healthy environment. they are entitled to those. we must regulate sensibly in a manner that does not create undue burdens and carefully considers that the benefits and costs. however in doing so, we must not lose sight of the reasons for implementation of environmental regulations. these regulations are necessary to ensure americans have clean air to breathe and clean water to drink. americans are no less entitled to receive current environment during difficult economic times and they are in a more

prosperous economy. as president about her recently stated in this joint address to congress, but we can't do is let this economic crisis be used as an excuse to wipe out the basic protections that americans have counted on for decades. we shouldn't be in the race to the bottom, where he tried to offer the worst pollution standards. thank you for the opportunity to testify and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you, not an administrator. i'll open with my questions. i think you can see from opening statements from our side and the other side, this is a question of promoting economic growth, innovation, competition and job creation. if that's your understanding of the principles that the agency must keep in mind when you make regulations? yes or no? >> yes, but we must also implement the law. >> on the first day of the administration were directed to

comply with executive order 12866 in an amendment from the white house. is that true? >> i believe that's right, sir. >> to believe the regulatory system must reduce uncertainty? >> that the advantage of the regulatory system. >> in the case of ground-level ozone standards committee proposed in january 2010 whether discussions at the white house about the impact of reconsidering this role prior to submitting a draft final rule to the white house? >> i'm sorry, did understand the question. >> in january 2010, when the ground-level goes on standards were proposed, was there discussion between you and the white house about simply the impact of what these would be on this country? >> the proposal went through white house interagency and interagency review. >> is unique and participate in discussions at the white house on this is on standards?

>> pinscher staff in preparation of interagency review did. >> did you personally? it with the white house? >> on the proposed package in january 2010, not to my recollection. >> if you recollect differently, be kind enough to submit to this committee who participated in those discussions, that would be helpful. was there any reaction from the white house on the proposed is on standards being proposed in january 2010. do you recollect what the reaction was the white house? >> the fact that the proposal and not cleared in the agency review of assigned mainly for public review. >> used in the white house is on board fully? >> i don't assume anything commissary appeared to be the fact that i i know them. >> he said the white house reaction as much as a note that were supportive? >> the agency exercise

discussion after an interagency review that was conducted and led by the white house. >> i think there is a there is a chief of staff memo which you cited yourself and the proposed ozone reconsideration as rationale for the reconsideration that was ultimately done. it did not develop any agency or been finalized, published or did you consult with the white house before you decided to reconsider the 2008 ozone standard? >> that's the same question you asked before the proposal, sir. so my answer is the same. >> okay. three weeks ago they ask you reconsider the ozawa, noted that would not comport with the president's executive order nobrega choices do much promote predictability and reduce uncertainty. did you agree with the white house decision? >> i respect the decision and i implemented it. >> did you personally carinthia? >> i don't think it's a secret

that they sent over in the package that we've been over with something different. >> the reason why he disagreed with the white house is because you felt, was it that the standards you that were imperative to be implemented, can you give us your rationale why you still feel strongly that the ozone standards -- >> gentlemen, you're putting words in my mouth about what i feel. >> so at this point -- all right. what changed between the tiny proposed regulation in january 2010 in september 2011 to warrant reconsideration in your mind if you win a lot it. you have strong feelings on this. they're going ahead with it. can you make some kind of rationale why you're going ahead with it now? i'm trying to understand it. >> well, the facts are in between those two time periods, the president requested we

reconsidering to the reconsideration in light of new data will come out such that the reconsideration a half in team. >> what is that new data? >> out of state of public health data that will look at the connection between smog, ozone pollution and asthma and other health indicators. >> to think this goes back to what they ask you and i began my questions your idea and my idea is the agency has a responsibility to promote economic growth, competition, job creation. you think that's where the president relaxed videos on standards? >> both the letter and the president statement explaining his rationale and speak for themselves. >> to the white house oppose this to you any other time and just recently? >> proposed what commissary? >> relaxation of the ozone standards. that was the first time he can do you?

>> that was the first time they came to me -- the president's actions in a statement in a letter from mr. sun steamed with the official record of what happened with respect to that package. >> already. my time is expired. the gentlelady is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. administrator jackson, let me try to clear up some of the questioning about the new ozone standards that the chairman was pursuing. on september 1st, the administration announced that the epa would not be revising the national ambient air quality standards for his son. is that right? >> that's right. >> in this decision was controversial. he created a number of extremely important questions about how we're going to handle the ozone standards going forward. so i'm wondering if you can tell us now, sitting here today about the next steps you are going to be taking to ensure that states and localities have clear direction of what they should be doing with regard to us on

standards. i think it's important to clarify which are going to be doing next. >> yes, ma'am. we are going to proceed with the regular reviewing 2013. simultaneously, were legally required to implement this standard on the books, the standard on the books now is the 2008 standard. it is 75 parts per billion nep will be notifying states and is said of the path forward in implementing that stance. >> that what you say is the attention going forward is that the epa will enforce a 75% parts per million standards the same as the bush administration 2008 standard, is that correct? >> that's right. that's a little standard on the books. >> okay, can you assure states and localities will have sufficient time to meet those two guys in a standards? >> we will do it in a commonsense way, minimizing

burden on state and local government. >> thank you. administrator jackson, the chairman was asking you about what the process is within the epa about promulgating rules. epa considers not just the effect on human health, but also the economic effect for the executive order that he was talking about, correct? >> this way. our rules have always come at least as long as i've been there consider cost and benefits of a role. >> you know, one of the things that frustrates me and others is the sort of sophie's choice that's been articulated that i don't think it's true, does you either have to have jobs or high environmental standards. i want to talk about the clean air act since we are talking about the clean air act as an example. since the clean air act was signed in 1970, toxics air pollutants have gone down by 60%

and saved hundreds of lives. and so that's the main goal of the clean air act, correct? >> the clean air act goal is to clean up the and therefore make people healthier. >> way. in addition, the economy has grown since the clean their act was promulgated. is that correct? >> gdp has grown over 20%. >> so gdp has grown over 20% of the clean air act's passage, correct? >> that's correct. >> also, can you talk about the effect of the clean air act of job creation? >> certainly. numerous studies show the clean air act especially helped foster and grow a pollution control industry in this country that actually ask words its innovation and to ologies pander and of course this work on the ground. when we have someone to spend money, millions or even billions

on pollution control, those are jobs that are generally produced here. everything from engineers to designers, to welders to boilermakers. >> in fact, i read a study that than in 2008, all of those things generated $300 billion in revenue has supported nearly 1.7 million jobs. i talked about that in my opening. are you aware of that study as well? >> yes, ma'am. >> now, i also read a study from the university of massachusetts that estimated epa's utility toxic air state pollution also generate 1.5 million new jobs by 2015. are you familiar with that study? >> yes, generally. >> what kind of jobs in compliance with those regulations create? >> those regulations require companies to invest in pollution controls. selective catalytic producers,

everything from working with steel workers are pipefitters are engineers, designers, those who actually installed and operated pollution control equipment are those who retrofit equipment. and their jobs, because it's the utility industry, it has to be done here. it is something we have to do here to invest in ourselves. >> in the united states? >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. >> gentleman from texas, mr. barton is recognized for 10 minutes. >> that an administrator, you said that the role of the epa is to make sure polluters are accountable. do you consider an industry that is in compliance with epa regulations to be a polluter? >> and industry can house a permit and be in compliance and still be a meeting pollution, yeah.

>> putting your definition of a polluter, if an industry is actually complying, then why would you continue to call them a polluter as if they were complying? >> well, it's important for people to understand that in order to operate there is an assumption that some amount of pollution in our air and water may have to happen. what are laws required epa and states to do is to ratchet down that pollution in the interest of a public health. >> would it be fair to say in your definition the only industry that would not be a polluter would be an industry that has no emissions at all? in other words, were shut down. >> if you don't emit pollution, you are not a polluter. that is not to say the omission of some amount of pollution is not permitted. that is the regulatory process. >> is that the goal of the epa to get to zero emissions, i.e.

shut down the economy? >> of course not, sir. >> that's the right answer. you have appeared before the subcommittee and the full committee of number of times this year in at least two of those instances have asked you to document some of these health benefits that the epa spokesperson than yourself continue to elude to is the reason for these new regulations. unless your agency supplied in my office last night or this morning, we've yet to receive them. could you encourage them to actually give us the documents that document these repeatedly refer to hope benefits? >> well, sir, i will say the regulatory packages we prepare include significant documentation about the benefits and costs -- >> you're not answering my question. i don't think they exist. >> you don't think health benefits of cleaner exist? >> i don't think some of these

documents that you refer to exist. he replied with the request to submit them. >> sir, i'll check on outstanding documentation -- >> i'm giving a request right now. i respectfully request almost every time you have appeared before the subcommittee with the full committee. you know, when you look in the footnotes of some of these proposed regulations, they refer to studies that are 10 to 15 years old, usually very small studies have usually studies that are independent with no real peer-reviewed verification. and then we get these, you know, these huge cost benefit comparisons and a true science, actually document what is going

on. that does not appear to be the case for your epa. if they exist, then send them to us. >> i disagree, but i'll check again to see what else may be a statement from the request, respectfully. >> let him make a comment on what chairman waxman said in his opening statement that we have voted 125 times to weaken environmental regulation in this congress. that is not true. there is a difference between voting for to actually change or reduce an existing standard voting to delay or slow down or at least review a proposed standard. this congress has asked in voted to delay, review, go back and check on regulations. but i am not aware that we have voted to actually change or

weaken any standards of clarity and effect. i think that is a distinction that is worth noting. the regional administrator in texas, dr. armand deus in an op-ed in the "dallas morning news" earlier this week expressed surprise that texas industry was attempting to comply with this crusty air pollution regulation actually beginning to shut down power plants and coal mines. he said in his op-ed that the epa had reached out numerous times and try to consult with and interact with the effect of industries. could you provide blogs of those meetings, e-mails and telephone conversations to actually document the regional administrators affectation that he had been trying to work with the industries in texas? when i check with the industry, they say they have had almost no

interaction and were absolutely blindsided by the inclusion of texas and across standard pollution rule at the very last moment with no ability to impact the regulation. >> sir, i'm happy to provide it. i would also point you to the record of the air pollution rago, were epa specifically to comment and received comment from texas industries in texas regulators about texas's inclusion -- >> after-the-fact. >> know, during the public comment period. >> they couldn't because texas was included in the goal. there is one paragraph mentioned of texas possibly including at some future point. they were put into the rule at the last moment. >> texas have been complying with the care role that the bush administration put in place. the crusty role as a replacement for that role. >> i'm very aware of that.

>> beside him or, ozone smog requirements, which i comment on what would happen if they weren't and in what would happen if they were. we have information submitted by texas regulators in texas come to knees. >> gentleman's time has expired and the gentleman from california, the ranking member, mr. waxman for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. when you propose a rule, you have to establish a record of the scientific basis for your finance. is not correct? >> that is correct, sir. >> that relies on work that's been done by scientists, often, maybe always peer-reviewed. is that correct? >> coworkers through peer review before you put it in the record. >> so if mr. barrow once a scientific vacuum he can simply look at the record? >> yes, though it varies

additional information, we owe him. i will look to make sure he can say. >> ibook to talk talk to mr. barton and there's a lot of scientific research that has been peer-reviewed on the impact of carbon emissions, global climate change and yes mr. burton doesn't believe in the science, nor is does anybody else. they've although didn't can reject the idea that science has come up the conclusion and they reject the science as well. we hear about job killing regulations and i haven't seen anybody substantiate the job killing part of the regulations, but we know a lot of pollution kills people and we have that well documented. it's not accurate? >> that is accurate, sir. >> are they to ask about the train act which will soon be -- >> with the gentleman yield? >> now, i won't.

>> mr. chairman, regular order. i want to ask about the amendment offered by mr. whitfield. the bill reported from the committee would indefinitely delay critical health protections to reduce soot, smog, mercury and other pollution from power plants. but the whitfield floor amendment goes much further. it would nullify a epa's final air pollution probe and proposed mercury air toxic role and requires epa to start from scratch on both rules, which averted figures in the making. administrator jackson, how i have a been it been waiting for old uncontrolled power plants to clean up and had the power plants compare with other sources of pollution? >> the 1990 amendments to the clean air act is called for powerplant toxics for power plants to be addressed. the good neighbor provisions of the rule were added as well, which is the basis for the of pollution rule. power plants at the largest

emitters in our country asset and smog and mercury. and for that reason, the bush administration tried to address to the clean air interstate rule and the clean air mercury rule that were later overturned in court because they did not comply with the law and did not do an adequate job. >> to without amendment would ensure power plants would not control toxic air pollution for at least seven years or reduce sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide for at least eight years. does the minimum delays because the amendment would eliminate all clean air act deadline for the rules. in addition to these delays, but without amendment changes the underlying clean air act authorities for the rules. i'm concerned these changes of black epa from ever reassuring the rules. the whitfield amendment replaces the clean air act's proven standards and criteria with an entirely new approach for power

plants that appears to be completely unworkable. it requires epa to set standards based on the 12% power plants that are best-performing in the aggregate for all toxic pollutants. administrator jackson, this would require you to decide whether a plant that admits more neurotoxins but less carcinogens is better worst-performing than a plant emits more carcinogens but less neurotoxin. is there any scientific basis to make such a decision? how was such a decision likely to fare the courts? >> well, sir, i think it would weaken and possibly destroyed our ability to every address those toxic pollutants because it's not the way they work in our body. those pollutants all act together and we have good science that documents the health effects of mercury and arsenic inlet and hcl. to pick tween one or the other

if you would simply make the rules subject to being overturned or we would not get this protections. >> this amendment would change the criteria for addressing in one state, but blown by the wind that causes unhealthy air quality in a downward state beard states can't require polluters that when states to not come up, typically interact includes a good neighbor provisions directing epa to ensure up when states clean up pollution that causes unhealthy air beyond their state boundaries. the whitfield amendment includes an amazing provision that prohibits epa from the line i'm modeling for any rule to address cross the pollution. administrator jackson, if epa can't rely in modeling, what effect would this have on the agency's ability to issue another crusty pollution rule to address those on and particularly problems in downward state flags >> sera, requires only use monitoring data, which are used,

but without modeling to go along with it, then i believe will issue a regional crusty ruin the future either because we simply have to be able to use scientific modeling to address up with sources of pollution. >> are these fools that the whitfield amendment would strike, how are these rules -- why are they so important a public health? >> well, looking at the mercury rule, for example, talk about 16,800 premature deaths a year once implemented. 120,000 avoided as the tax rate across air pollution $12,280,000,000,000 in benefits represent 13,000 to 34,000 avoided premature deaths and 400,000 avoided as my tax. >> pajamas time has expired. >> on to say that mr. burton characterized the report. they to offer my report in the record and that is the 125 and

are tallied votes. >> without ejections ordered. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized, mr. murphy for five minutes. spectating x-ray badge. on this discussion of premature death, et cetera, tragic of accuracy from a scientific standpoint. epa is responsible for the national ambient air quality standard level to protect public health come including subgroups with inadequate margin of safety. am i correct? thank you. the current annual standard to 15 micrograms per cubic meter? recent reviews suggest epa might consider lowering further to a level of 11. am i correct? >> sir, we have not made regulatory determinations. science is ongoing. where required by law to review every five years. >> thank you. these are based on science, i

correct or not, to? >> that's correct. >> is about an agency? >> congress mandated to be an external advisory board, the clean air science advisory board a believe is their name. >> thank you. in the impact analyses for utility whether my rule, most of the dennis epa says archives at air quality level is much cleaner than the air standards required. so take to show you a chart was in epa estimates come a bar chart by air-quality. if we could have that show up on the screen. we've marked as level as those standards and as you see protect its standards, to the left of that line. let me look at the next side. here is another bar chart. the tall bar represents epa's estimates of deaths from all causes occurs when air is cleaner than the current ambient air quality standard in the shore by represents to estimate from all causes occurred at levels last clean in the ambient

air quality standard. a couple questions on that. a piece on documents raise questions. is it true to estimate the benefit of regulations, you're assuming cleaner also kills people? >> fair, the whole point of the national ambient or quality standards is to define what is clean-air. people deserve to know what level of their will make them less they can avoid her mature deaths. >> trying to get the science, looks like clean-air is in the category of what's happened this definition. the epa also says in a risk assessment for, that we do not have information characterizing deaths for people whose air was determined to be clean by national standards. cerutti bp's on documents, there is not evidence associated with this. could you share any studies that show a causal relationship

between deaths at levels below what epa causeless manager level, says something you can provide? >> i'm happy to provide whatever science we have shows correlation which is quite clear. it is not an assumed correlation between set and dad. when people prevent high levels of set or even moderate levels, that is why we are looking that the national ambient air quality standard. it causes premature death. people die before they should. >> in the past, it is that they don't necessarily take into account what the regulations economic impact or job impact, but you asked extensively on the issue of jobs created by pollution control industry. he said reexport and grow pollution industry good bloggers, designers can the boilermakers. my boilermakers would like to be put in cleaner power plants here in the u.s. and also a spot at the gdp was

grown 200% since passage. this is the to pass in the cleaner act because a 20% growth in our economy? >> no, sir, that wasn't my point. in contrast people say the cleaner is a job killer. the clean air act has been around for 40 years in our economy been kind. >> is a cause-and-effect? here's my question. in the last 10 years, we've lost 2.8 million jobs in china and i think we'd all agree is only 16 of the 20 most polluted cities in the world during china and we've lost a lot of jobs and i think we would agree their air quality standards not good. mike is there and also lot of our manufacturers and others who find it cheaper for lots of reasons, not just air-quality output imparted to mix of the issues that the currency manipulation reverse engineering and cheating, et cetera. that may be one of the costs that are symbolic of energy and compliance.

so my concern is instead of looking up the aspect of jobs being created, related to the pollution control industry, which i think is important, i also want to make sure we are evaluating jobs lost of companies have even the nation, go in there and not only reimporting products, the reimporting pollution. this has something your agency can give this information on? >> would like a job syntax especially for rules under discussion so far this morning. for me also say their studies by economists that showed that because of environmental regulation, the kinds of things to talk about her not really determinative of the country's decision. labor costs, currency costs, some things you mention are much more important. >> i want to make sure we looking at the employer. some of the last century, someone referred to pittsburgh as with the lid off. it's not quite a remarkably clean city. unfortunate also means we don't

have a steel mill anymore. if you could get that information. lass night she has to want a different topic related to natural gas industry in pennsylvania who could provide a recommendation and evaluation if laws regarding natural gas are not adequate or the enforcements are not adequate. if you would be so kind, and like to advance to pennsylvania with recommendations would be good to see about that. >> the children as time has expired. >> gentlelady,. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to suggest that the gentleman from pennsylvania made a very good argument that when we negotiate trade agreements that environmental concerns are to be part of that, that we want to make sure your that not only

are we looking at the benefits are -- are met to commerce, but the world environment is also in this trade agreements. i want to give back to the mercury and air toxic rosebud actually very being considered for overturning essentially or at least diminishing on the floor today. and they're actually, my understanding is the hundred thousand comments in favor of those rules that were submitted and wondered if you could respond to the reaction to those rules that were offered. >> yeah, i can confirm the exact number for you, man, but the idea of cutting mercury

pollution is very popular with the american people and most americans are shocked with a fine power plants are allowed to emit unlimited amounts of mercury and other toxics like arsenic and lead into their communities. they want the power of course, that they've even said they understand the need to invest and ensure we have clean power in our communities because they don't want their children exposed to toxic mercury. they don't want impacts on the neurological development. >> and that's what i wanted to ask you about. if you could describe for us what are the public health consequences of what we see today, republican efforts to kill this rule. >> without doubt if this rule is delayed or god forbid killed in any way, there will be more premature deaths, more hospital admissions, more people getting sick because of increased levels of everything from mercury to set it as their earlier, to

arsenic, lead, hcl. in the case of the cost of air pollution, the entire third of the country, which is quite populated. i think a third or more of our population will be subject to air pollution they can do nothing about because epa now has hands typing cannot start up with sources from affecting people, especially children and elderly were mostly set to bow to this premature death in asthma and bronchitis attacks. >> wheels as the adverse effects to wildlife as well. >> i don't mean to minimize that, but the environment from those pollutants is hired. of course the example most americans know it's rained, the idea that pollution goes into her atmosphere goes down in the form of rain that specific

changes chemistry of lakes and harms our forces in plants and wildlife. >> i want to reemphasize something i heard you say earlier, that there was actually a congressional mandate in 1990 to do this. and so, we have failed for 21 years to live up to that mandate. >> we have not until this point been able to make girls that have survived court challenge. everyone of those years of delays more mercury. mercury accumulates in the environment. once it's there, it's deposited in stays the way the exposed mercury in the wake of faith that comes out of the air and deposit the entire lakes and streams. >> i wanted to also ask you about the cross air pollution

rule. why did the epa find it necessary to act to ameliorate cross air pollution? would be the impact of the republican efforts to repeal this rule? >> as i mentioned, first we were compelled to do so by the courts. the courts overturned the clean air interstate rule, which was promulgated in the last administration and in the bush administration. it remanding, give it back to epa is that i let this will stand because i don't want to lose the health benefits of this rule such that they are in the market because it's a market-based program. and while epa fixes a coming across a pollution rule is replacement for that rule. the reason that's important is because of the 13 to 34,000 premature deaths avoided in 400,000 avoided as my text. those are two of the significant

and severe public health impacts that will be lost if we lose or delay those rules. >> the thank you for the work you're doing. >> gentlelady from tennessee, ms. black bird is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. that an administrator, thank you for being with us. there's been discussion about generalities and i want to talk with you about the specifics because we've had discussion of where it is the meets the road and how did these rules and regulations affect companies and affect employees? and i've got an example. this is the epa container rules that went into effect in august that team 2011. if i think a great example of the negative impact that the regulations are having on our economy and specifically batman

lamps, which is an international chemical company located in tennessee. to be compliant with these new labeling regulations and epa container will put their minds how to change their targeted -- their labels and send them to the epa for approval. not surprisingly, epa did not send some of the new labels back to buckman until just one week before the new regulations went into effect and then buckman labs had to rush the epa approved labels to their clients for approval as well as 50 states for the project is sold just so that they could continue to maintain existing business. this is not for new business. this is existing business.

to put this in perspective, we are talking about just a handful of labels. we talk about 4000 labels that had to be reviewed and had to be changed to meet compliance requiring the hiring of temporary employees whose sole job is to work on compliance for this one rule. so, did this new labeling rule actually change contents of the product? >> i'd have to look into the specifics, but i assume it's a regulating rule. so i would vote, but i would suppose not. perhaps you know. >> you're correct, it did not. it didn't. was there any economic study conducted before this new role went into effect in how many jobs it was protected to create were projected to create? >> i can do is specifics. i don't have them in front of

me. it sounds like some people got higher come which is a good thing. >> what we see is the cost of compliance goes up co. which means these companies are not hiring new workers. the cost of 4000 labels, slowing of the process of business. microbicides issue in the relabeling issue is a perfect example of how this slows the wheels of commerce and how it's an added cost and added expense for these companies who are trying to create jobs. and you know, this is money that could have been spent for r&d. it's money that could've been spent for additional employees in this process. but yeah, they had to go through this compliance. now, yesterday they receive notice that five more chemical product labels must be altered to meet the epa babel language

changes that will require them that they're going have to spend more time and where money to go through the process again. can you see how the insurgency or do you have an understanding of how the uncertainty that your agency is causing his affecting businesses in my state? >> certainly i would not argue that setting for safety and health do not impacts on business. we're happy to look at the specific issue, but remember the pesticide laws and regulations are for safety of users of those pesticides. >> we are all for a clean air, clean water and a safe environment. there is no argument about that. what we are looking at is the cost-benefit analysis of this. we're looking at the added burden, which indicates about 10 months. it didn't change. it didn't change any of the

content. it was an added regulation. this is specifically the point. you know, you can't argue about the fact that we are all for clean air, clean water and a clean environment. this is the manner is in the regulations you have put out over a thousand new regulations since the law went in at the epa. the cost to our small businesses now, chamber of commerce says is about $10,000 per employee. the cost of families losing jobs, we started our job creators listening session the first of the year in working with small businesses and employers in our district, the overreach of the epa comes up regularly and it is of concern to us. i yield back.

>> gentlelady -- dr. chris chin is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and welcome, administrator jackson. let me say before essay question as a representative of a district with the highest concentrations of greenhouse gases, i think epa for his continued support and help to people of the virgin islands and also as a member of a racial minority whose communities are often were some of the most polluting industries or place. we thank you to your commitment or environmental injustice. i've had the opportunity to see how yours worked with solutions to protect health and safety while still stimulating economic growth across the country ended congressional black caucus looks forward to your help this weekend. despite the agency's tremendous record when it comes to producing sensible regulations that protect overstimulating

innovation that drives economic growth, that is not what we hear from the other side of the aisle. republicans on the committee and house are appear to be living in an alternate reality and it comes to environmental regulation. in the market of legislation last week that would stymie your agency's efforts to protect the air we breathe and bring regulations come implementing the night into compliance with the lot finally after all this time, representatives birchers suggested the transferable would not include one chinchilla of the air we breathe. their rulemaking process for the rule with extensive then issued a 232 page impact analysis. ..

>> former chairman spoke strongly against the regulations that addressed dangerous emissions from power plants and opposing them, he suggested mercury emissions, which we heard about this morning, causes no threat to human health. you spoken generally about the mercury, impact of mercury, and the fact it's cumulative in the environment. would you say something about the impact, especially on the health of children? >> certainly. mercury, as i noted, it a neurotoxin affecting developing brain cells and affects the cells whether a child is born or still in the womb, and lowered

iq points is how mercury effects are measured. they peer reviewed data to show the impacts are real. >> thank you. i believe it's our fundamental duty to protect our children against these dangers, and the only way to argue otherwise is really to ignore decades of science on mercury emissions. unfortunately, denying basic scientific fact seems 20b a requirement -- to be a requirement for the other i'd of the aisle. i don't have to remind you march of this year, the other side of the aisle denied global warming. administrator jackson, any scientific debate about the existence of global warming? >> climate change, global warming have been reviewed by numerous panels, and the results remain the same which is that the climate is changing, and

that human activities and particularly emissions of global warming gases are the primary cause. >> and as you stated, you know, according to a study conducted by the national academy of science, 97% of sciences believe not simply that climate change exists, but that humans are causing it, notwithstanding overwhelming scientific consensus, my colleagues on the other side are throwing in their lot with a handful of rad cam outliers to block meaningful action to protect the children from rising temperatures, rising tides, and devastating consequences. denying the problem is not a way to solve them. let me ask one more question. would reducing or terminating "the lowest priority programs in accord result in cost savings justify the termination of the programs?" >> i'd have to ask you to be

more specific. we are certainly committed to making sure we are as efficient as possible with our budget, and our budget is such that we can't fund every single program that we're actually required by law to implement, so we are making those kinds of hard choices right now. >> thank you, and thank you for your testimony. thank you for being here. >> gentlelady's time expired. the gentleman from texas is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. so much is said on the other side that i need to refute and yet there's things i need to get out here. first off, it would be of great help to me if you would provide us the actual data you're using to support the statements, the 34,000 lives would be lost if your regulations do not go forward, and then i would further ask the question, i'm sure you made the president

aware of this. does the president not care about the health of americans by delaying the ozone rule? >> the president speaks for himself, but he made clear the decision he made. >> well, that's part of the point. there's a recent nobel scientists who resigned from the america's membership in the america physical society because of the position that that society took on global warming, and i think paraphrasing his statement we can argue about the constant mass of a proton, but we're not able to discuss whether or not the validity of science on climate change is valid or not, and, you know, people of good will and good intentions can disagree about things. chairman waxman, ranking member waxman said we don't believe in the science. well, yeah, that's right. i believe in god, the science

actually should be proven, and if it's true science, it should be provable, and that's what the argument is about. now, let me ask you this because it is important on this cross state air pollution rule. it affects texas in a big way. we were faced with possibility of rolling block yachts last august because of the electricity usage during the month of august, and now we are told that with the introduction of cross state air pollution rule by the rule making by the epa, 8-18 power plants may be shuddered on october 1st. that would inhibit electricity in the state of texas impacts public health because as we all know people can die in the cold, but they really die in large numbers in an unair-conditioned home during the hot summer months. did you coordinate, the epa, did

you coordinate with ferk as to the implementation of this rule as the discussions were going forward? >> sir, in looking at our epa did a reliant analysis and asked ferk and department of energy. >> how did you coordinate the information that was provided? >> epa did its analysis, we asked for review and comment on then analysis that we did. >> and did we just ignore recommendations because they don't seem to be completely coincident with the decisions you made? >> no, not at all, sir. in fact, in my own personal conversations with chairman wellinghoff and others at doe is we assured them to work with states and others to ensure the clean air acts' perfect record for not causing a reliability incident in its 40-year history. >> will you provide for this committee all the reel vent

e-mails, memos, letters that are available? >> certainly, sir. >> what time frame might we expect those? >> as soon as we can, sir. >> i might suggest that there is a time frame that could be suggested to you, but i'll leave that up to the chairman. now, i have here a letter to you from the southwest power pool, a regional trance mission organization on electrical reliability. the southwestern power pool has an approach to meeting requirements and they cite several operators who are of similar opinion. they say the epa must provide time to allow the industry to plan an approach to comply with the rules 234 a reasonable fashion as it stands now, the southwestern pool and its members may be placed in the position of deciding which agencies rules to violate, epa or the ferk's.

an industry with a critical infrastructure in the position of choosing which rules to violate is bad public policy. they also suggested the epa delay the effective date by a year to allow for investigating, planning, and developing solutions. what's the problem for delaying a year? >> the rule is flexible enough. because it is a market-based program intended to replace a rule remanded to epa by the courts -- >> well -- >> we are due by the courts -- >> people in the industry don't agree with you? >> in 40 years, we've never caused a reliability problem. it can be implemented in a way to let businesses make decisions they need without sacrificing public health. >> what if you're wrong? are you infallible? >> of course not. it should not be ignored because of doomsday scenarios who want

to -- >> i disagree they want to stop the public health protection, and that's the overreach of which the agency is guilty. can you provide us the response to the letter to the southwest power pool they have posed to you? >> if they were submitted during the public comment period, we may have it, but i'm happy to give you a response. >> the gentleman's time expired. the gentleman from michigan. [inaudible] recognized for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, thank you for your curtesy. ms. jackson, welcome. i want to thank you for your visit to southeast michigan last month on your tour of the detroit river international refuge in which you know i'm very interested. i have a number of questions to which i would hope you would answer yes or no. one -- does epa take public comments into consideration during its rule making? >> yes. >> does epa allow industry representatives to provide

comments during the rule making process? >> yes, sir. >> does epa take into account during the rule making process a cost analysis of the proposed rules affect on industry and the costs of that? >> yes, sir. >> now, as i remember the writing of the legislation, the epa is required to in writing these rules to come first to its decisions on the basis of health, and then to come to further decisions on how the rule will be implemented on the basis of other things as well. in other words, cost and impact on industry and things of that kind; is that right? >> that's generally correct, sir, yes. >> so if i'm correct then, the

train act would change the sequence of those things, the first decision would be cost. the second decision is about the rule, and the second decision would then be how the health of the people is going to be affected by the different circumstances in which the rule is directed; is that right? >> i believe that's right, or it may be the latter amendment that would amend the train act to do that. >> okay. now, would you briefly state what affect do you think there would be if the cost basis analysis is done before the scientific health benefit analysis. >> i think it would require the american people to be kept in the dark about what is happening to their health and about what is clean air. it is analogous to a doctor not giving a diagnosis to a patient because the patient might not be able to afford the treatment. the american people have the

right to know whether the air they breathe is healthy or unhealthy. >> well, now, how are you going to assess the cost if you don't know what the problem that you are addressing might be? i'm trying to understand. we're going to have a big proceeding to define cost, and then we're going to -- after we've defined the cost, we're going to decide about the health and what we're going to do. i find this rather curious. how will we be able to assess the cost if we don't know what's required to be done? >> i see. yeah, i am not sure, sir. i haven't -- i don't know what the thinking is there. >> just for my own curiosity. there's been a lot of major changes proposed to the clean air act, and i'm sure you'll remember that over the years i have not been entirely happy about either the clean air act or the administration of it by epa, but how many times have you

been called upon by the congress to testify on these proposed changes? >> i believe it's approaching a dozen, sir, but we can get you the exact number. >> please, if you would. now, as i mentioned, my colleagues on the committee know i have had major disagreements with epa over the rule, and there's a lot of serious issues to be addressed in the clean air act and other policies, and from time to time i have been worried the industry will bear and undo burden as a result of the epa rules. those concerns still exist today in places. i got to say that i'm disappointed, mr. chairman, that this committee has decided not to address these issues head on through legislation and specific courses of action. instead, we've been running around following false paper trails, taking issues out of context, ignoring policies in place other than finding legitimate balanced solutions to

protect the economy and the environment, and having heardings in which we address the concerns of industry to find what the specific concerns are and what particular actions of had committee should be to address those concerns and see to it that we're addressing with proper focus and diligence the questions of protecting the economy, jobs, and at the same time, addressing the problems to the environment. i note that my time is up, and i thank you for your curtesy, mr. chairman. >> dr. gingrich recognized for five minutes, gentleman from georgia. >> thank you for appearing before the committee. your response to the gentleman from michigan in regard to what comes first in consideration of the epa rule makes and your response was health, and protecting the health of the american people coming first, and i think your response also

to what comes second was other things including cost; is that correct? was that essentially your response to the gentleman from michigan's latter question? >> yes, with respect to the water standards and clean air act. >> if the gentleman would yield, that's required in the statute, something that caused me trouble. >> yeah, reclaiming my time, and i appreciate that, but the epa, and this is the reason i bring this up, the epa counts benefits from protecting people from clean air. they don't actually believe that there's a risk at those levels, but they count the benefits. we're concerned about overstating the benefits in regard to health, and understating the risk to the economy. yes or no -- is it true that the administrator of epa, yourself, has a responsibility to set

quality air standards with groups and an adequate margin of safety? >> yes, sir. >> yes or no -- is it true the administrator, yourself, considers advice from epa staff and also advice from the science advisers on the clean air act science advisory committee in setting those standards? >> yes, sir. >> now, epa staff and their particular matter report say that there is no evidence of health effects at levels much lower than the level epa calls "the lowest measured level." is that your understanding? >> sir, i know that wouldn't make sense that below the lowest measure level there may be no effects or effects that would be hard to attribute because you couldn't measure the pollutant. >> right, and the answer is yes, and i thank you for that. now, according to the most recent particlat matter assessment, epa estimate, and i quote, "total matter related

premature mortality ranges from 63,000 and 88,000 each year above the lowest measured level." of course, that's the large number. would you agree? 63,000 to 88,000? >> it's a lot of premature deaths. >> it represents, in fact, madam administrator, 3%-4% of all deaths in the united states annually, but now i turn to the recent transport rule which, of course, we have concerns over, and to its estimates of benefits which involve almost all particular matter and note that the benefit range between 1350,000 and 3 -- 130,000 and 320,000 deaths a year, different from epa's own integrated science assessment. how do you explain that? >> i'm sorry -- >> let me say it again. the most recent transport rule and to its estimate of benefits --

>> uh-huh -- >> which involve almost all matter and note that the benefits range between 130,000 and 320,000 deaths per year. as i said, that's quite different from 63,000 to 88,000 from epa's own integrated science assessment. how do you explain that delta? >> the number i have, sir, is 13,000-34,000 avoided premature deaths under the air pollution rule. perhaps our numbers should be reconciled, but that's what i have, i believe that's from the rule in the regulatory impact. >> well, i would like for you to clarify that for me, and i would appreciate that very much because the question becomes, and as i said in the outset, is the epa modifying the numbers to exaggerate the benefits? is the epa claiming benefits below the level where the data supports such claims? how can epa patrol mull gait

rules and put out number that is represent two and three-fold increases over the agency's own scientific assessment? would you agree, madam administrator, would you agree that this does raise legitimate questions about overestimating the health benefits? >> no, respectfully, because i don't agree with your numbers, sir, so i can't agree with your premise. >> well -- >> you know, it was briefed not long ago by scientists who study fine particle pollution that if you could reduce the levels down to levels that would be considered doable technologically, you could have an impact on public health equal -- >> with all do respect, and i do respect you, i've only got, in fact, i'm over time, but it's really -- it's kind of like this business of the stimulus bill, saving jobs. it didn't grow jobs, but saved jobs. you put out numbers in regard to

saving lives, that's much more important, and that has to be accurate, so thank you for getting that information to me in a timely manner, and i know i've gone over, so i yield back. >> gentleman's time expired. recognize the gentlelady from florida. welcome to the hearing. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you, madam administrator. you know, coming from florida, we really appreciate our clean water and clean air because jobs and the economy are directly tied to having clean air and clear water, and i just have to -- you know, this past week on monday was the one year anniversary of finally sealing, closing off the bp deepwater horizon well, and there's no better example to explain why rational regulations need to be in place to protect, not just the environment, but when the environment is tied to the economy and jobs, and i know we

of the last 30 years even we've seen a very predictable pattern when the epa goes to carry out the direction of the congress under the law and the will of the american people. there's this typical tug-of-war that ensues. you propose a regulation, and certain industries weigh in, local citizens, maybe the heart and lung association, and i think this is very healthy. i think a robust exchange of ideas and looking at all of these regulations is essential to getting to the right result. it can be messy and contentious. sometimes folks here in washington have high paid lobbyists to weigh in, and it's important to have a balance, people at home who often at home don't have the same voice.

i think if epa sticks to the science, and if you fairly consider all industry points of view, and you consider rational alternatives, is there a less costly alternative, i think if we follow the science, we'll get to the right point, and i have a couple of examples. when epa announced plans to control benzine emissions from chemical production plants, controls would cost over $350,000 per plant, but instead technology innovations led to replacement of benzine with other chemicals and the compliance costs turned out to be zero. administrator jackson, is this sort of innovation unusual in the face of new environmental regulations? >> no, and indeed to the contrary. it is the pattern. for example, the industry

overstated the part time cost of the acid rain training program by a factor of four, and what happens is that once industry puts its mind to complying instead of fighting, they learn to do it that is more cost effective than the current technology, and we get both cleaner air and water and jobs as well. >> now, there's a great example just in the home district from decades ago. we have -- we had a coal fired power plant by the local electricity company. they were in litigation, and, you know, rather than proceed down litigation, the business took a hard look at the new technologies available to clean the air, and to settle that, they invested in the new technology on scrubbers and this has been the best business decision for them, not only has it earned them great pr, but it's cleaned the air. it's right on tampa bay, the

health of that pa bay improved. not as atmospheric deposition coming into the water, and oftentimes the science and technology proves out to be the best business decision. another example, when epa announced limits on clora car bins, the industry insisted to add up to $1200 to the price of every car, but the real cost turned out to be as low as $40, so in that case, did the benefits to eliminating car bins outweigh the $40 cost in your pan? >> i'm sure they did. i don't know the exact ratio, but because the cost is less -- they are already weighted when we proposed the rule, but the happy coincidence of innovation is it's much cheaper than we expected. >> why do you think this is the case? why do affected industries and

their high paid lobbyists up here, why do they so often overestimate the costs? >> you know, there's become in dance that's done inside washington where we propose public health protections in accordance with the law, and then the costs are overstated, and even though the history shows that that is not the impact, it seems to me to be the void of concern for the real people who would be most affected, and that's the american people who 79 clean air and clean water and jobs as well, and i believe we can have all three. >> i agree. i don't think they are exclusive, and a lot of the examples prove that out. thank you very much. i yield back. >> the time expired. the gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes. >> administrator jackson, is there an air district anywhere in the country, if not the world, that's reduced its total emissions more than the south coast air basin in language? -- los angeles?

>> i can double check that, but made significant reductions, sir. they still have challenges, but they have made reductions. >> the question is is there another nonattainment area anywhere in the state or the country that has more regulatory control over emissions than los angeles, the south coast air basin? >> california because of the specific challenges is older and more well-established air pollution regulations in general. >> and are you aware that also too that california and the air resources board and the air districts have been the leader in not just nationally, but worldwide in air pollution reduction? >> well -- >> and technology. >> and technology and moving forward on trying to address public health issues. >> and you are aware we have one of the highest except second

only to nevada with unemployment right now? >> well -- >> 12-point plus. >> i'm sorry, sir. >> look, both sides can talk about denial of impacts health wise and economic. let's be up front, anybody straight faced says we can do the regulations and they will help the environment and drive the economy is still playing in our 1970 illusion there's not an impalgt on -- impact on both sides. neither side should be in denial. there's a cost to the economy, impact on the environment, and 23 you retreat, there's an impact on the environment and health and benefit to the economy. it goes back and forth. we've been playing this game in california long enough. we have tried to do -- we have done extraordinary things in california to try to make it both work out. there is a cost, and there's a cost both ways, and i think that seriously we need to address that. now, let me ask you -- and

that's why -- the dialogue here gets polarized. i want to bring this back to there's cost and benefit. don't deny the costs. don't deny the benefit. now, my question is in the 1970s, isn't it true that through environmental rigs and fuel efficiency rags, the federal government drove the private sector towards diesel operation for about five to six years? they converted their fleet to a large degree over to diesel. >> oh, i can't confirm that, sir. >> well, i'll confirm it for you. those of us old enough to remember can confirm that experiment. it was an environmental regulation that drove the sector to diesel that you and i know is a very, very toxic emission, a very big health issue, and it was a major economic and environmental mistake that we made, and there's impacts on that. i'd like to shift over from the other side as somebody's who's been on rule makes and

regulations. what is the responsibility or what is the participation of local and state and county government operations? in the implementation of the rules -- and i point that out. yourself the environmental protection agency. you're not the eda. you're not the economic destruction agency. what is the local and state responsibility in addressing air pollution and toxic emissions, and what is their major goal and participation in this process, and please make it short. >> okay. at a minimum, state governments are primarily responsible for implementation of most ages pecks of the federal clean air act. some states have their own laws, and in the case of california, local and county governments do. >> how much reduction have we had in government operations and procedures in emissions and nonattainment area like l.a. air basis in addition to the private

sector reduction? wouldn't you agree that probably overwhelmingly in the 90% that the private sector has reduced their e moitions proportioned that the reduction has been in the private sector and the public sector has been less than very aggressive of reducing our emissions and operations to reduce our footprint. >> sir, i don't understand the question, but they have not done it voluntarily. >> the epa had a scientist coming from kansas that told you you can reduce emissions from cars by 20% with a single regulation. don't you think the epa would be interested in implementing those rules 1234 >> of course. >> what are you doing about indirectly the mobile sources caused by inappropriate traffic control by individual, local, county, and state government? >> sir, we are implementing the clean air act allowing states to

come up with implementation plans to best reduce most forms of air pollution. the mercury in air toxic are different. >> in other words, local governments, states, government, our job is to make the private sector clean up their act, but where you can get identified single mobile source that government controls, that we have done nothing as a comprehensive approach to reduce it because we focused on cracking down on the private sector who the job generators while given a free ride. mr. chairman, i point this out because that 0% that we can reduce in government is 20% that the private sector wouldn't have to do while they lay off employee, and that's the kind of responsible environmental strategy i want to see both sides of the aisle to be brave enough. >> the time expired. the yes -- the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. this week, the republicans stepped up the assault on clean air and the environment. they have begun a legislative repeal-a-thon that detours the health and security of millions of americans. take today's floor action. we're having 100-year floods every few years. we've had tornadoes rip through the country killing people and destroying property. hurricanes caused floods, massive power outages, and deaths. texas is on fire. 48 states have made emergency declarations so far this year, and we have set all-time records of 87 major disasters declared this year with three months of the year still left to go. the planet is warming and the weather is worsening. we see it here with the hurricanes, floods, fires and tornadoes. it's overseas where famine in

somalia threatens civil war: how does the tea party respond? maybe we can find the money for people who are suffering, for people who are desperate, for people who have lives who have been altered permanently by these disasters, but we're going to make the taxpayer pay. do the republicans say we are going to pay by cutting the hundreds of billions of dollars we spend on our nuclear weapons program because we all know we don't need to build anymore nuclear weapons. oh, no, they wouldn't do that. are we going to cut the tens of billions of dollars in subsidies we give to big oil and coal as they report record profits? oh, no. we can't touch those they say. can't talk about cutting those programs. what can we talk about? we can talk about cutting the clean car factory funds and incentives to make super efficient cars that don't need

oils sold from saudi arabia and ceos in texas. we can talk about cutting the program to remove the need for the very same oil that creates the greenhouse gases that are warming up the planet and causing the disasters that cost more and more money to remedy as each year goes by. as if all this was not enough, the republicans are also waging an all-out war on the clean air act. this committee and the house has already passed legislation to prevent the epa from doing anything to reduce the amount of oil used by our cars and trucks. this week, in this committee and on the floor, we are considering bills to require endless study of the cumulative impacts of all epa air regulations on all industries, and then just for good measure, we're going to pass legislation that repeals the regulations that have already been set, extend

deadlines for the rest, and weaken the clean air act. the republicans are providing the american people with a false choice. we do not have to choose between air quality and air-conditioning. we do not have to choose between concrete and cancer. we do not have to choose between manufacturing and mercury poisenning or asthma or cardiac arrest. we do not have to choose. in their insis tans that we consider the accumulative impacts of the regulations, there are some other cumulative impalgts of their actions that republicans refuse to acknowledge. administrator jackson, republicans are cutting programs to incentivize development of advanceed technology vehicles that can run without oil. they also passed legislation preventing epa from moving forward to require a 54.5 fuel

standard by 2025. looking at it cumulative as republicans say we must, do you think these actions help our hurt the efforts to reduce the dependence on foreign oil and take out what we take from opec and funds the country's governments? >> efforts to make us more dependent on gasoline hurt our nation's energy independence, sir. >> cumulatively, what are the benefits of cleaning up particlat matter? does that help or hurt our efforts to battle cancer, to battle the impact that it has upon the health of people in our country? >> particlat matter causes premature death. it doesn't make you sick. you die sooner than you should. impacts of delaying cost effective efforts to address matter are more people dying sooner than they should.

>> compare it to the fight against cancer. >> if we could reduce matter to healthy levels, it would have the same impact as finding a cure for cancer in our country. >> can you say that one more time. >> yes, sir. if we could reduce matter to levels that are healthy, we would have an identical impact to finding a cure for cancer. >> that's a good impact. >> the difference is we know how to do that. >> the republicans are also proposing to delay and weaken standards that would remove toxic chemicals like led from industrial polluters and clean up cement plants. when you look at the health effects cumulatively as republicans insist we must and the tea party up cysts we must -- insists we must, would we be avoiding the thousands of deaths that otherwise would occur -- >> the gentleman's time

expired. >> that's $2 trillion in health benefits a year beginning in 2020, sir, and that's just some of the rules. >> i thank the gentleman and thank you for finally getting to the question. >> well, let me is a this for the sake of the discussion. mr. billbray did not ask the question until 1:05 after the time, and mr. gingrey was 1:26, but if you notified them as well, i probably would have understood what the rules were. >> there's no rules. you can do what you want with your five minutes. >> thank you, priesht it. -- appreciate it. [laughter] >> thank you. the -- when you say reduced matters to levels that are healthy, what is that level? >> i don't have it right now, but we'll get it to you. >> when you get the information, what point in history we were at that level? is it not true the matter exists from natural causes?

>> some amount of fine matter, but the natural causes of matter are courser and, you know, so dust, when you hear about dust storms, there's some matter that's emitted naturally. >> sure. if you can give me a date as to when the earth achieved that maximum healthy level, i'd appreciate that at some point back in the past. i'm sure your scientists can help you with that. in regards to mercury, the department of energy says that when it goes back and looks at mercury, and this was found on the department of energy's website, that even in the 1995 coal-fired power plants in the united states contributed less than 1% of the world's mercury in the air, and that sense that time, we've actually dropped, and i guess my question is because we hear this all the time in the committee that we must be for against clean air, that we must be, you know, because we don't support the epa

proposals, that we must be for dirty air. in fact, i believe chairman waxman said yesterday, this is dirty air week. the republicans declared this dirty air week in the legislature. i have to ask even though i know the answer in advance, you would not submit that being opposed to your regulations means you're against clean air, would you? >> it certainly depends on the regulation, sir. >> you would not submit that the president is against clean air because he a potioned your proposed rule, would you? >> no, sir. >> i wouldn't think so. or clean water? >> no. >> wouldn't that be correct? all right. when people make statements because they oppose epa, some of us oppose regulations, it doesn't mean we're in favor of dirty air. >> it depends on the rule, sir. >> in regards to the comment earlier somebody wanted to know, you know, we call them job

killing regulations and they want to know where the jobs are. there's jobs from the 9th district of virginia lost by virtue of proposed regulations if they go into full effect, but isn't it true that your own analysis shows the boiler mac and cement mac proposals will, in fact, cost jobs, isn't that not correct? they create some jobs -- >> that's not entirely correct, sir. the job seasonal sis -- >> do they lose jobs or not? >> there's an analysis. there's a range from a gain of 6500 jobs to a loss of 3100. it is not a perfect science to look at this. the jobs analysis that we do. we try to be as precise -- >> you are aware in regard to some rules various power plants across the country announced shut downs of plants with a net loss of jobs. you are aware of that, aren't you not? >> many of the plants are making

decisions. >> are you aware they are laying off people. >> they are making business decisions to stop polluting the air. >> can a-- i'm asking you a simple question. you are -- >> i'm aware of the announcements. >> thank you. >> i don't believe they are fair or accurate always. >> they announced layoffs and communities are concerned about the layoffs of high paying jobs in my direct, rural areas where the high paying jobs are not common. you'd agree with that? >> i'm aware of their announcements and some of the announcements is inaccurate or not fair in some ways. >> do you think that the department of energy is accurate affair saying 1% of the mercury, if in the world's atmosphere comes from coal fired power plants in the united states of america, are you aware of that? >> i heard you say it. i would like to see their website before i agree to it.

>> how do we do this? hand her the article? take it to her -- all right, there you go. >> do you have data that indicates similarly since 1995 without these regulations going into effect, the amounts of mercury in the air in the united states has actually diminished -- >> it's a good point. almost half the power plants in the country currently comply with the regulations that we are scheduled to adopt in november, so it can be done cost effectively. it's a matter of fairnessment some plants are emitting mercury and others have already addressed that pollution. >> okay. in fairness, some of that deals with municipal waste incinerators, and that is -- i've never been one of those who says the epa doesn't have a purpose and does good, and that's part of the reason mercury dropped in the country, but we are already at fairly low levels and the balance we have to make as policymakers as your

president made on the ozone rule is between deciding whether the gain is worth the cost, and when the cost is people not having jobs and being in poverty, as we've seen that rise in in country, you can understand why many of us are concerned about rising poverty. you can agree that that is a negative, would you not? >> the -- if your considerations, i'd ask you to look at benefits between 59-$140 billion for a rile that costs $10 billion in the year 2016. that's the benefits of the air toxic rules are estimated to be. >> the time expired. gentleman from louisiana is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, administrator jackson. >> good to see you. what did you do to your leg? >> tore my acl playing basketball last week. >> get too excited with the packers, did you? >> it was rough, but there was redemption against the bear, and we'll do well this weekend,

too. >> that's right. >> glad we can agree on that, we definitely do. [laughter] i wanted to ask you, you know, we've been talking about clean air, clean water and all of us think it's been laid out clearly, all of us support clean air and clean water. i think what we're trying 20 get out here is where is the balance and has there been a crossing of that balance as it relates to some of the rules and regulations we've seen come from epa1234 i know as i'm equally concerned about clean a air and water and concerned about jobs and during the break, we went back home, met with a lot of small business owners talking to people who are there on the front line of job creation, and there was a recurring theme i heard from every single mall small business owner i talked to, and, you know, you ask what kinds of things need to happen and what can we do to create jobs? surprisingly, the theme was they said the regulations and laws

coming out of washington in this administration are their biggest impediment to creating jobs, and so i think it's really important that we look at these regulations that are coming out and saying, you know, what is the justification? it seems that a lot of times these, these numbers are attached, and, you know, each rule and regulation is going to save live, and each rule and regulation will stop people from being sick. you know, those are all lofty goals, but unfortunately, it seems like there's numbers that are arbitrarily thrown out just to justify a radical regulation that has nothing to do with improving health and safety, and, you know, i'll start with the ozone ruling. what were the justifications you made when you came out to propose that rule? how many lives was that going to save in how many sick days was that going to prevent? >> the national air quality standards are based on peer reviewed data that look at the

health impacts, so it is made based on determines what constitutes a safe level. >> for that ruling, were there numbered assessed to how many -- whether it was lived saved, how many were not going to have to go to the emergency room? did you have numbers like that for that rule? >> as i recall, sir, but i'll get you the data. we were trying to assess where, whether the number be 75, 70, what have you, where in that spectrum you protect human health with an adequate margin of safety. >> when you proposed the rule, you said this is going to do things to protect public health; right? >> it's the implementation of the standards over time. we heard earlier, you pick the health based standard, and then over time you implement the standard to achieve that level. >> right. so i'm using that as an example because, you know t for those of

us who agreed with it, before the president made his decision with his executive order saying we're not going to go forward with that, there would have been people on the other side who said, you know, y'all don't care about public health. look at the lives we would have saved. you blocked the rule from coming out, and then all the sudden the president says you went too far. that rule, that regulation would not have done those things. i've got to imagine -- i'm not speaking for the president, and you're not either -- but i got to imagine that the president had to disagree with your assessment that that would have saved lives or improved health because he wouldn't have rejected that rule if he thought rejecting that rule would make people more sick, and so i hope as the tone goes forward that as we're looking at these rules and regulations that we know are killing jobs, our job creators out there across the country are telling us how many jobs in each of their businesses these rules are killing. you know, you want to talk about health and safety dpsh these are people who don't have jobs, don't have health insurance, don't have a lot of things because they don't have the job,

and then you look at the assessments that are made by epa and the president acknowledged clearly that that the things you're saying were not accurate to his belief, our belief because he recemented the rule. he wont have if he thought it would improve health. as we look at the rules, i hope we an understanding that all of the things should be put on the table and just because somebody says we're going to save 20,000 hospital visits, that doesn't mean you're going to save 20,000 hospital visits. you said that about other things. >> can the gentleman yield? >> happy to. >> the president is saying, wouldn't you agree, really was with the way the economy is, the way the jobs are, now's not the time to implement. he's not saying somewhere in the future you might -- >> reclaiming my time, if the president thought implementing that rule saves lives own stops people from going to the emergency room, i don't think he would have gone forward with it. you can correct me if you heard

differently. >> i'm not speaking for the country. i will say not every deregulatory push works out well for the country or the environment. in 2009, a company called another federal agency's rules an unnecessary burden. that agency wasn't epa or minerals management service, and that's transocean. >> they cut corners. >> no -- >> they'd did what they shouldn't have. >> contesting regulation of their work. >> there's companies out there we all know that played by all the rules, and they are shut down today even though they didn't do anything wrong. >> their interests don't always align with those of the american public. >> while you want to carry out your agenda, even the president's acknowledged that you've gone too far, and we've got to be concerned about jobs. i just want to put this into record and ask a time question as my time's running out. specifically to talk about the spill prevention counter measure rule exfended to farms and your

agency a five-year implementation. the agency expedited and said november of this year, our small farmers have to put containment or how much it's going to cost, containment measures. our admission of agriculture asked if you would review -- the commissioner sent you a letter, if you reviewed resending the rule or give an extension. they have not heard back. look at that and i'll get you a copy of the letter. look at the rule and what impact that regulation's going to do to our local farmers. >> happy to do it. the reason that i think we're looking at it very hard is because with the flooding in the midwestand other parts of the country, they have not had time to comply. >> states do their own containment. look at the letter, and i'm sure others are out there and extend that or resending it all together. i yield back the balance of my time. >> i think the minority wants to look the the document before

before we ask unanimous concept to do so. >> reserving the right. >> okay. we're going to go into the second round. you're kind enough to be here -- [inaudible conversations] okay, gentleman from colorado, sorry i thought you had spoken. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you, ms. jackson for your time today. i was told epa's office of compliance and enforcement insurance is verbally asking blanket aspects to conduct site investigations. they have been described, representatives described the proposed inspections as part of an ongoing national enforcement initiatives focused on hard rock mining. is it related to the stated intention under 108b to have a rule proposing additional requirements in hard rock mines? >> not by your description. it sounds like this is as a result of the national

enforcement initiative to reduce pollution from mineral processing, but i can double check that for you. >> not a part of the financial insurance? >> not to my knowledge, but i'll confirm that. >> can you clear confusion for the reason of the inspections? are they part of the initiative or are they to support the rule making? >> i believe the other former, sir. i'll confirm. >> any link between the two sphwh >> not to my knowledge, sir, but i'm happy to check on that for you. >> i'd appreciate that. how do the inspections relate to 108b of rule making? >> i don't believe their related, but i'll double check that for you. >> provide for the record copies of policies, documents and others related to programs or initiatives to prevent site that is may be inspected or visited by representatives and/or contractors of the epa under 140b or part of the development of a rule pursuant imposing

financial insurance requirement in the facilities of the hard rock mining industry? >> certainly. >> do you have the material with you today? >> no, sir. >> okay. i know committee had called the office and had warned that this question was coming, and will any of the data or inspection be used in the rule making process? >> repeat the question. >> will the data information gathered in the inspections be used in the rule making process under 108b? >> i don't believe so, but that's the same question i'll double check. >> how much money is budgeted to the hard rock mining initiatives for 2012? >> let's see if i have it in the background. i don't know that i have a line item for that. if it's possible to get, i'll get it for you. it's under the office of enforcement. >> that's great. what's budgeted for yule making?

>> we'll get you that as well. >> i've been told as well is that these companies obviously may be facing costs to the inspections and the companies inspected spend time working with epa and contractors and others showing them on site resources necessary to meet, and will these inspected companies expected to bear any of the costs, the direct costs for epa person them and contractors to visit the sites inspected under the initiative in >> enforcement cases are generally brought for violations of the law, and when they are, the penalties are generally assessed as penalties, but not -- not necessarily unless there are court costs. there's reimbursements involved. >> are you aware of the initiative at all? >> certainly generally every year the epa acknowledges what its federal priorities are for reducing pollution and for enforcement. this is a priority. >> just an inspection or

enforcement action? >> well, you do an inspection, and if nothing's wrong, there's no need for enforcement. >> so there is this -- is this a plan for a number of the mines in different regions to inspect? >> certainly. part of our authority allowstous go in and determine compliance with federal laws. >> okay. and is this initiative is a part of the efforts? >> i believe they look for violations of all environmental laws including potentially violations of the circle law, but not limited necessarily to that. it could be the clean water or clean air act. >> are these -- do you have a listing of the mines you intend to inspect? >> i don't know of such a list exists, but if it is, it may be enforced confidential since telling someone you are coming is a good way of ensuring you don't get a true picture of what they are doing. >> a couple questions on energy prices.

do your regulations have an impact on electricity price? >> yes, sir. >> do you -- what is an acceptable price increase for electricity? >> well, what we generally do is look at a price increase to determine impacts on the economy and also on reliability issues, and so what we know, i can't answer the question, but what we know is that the rules that have been discussed this morning, both final and proposed, have very low impacts on electricity prices. >> what would rule increases like 5%, would that be acceptable? >> sir, it would depend on the rule. we look at cost and benefits, and we also look at how those costs and benefits roll out over time. >> it might be acceptable, 5% increase might be acceptable? >> it could be potentially be. >> what about 10%? is that acceptable? >> it's a hypothetical i can't answer. >> who bears the burden most on

increased electricity prices? >> who bears the burden? >> who does it hurt the most? >> the rate payers pay for electricity. >> does it hurt poor more than the rest of the population? >> of course for people for whom energy is a large section of what they spend -- >> yes, increased electricity prices hurt the poor parts of the population. >> the gentleman's time expired. you can answer that. >> yes, it can if it's a greater portion of the disposable income is used for energy hurts more, certainly. >> that's the first round. there's another round and there's less members. it will go quicker. i'll start with my questions. a small business person came up to me and talked about the rule called the mud rule. i'm not sure you or anybody else knows about it. in the event of construction of a site, there's storm water that is washed off or may