now, i wish that at that time i had said clearly to the deputy attorney general that in this case wide receiver we determined in 2006 in 2007 guns had walked.

[speaking hebrew] >> translator: the honorable president of israel, shi monoparis, honorable former president and his wife, former first lady, mrs. hert sog, speaker of the knesset, reuven

rivlin, members in the present and in the past, former speakers of the knesset, ombudsman and the legal counsel to the government, families, our soldiers, our missing soldiers, the heads of the religious -- religions, honorable ambassadors and the citizens of israel, my friends, the knesset return to the winter session while original events -- regional events that are the most dramatic in our generation, the arab strength has awakened, old regimes have fallen, and

additional regimes are wavering, and new regimes are starting to rise. [speaking hebrew] >> translator: nobody can guarantee their quality or their stability of these new regimes. and nobody can guarantee their attitude toward israel. i must say this attitude was never great, and regretfully, it is not expected to improve. most of them, of these regimes are not in the short term. the new regimes are dependent in the mob, on the mob that many of these in the mob were instigated by anti-semetic and antizionist

propaganda. this started even before the establishment of the state of israel and is cometting to this -- continuing to this day. with the results of the elections in tunisia, if they serve as an example of what will come in the future, we can expect that there will be components with a dominant islamic component. and most of the countries surrounding us, the islamic movements are the most organized and the strongest. and the labor forces that would like to see progress as we see it, these forces are divided and weak. with the religious extremism will not moderate, it is

doubtful with -- whether the hopes of the arab spring will be realized. maybe it will have to be delayed, maybe for a generation until this new wave will pass by. and until the progressive movements will give, be given the opportunity to lead the arab world in a new path. my friends, if i had to summarize what we can expect in the region, i would used two terms; instability and uncertainty. [speaking hebrew] >> translator: the fall of gadhafi in libya and the exit of the american forces in iraq, the new government in tunis, the

upcoming elections in egypt, all of these express the great changes that are taking place around us. these changes can increase the instability within the countries, and the instability among the countries. there are regional powers, and these will try to increase their influence on the new regimes. and this influence will not be to our benefit or for us. in one of these regional powers is iran who is continuing to armor itself in nuclear weapons, nuclear iran will constitute a threat on israel and the entire world and especially on us. [speaking hebrew] >> translator: vis-a-vis this

uncertainty and instability before us, we need two things; strength and respondent. responsibility. strength in all areas, security economically and socially. and responsibility in maneuvering the boat of our country in the stormy water that we are, we find ourselves. [speaking hebrew] >> translator: i'm asking that you do not disturb. we must continue to build the force of israel in all areas of security in order to provide an answer to all of our challenges.

in the last few days, we found out that one of these challenges is contending with many thousands rockets and missiles that are disposal of our enemies. [speaking hebrew] >> translator: the, these my styles and antimissiles only give us partial solution and, certainly, provide security for our citizens, but we want to deploy other systems in the rest of the country. but this concept cannot rely only on defense, but we have to also depend on our ability to attack which is the cornerstone of deterrence. finish we will -- we will act with determination gwen those who threat -- against those who threaten the security of israel.

[inaudible conversations] >> translator: two things guide us. whoever wants to kill you, you kill him, and whoever attacks us, blood will be on his head. [inaudible conversations] >> translator: knesset member -- [inaudible] i'm warning you. [speaking hebrew] >> translator: knesset member -- [inaudible conversations] don't disturb. [speaking hebrew] >> translator: please, listen to the prime minister. please, do not disturb. for 2,000 years our nation could not implement these two principles to protect itself. these two principles of defense and the jewish people paid the

heaviest price because of this inability. all of this has change with the the establishment of the state of israel and the establishment of the idf. government of israel acted according to these principles. they fought those who threatened ask us and attacked those who attacked us. since i became a prime minister, i instructed the idf to act against the terrorist organizations. this is how we acted against the terror i attack from the sinai -- terrorist attack from the sinai. the person who initiated it was liquidated several hours afterwards, and this is how we acted in the end of last week, and this is where we should thank again the idf soldiers and the people of, in the intelligence community who work

tirelessly around the clock in order to protect our country and to protect all of us. we will continue to act with all our strength to protect us, and we will continue to act responsibly vis-a-vis this complex reality. view spriew. [speaking hebrew] >> translator: an expression of this complexity we saw several months ago -- [inaudible conversations] [speaking hebrew] knesset member -- [inaudible] knesset member chief i have, i am calling you to order. >> [inaudible] >> translator: i'm calling you to order. i'm calling you to order. [inaudible conversations] [speaking hebrew]

>> translator: knesset member -- [speaking hebrew] [speaking hebrew] >> translator: now the prime minister is talking. [speaking hebrew] >> translator: it could be that maybe some of the knesset members didn't pay attention that we are in a complex situation. we saw it two months ago that when a mob attacked the israeli embassy in cairo, this mob

didn't care whether we have an agreement or not agreement. these were very tense moments and very complex moments. and i would like to thank minister barack and minister lieberman that we acted together with the american government and with the egyptian government, and we brought this event to its, a successful completion, and we were able to bring the families back home. [speaking hebrew] >> translator: this reality that changes fast in our region, it poses many obstacles and also many opportunities. that we cannot see. [speaking hebrew] >> translator: in this changing world, israel is becoming fast a

leading force in the cyber world, what is called the computer wars. and our special capabilities in this area -- [speaking hebrew] [speaking hebrew] >> translator: these special capabilities of israel bring many important countries to want to cooperate with us. this provides us with an opportunity to have new partnerships that did not exist in the past, and i expect that in the future it will become a very important factor in the international arena. in order to strengthen our capabilities in this area, i establish a cyber headquarters.

this is the future, and we are already there. [speaking hebrew] >> translator: ladies and gentlemen, please, do not disturb. knesset member -- [inaudible] [speaking hebrew] [speaking hebrew] [inaudible conversations] >> translator: knesset member, please, leave the session. please, leave the hall. ladies and gentlemen, please, do not disturb the prime minister. [speaking hebrew] [inaudible conversations]

[speaking hebrew] >> translator: this what is required to protect israel is also the key for our striving peace. you make peace with the strong and not with the weak. the stronger israel will be, the peace will be closer. the nation, the people in israel is united in it desire for peace -- in its desire for peace, but we are seeking true peace, peace that is based on the recognition of the jewish people to a national country. it's based on security. we are willing to have compromises, but we do not intend even before the

earthquake in this region, i insisted on our security needs and more so now. in the negotiations for peace, we will insist that our national intres primarily -- interests primarily the security. they said about me that i am a tough negotiator. i know that it was said in the criticism, but i see it as a compliment. and, therefore, i want to say to the head of the palestinian authority, president abbas -- [speaking hebrew] knesset members, i'm calling you to order. [speaking hebrew] >> translator: knesset member, please, do not disturb. [speaking hebrew] >> translator: i want you to show restraint. [speaking hebrew]

>> translator: i'm calling you to order. please, remove knesset member mullah. please, do not disturb the prime minister. [speaking hebrew] [speaking hebrew] [inaudible conversations] >> translator: i want to tell president abbas, i'm not tough regarding the peace; i'm tough regarding the security of israel and its citizens. and i will continue to act like that because this is my uppermost obligation and my

basic obligation as the prime minister of israel. i'm willing to have true peace with our neighbors, but i do not intend to endanger our security. [speaking hebrew] any peace agreement has to be accompanied with security arrangements, otherwise it will not hold. and for the negotiations to be completed, we need to begin it. i call the palestinian authority and leadership to start direct negotiations. i call them in my speech in -- [inaudible] university, in my speech here in the knesset, i called them to do so in my speech in the american congress and in the last time i spoke at the u.n. and many other times in between.

and i responded positively to the quartet proposals. i must say that, regretfully, the palestinians continue to refuse to negotiate directly with us. instead of sitting with us at the negotiations table, they preferred to ally themselves with hamas. we will not sit by idly while these steps that hurt israel which violate the basic commitment that decides to solve the dispute between us through negotiations. while we are supporting the establishment of a palestinian state, the palestinians are striving for a palestinian state

without a peace agreement. this is the reality, and everybody knows it. [speaking hebrew] >> translator: and i do not intend to agree with it. and no responsible leader would have agreed the it. our friend, the united states, the strongly supporting us for the pal stint yang interaction in the u.n., and we greatly appreciate it. and i know there are those who doubted our relationship with the united states, but the alliance between us is strong, and the cooperation between us encompasses many important areas.

this alliance is based, this alliance is based on deep support by the american people on, based on common values, common objectives. and this support is getting stronger in the last few years. [inaudible conversations] >> translator: the united states see like we do the great importance, the noncompliance of our agreements with egypt and jordan. it's in, it is of israel's interest to keep the peace with jordan and egypt last year. we strengthened our cooperation

with many countries in the region from greece until cypress and as far as turkey. we saw that when there are disputes between us, we assist one another during troubled times as a result of natural disasters. this is how turkey acted when we had our great fire, and this is how we acted after the earthquake that happened in turkey. i hope that we will find in the future the way to improve the relations between the two countries; strength and responsibility is what guides us. and the same tools we need to contend with the economic

challenges. economic and social challenges. in the last few years, in the last few years the world economy has upside gone great -- undergone great changes. the water -- there is a storm, there are many western countries that did not act responsibly and didn't pay attention to the danger. [speaking hebrew] >> translator: did not do what was needed. they find themselves at the brink of bankruptcy. it's not -- if not, thousands are unemployed. until now this economic storm has not -- israel has not end countered it. -- encountered it. and the way we acted economically contributed to it.

there is a rule that everybody knows that's over time whoever spends more money than he gets, gets to be bankrupt. this rule that is true for the individual is also true for the country. many countries forgot this rule, and that's why they pay dearly for it. israel acted differently. we acted responsibly. israel acted responsibly. this is how i acted when i was the minister of the treasury, and this is how we act today. but we cannot create growth which is essential for creating jobs, growth that is essential for the resources for health and society, we cannot create it

only by guarding the budget to grow the economy. we have to cultivate competition, not monopolies, but competition for the benefit of the consumer. the competition is not an enemy of the consumer. it improves services, it reduces gaps, and it increases the standard of living. and the fact that we do not have competition in israel is why our cost of living increases. and this is why a year ago i established not a few months ago, but a year ago i established a committee of centralization. and, therefore, we are now implementing the recommendation about competition in the economy.

yesterday we canceled the, um, taxes on gasoline, and we reduced taxes on consumption. , and we, and we increased the assistance to young couples. but these are only first steps. it's our intention -- [speaking hebrew] >> translator: i'm happy that you all want to help. we intend to bring decisions in the knesset to assist the citizens with responsibility for educating the young will cost less. also taxes will be less.

i am very aware of the, all of the distresses you spoke to us, mr. speaker. i am committed to solve including decisions that we will pass in the knesset in the present session. [speaking hebrew] senate i promised you an answer, knesset member. we are committed to act with full sensitivity to change our priorities, but i do not accept the claim that the free enterprise has bankrupt, that we have to go back to centralized system, an economy in which the

citizen has to be, to comply with the bureaucracy. we were already there, and we not go back there. this is how you destroy the country. [speaking hebrew] [speaking hebrew] >> translator: i'm going to have to ask you to leave the session. you cannot disturb. [speaking hebrew] >> translator: if you can't -- [speaking hebrew]

>> translator: knesset member, knesset member takes care of the social needs, but we have to create the resources, we have to have a free competition. we have to finish this is exactly -- and this is exactly what are doing and intend to do. in the infrastructure -- [speaking hebrew] >> translator: and also to invest in the periphery of the country. yesterday, we inaugurated a new medical school. knesset member, i'm calling you to order. [speaking hebrew]

[speaking hebrew] >> translator: there are people that talk all the time, but we can't go on like that. [inaudible conversations] >> translator: knesset member -- [inaudible] knesset member, don't you understand what i tell you? yesterday we dedicated and suffered together with you, mr. president, a new medical school. this is a great message to the galilee, and soon after a decade of promises we will move the idf bases to the south. and this is a good them to the

the -- [inaudible] we're a government that does and not only promise bees. promises. we built new bridges, new roads, and we take the government, the country out of the gridlock. yesterday i told them that 91 years ago my grandfather and father went there, they got there from jafa, fs that was in tel aviv at that time. they went on the train to tiberius, and there they took all their belongings, and they took a boat and went to tiberius. and then went on the road through a difficult route to go to rush peen that, and then they had to change to horses. and this trip took, this trip

took three days 91 years ago. a few years ago it took three hours, and i asked the mayor, how long does it take him now. it takes one hour and 40 minutes, and i told him now it will even be reduced further because soon all the roads system will change. in our vision there will be a route without any stop signs, and it hasn't been done. we are doing it. [speaking hebrew] >> translator: knesset member, i'm calling you to order.

i'm asking you to leave the session. please. [speaking hebrew] [speaking hebrew] >> translator: knesset member, please, leave the session. please, don't come back. you violate all the rules of the knesset. [speaking hebrew] >> translator: remove her immediately. remove her immediately.

[inaudible conversations] [speaking hebrew] >> translator: knesset member, don't ask me questions. no more questions. [inaudible conversations] [speaking hebrew] >> translator: thank you. [speaking hebrew] >> translator: our objective to strengthen the periphery, but in the end when travel time most parts of the country will be so short we can do away with the concept of periphery. there's no -- country is large

in spirit. we are talented, but physically we are a small country, and it is no reason that in such a small country some parts will be disconnected, separate. [speaking hebrew] >> translator: and, therefore, besides the roads and the trains and whether you want to admit it or not, the great work we're doing, we are developing greatly the galilee and the negative give, and this is how we will improve the lives of our citizens. that when all of the citizens of the galilee and the negeve, this is an important step that the social revolution that we are implementing is in education. and many years that we went down

in the first time because of the reforms that we implemented, we already see a change in that trend. we see improvement in the test scores of the children of israel. and we initiated two year ago nobel laureate professor -- [inaudible] warned that investment in education, she is fearful that there will not be here more nobel prize winners. [speaking hebrew] >> translator: and we took, and i took what she said seriously.

and professor tractenberg decided to assist in the revolution in higher education. we invested more than seven billion and, therefore, i was happy to hear from the new nobel laureate, professor danny shaveman, that he identifies a change in the direction of our government. and he is correct because, because between the winning by professor -- [inaudible] we initiated a new program and, therefore, i want to promise you we will continue to invest, and we will have more nobel prize winners. knesset members, i spoke today

and not very successfully about strength and responsibility. and i want to talk about something that connects both of them; the unity. two weeks ago we returned home -- [inaudible] after five years that he was in prison with the hamas. like the rest of the nation, i was also very excited when i saw gilad going down the plane. and for several days the entire nation was unified, united and excitedment dr -- excited around

one soldier we returned home. last week released in recognition we egypt and with the assistance of the american government -- [inaudible] [speaking hebrew] >> translator: thank you, israel. [inaudible conversations] >> translator: knesset member -- [inaudible] last week we released ilan -- [inaudible] who came from the united states and was wounded in the second lebanon war. we will continue act to release

release -- [inaudible] in egyptian jail and i will continue to ask knesset members to tell you and to the nation of israel, i am not forgetting but for, even for a moment jonathan pollard who is sitting in jail in the united states for 26 years. we will continue to act to bring him to israel, and we will not stop asking what is the fate of our missing soldiers. the unity that brought us to act for one soldier proves our nation to unite, it manifests our strength, our responsibility and to our mutual guarantee.

i believe in the strength of this committee, also in moments of test in the knesset, i believe that despite the disagreements between us we will know in moments of these tests to act together for the important and common objectives to all of us. we will follow strength and unity. we have one country, and together we will guard it. thank you. thank you, prime minister. [speaking hebrew] >> translator: knesset member -- [inaudible conversations]

[speaking hebrew] >> translator: all these questions ask later. i'm inviting the head of the opposition, knesset member tzipi livni. knesset member, knesset member. the head of the opposition is going to talk, please. [speaking hebrew] >> translator: honorable president of israel, vice president of's reel, judges of israel, speaker of the knesset, the head of the protest in israel, this is a session the

honorable, the ministers of the knesset government. in the beginning of this session for if netanyahu government,s israel is us -- israel is isolateed a moment before the arab spring will bring about stormy rain. israel is a moment before the only partner for settlement will disappear. israel is after the hamas guard strengthened and will take control of somalia. israel is just a minute before

the concept of two states will disappear, and there will only be one state, and the jewish state will disappear. israel is at a state when the my my -- the middle class protested and before the young people leave. israel is a moment before we become one cup of many -- one country of many tribes where each tribe determines its authority and law and its religious law. and this conflict is under the surface and will come up in the most difficult times. [speaking hebrew] >> translator: it's true that things look okay when there is not terror. the palestinian authority seems so distant.

and when we seem to have government stability, it seems in government all is okay, but we deserve better. we deserve better in every area; politically, socially and also economically. we deserve to be proud of israel, but we do not deserve to see the state of israel isolated unnecessarily. and israel is very isolated today. [speaking hebrew] [speaking hebrew] >> translator: i believe that we must reach a settlement based on two states because this is the only way to guard the values of the state of israel as a national home for the jewish people and being a democratic

state. but now that when -- [inaudible] also says two nations, i'm hearing that we cannot making progress because of the security. so let's talk about security, mr. prime minister. [speaking hebrew] >> translator: because we deserve security. we're all aware of it, that the arab spring could become the beginning of islamic winter. we shouldn't close our eyes. but what are doing in this matter besides warning the public. don't summarize what will happen to us. we already have a minister or of defense. a minister of defense. you should start doing something with the state of israel will do, the message that we give to

the world has a significance, and the difference regarding the future of israel is between catastrophe and hope. knesset members, always israel led the alliance of the moderates. the other nations changed according to political changes, but the basis always stayed moderate. the peace with jordan and egypt, our alliance with morocco, turkey and the -- [inaudible] and all the bodies like the palestinian authority and not the hamas.

but it's true that a bad wind is blowing in our region, but a bad wind is also blowing in jerusalem. these are the true partners of israel. maybe not your natural partners, but these are the natural partners of the state of israel. and i admit that when you put the turkish ambassador, i do not understand what is the objective in insulting, insulting marvin. does somebody feel better by insulting him? is the objective to cause that we don't have a partner so that you can say that we don't have a partner? are you saying this government that we should counsel the palestinian authority because they fight us in the u.n.? i'm opposed to the -- [inaudible] appeal to theup, and the prime minister was right to enter the

u.n. and spoke at the u.n. and it's not good for israel that they were accepted today at unesco. but you, things continue to happen to us. when israel does not initiate, things happen to us. do you get comfort if u.s. will give badges to unesco and not when i sat here and listened to the prime minister, i also saw how the prime minister configures not to cooperate with unesco. we continue to isolate ourselves, and when you talk about responsibility, ask yourself quietly, ask yourself quietly do you have a little bit of responsibility to what is happening to the state of israel? we must remember that the

negotiations is preferable to the diplomatic battles. and the diplomatic battles, their fate is determined ahead of time, it is preferable to war and terror. but in the meantime, the one who gets stronger and gets the message that it's worthwhile to execute terror is the hamas. since the establish of this government, the hamas has gotten stronger. the hamas is more legitimate. again, you conduct negotiations about ceasefire, and you already started to call the chief of staff of the hamas. and the hurtful truth that israel is then being to those

who operate terror and acts against those who want to cooperate, negotiate with it. and the result will be that the hamas will be in control of judeo ya somalia, and then we will not have a partner was we have no -- because we have no chance to reach a settlement with the hamas. spriew prove. [speaking hebrew] >> translator: the idea of a strong army and its ability to act is hurt, and its hands are tied because of ther responsible behavior by the prime minister. the prime minister whose election campaign was to be strong with the hamas. you, netanyahu, you're not

strong with the hamas. the idf is strong with the hamas. i am imagining what will be their campaign. that how we act, what will the other nations do vis-a-vis hamas? this government acts in the opposite way. instead of acting against extremists, we strengthen them. we strengthen the extremists, and weakens the moderates. you're a tough negotiator? you don't negotiate. there is no negotiations. and it's not because of toughness and because of safeguard in the principles of the state of israel. because every day israel gets weaker. [speaking hebrew]

>> translator: knesset member, please, leave the hall. please, leave the hall. knesset member -- [speaking hebrew] >> translator: please, leave the hall, the session. [speaking hebrew] >> translator: ladies and gentlemen, knesset member -- [inaudible] there is an opportunity to correct it, it's not too late. we are after the deal that returned the soldier that was abdicated, gilad shah lead and the excitement, the tears and the unity and the happiness that

had come to all of us. it is clear that the hamas became stronger because of all of it. one connection you can make now, mr. prime minister, the more prisoners that that should be released. please, don't give them to the hamas. give them to the egyptians who will coordinate it with -- [inaudible] [speaking hebrew] >> translator: knesset member rivlin. [speaking hebrew] >> translator: if i have to press those who attacks us, i prefer those who deal with us diplomatically. that one thing that we must once and for all, that we need to understand it's not a matter of weakness. the only thing that can take us

out of our situation, the only thing that can provide security to the state of israel, that can take israel out of its isolation which will remove the -- israel from the agenda, israel must to renew the alliance of the moderates and to start negotiations with -- [inaudible] this is the outer most israeli interest, to block the hamas and the terrorist organizations politically. and this we will achieve immediately with negotiations in the short run. and i hope that we can reach a settlement so we can guard israel as the national jewish

state and in such action you find us in kadima supportive and will allow you to do anything you can if you'll only want to implement those who seek peace will get it. if this is what you will want us to do, i can promise you they will also open negotiations with you. because i can tell you that it's not pleasant for me that they do not believe the prime minister of israel. [speaking hebrew] >> translator: and this can come out of -- [inaudible] but my call will not be heard. so don't listen to me, mr. prime minister, listen to the security people in israel.

listen, mr. prime minister. [speaking hebrew] [speaking hebrew] >> translator: listen, mr. prime minister, what the security people are saying, and listen to them in all areas regarding the palestinian issue. start negotiations for the security of israel. listen to them regarding the turkish matter, and settle the differences with turkey. and there is the formula that can bring the relations back to what they were. and listen to them, also, in the

iranian matter. i believe in all my heart that the strategy that is integrated with pragmatism is critical for our future. such a process will impact the quality of our lives and our economy. and don't use the protest. this is a protest of one. we cannot talk about social justice when many years there is no justice, and it is not accepted by the israeli society. and this is the discussion that we all have to hold. knesset members, it's true that i devoted to the political arena all my efforts, and this is why i entered politics. but also i am like many others,

i was arisen by the -- i woke up by the protests of the young people and the cry of the middle class -- [speaking hebrew] [inaudible conversations] >> translator: we are all open to the difficulties of many young, talented people, young people like my children and their friends and many thousands of young people. and i want to tell you today to thank you that you forced us all to put on the table, to put our viewpoint also this these matters and not only to put, talk about political matters. our view point exists. we don't have to reinvent it. but the time has come to make

decisions in these areas too. and we deserve better, also, in the socioeconomic arena. in israel and the entire world, many young people and the middle class protested and asked for a change in the economical system. the capitalism has bankrupted, centralization is suffering, and the -- we do not get education. the middle class doesn't get the essential education, free education, the ability to acquire an apartment. and, therefore, we must change the economic system. but we should not while we do that change to throw the baby with the bath water and not, mr. speaker, not everybody is the same. the two theories that we

experienced, the socialism that destroyed the private initiative , we don't intend to return to it. [speaking hebrew] >> translator: and the hand of net netanyahu has to disappear more than any government beforehand. the government of netanyahu according to his world viewpoint has not held its responsibilities to the public. the public sector that he has contempt for all the services for the public have disappeared. i group up in the private sector, and -- i grew up in the private sector, and i always believed that with initiative, hard work a person can go far. i also believe in equal

opportunities. [speaking hebrew] [inaudible conversations] [speaking hebrew] >> translator: i also believe in the commitment of the government to its citizens to live honorably. we're not talking about charity, but about justice. i believe that's true. i believe in free markets and even when you privatize, you do not remove the responsibility from the government. liberalism is not one-dimensional. competition should not be cruel, and free markets is not wild jungle.

the economic crisis taught us that it's not enough to have a successful economy when there is no equality. it hurts the society, and society is in danger. without involvement of the government, all of these achievements can reach the abyss. there are areas that we cannot leave for competition. there are areas that government should show responsibility. but to be this charge of -- but to be in charge of everything, the government has to dictate the policy. and policy, mr. prime minister, is not the same conduct with the mayors as who's for us and who is not for us. the same philosophy of what was

many years ago -- [speaking hebrew] [inaudible conversations] >> translator: in the last few months, we're talking about solidarity. as a liberal who believes in the, believes that solidarity cannot be dictated, solidarity cannot grow in a government where the public is neglected. ..

the middle class has been neglected especially by this government. the in what kadima feel responsible to all, and represent the middle class and to return the threat of the israelis in the government we have. what a change will be if we prevent a new budget with new priorities that tend to avoid such a budget and will try

introducing things in the case that you're intentions are not serious, mr. prime minister, and for that reason, kadima has asked for a budget with new priorities. don't be afraid to conduct this discussion, don't be afraid that your coalition partners will blackmail you. we will work with you know and to decide the new priorities for the state of israel. your witness of the coalition can not after the last summer we decide on a new budget with new priorities and thanks to your

sitting in this chair. in this session kadima will start the revolution. we will introduce new legislation in the area of education, equal the the government cannot give it to private sectors we believe in free education since the early age and this is how we will be able to have the good as release when every center costs more than 3,000. [inaudible conversations] you are disturbing.

in the area of housing, the protest was started because the problem in housing and me. the government promised but didn't do anything. we will lead the legislation about housing and we will advance the matter and we will take into consideration the ability to earn a decent living. we will try to cancel some taxes with like the value-added tax this is only the beginning we do not intend to only be satisfied with its social justice is more

than what we have achieved so far and there is no social justice if there is no justice for all. i believe in corporation, i believe that every and israel must contribute to the country and whoever does not serve in the army should devote a year or two of his life to a civil service in his command your other communities. the quality is one of our values, but we are talking about an exhibition of -- expression that we are all so proud of in the last few days. and then, mr. president, then we can also start that more arabs

and ultra-orthodox will work and participate in the workplace, there for the kadima party will bring and push legislation that will define what this civil service for all its citizens, and to act against those who try to start life without committing the same obligation, and i also want to say something to the protesters today. i heard that there were disputes, arguments whether to

sing the national anthem instead of giving up on the symbols of israel, let's determine its values. these values will be integrated with a national people that will hurt the minorities. let's anchor the values of israel and not only this in social justice it's also part of its value. my star of david is not the one that is next to the hateful writings and my home judicious seóul is not an accident of the other but expresses the same

hope that is implemented in each of one of us could identify with friends, let's not be satisfied by just lowering prices, but changing the the society and let's struggle to get their. and decisions will be made in all areas as difficult as they are. even despite this government.pp@

the oversight committee exists

to secure to fundamental principles. first, americans have a right to know the money washington takes from them is well spent and second, americans deserve an efficient, effective government that works for them. our duty on the oversight government reform committee is to protect these rights. our solemn responsibility is to hold the government accountable to taxpayers because taxpayers have a right to know what they get from their government we will work tigers loosely in partnership with citizen watchdogs to deliver the facts to the american people and bring genuine reform to the federal bureaucracy for the government reform committee. today a debate is on folding in america that comes down to two fundamental questions about how much government do we need in our lives. from this side of capitol hill all the way to pennsylvania

avenue, there were hearings everyday and listening sessions every day about the creation of jobs. today we are going to listen about whether or not a tsunami of regulations some will intended, expedited, some perhaps in conflict with each other or creating an environment in which the economic downturn will be prolonged. on the one hand, the obama administration has been stubborn in its determination to issue costly regulations and pay little regard to the impact of these mandates on the broader economy. on the other hand, the administration has admitted that there are at least 500 regulations that need to be withdrawn. they've talked in terms of duplicative regulations. they've talked in terms of believing regulatory burdens on job creators so much so that the gallup poll of job creators and

entrepreneurs consider the number one impediment job creation to be in fact regulatory excess. today we are going to hear about utility matters. the environmental protection agency epa proposed an issue of this will and 11 billion-dollar world but in fact by most of the people on both sides of the ogle who are looking at the high end of what it could cost the curtain times that or more anything that causes the price of energy and its availability to suddenly change will disrupt markets, will change the balance of cost effectiveness here in america because after all if you increase the price of an essential fuel like electricity, you will by definition increase the cost of doing business and particularly for manufacturing

jobs which often depend on a high volume of electricity in order to create efficiencies to offset the advantages to third world countries in the less-expensive labor. whether you are in florida or as the first witness today, virginia. whether you are a donor of the fuel of the greatest choice, that being called for in fact recipient to the power plants you know that in fact the grid depends of the 51% out of the reliable power it takes from coal. we applaud the epa for continuing the tradition to to find ways to continually clean up all of our energy sources to reduce particulates and particularly set the standard for reducing mercury. we have no objections to the attempt to on an ongoing basis increase the reliability of our

power plants to deliver clean energy. at the same time, 24 attorneys general's both democrats and republicans have requested the epa to postpone issuance of its role for one year. today we will hear from one of those attorney general's along with the epa and a think tank individual giving free different views from three different perspectives. this is not the last hearing we will have on the speed with which we can make their and water cleaner and the cost that will have. and no case do we want anyone to misunderstand. if this rule does not take place, air and water will be as clean tomorrow as it is today. if this world takes place a year from now, and it is different and better, it will only increase the cleanliness and the reliability that comes with good clean energy here in america.

consider the pressing technology related topics in which this committee has not held a hearing. cloud computing coming datacenter consolidation in the day, the implementation of the 25-point plan for preventing the

acquisition workforce. we have not not hold hearings on going deep and wholesome acquisition workforce are about how to improve training for acquisition personnel. we thought markups to the legislation to create unfunded mandates and regulations that tabak, but not legislation to streamline or ask the date data consolidation for the card reads data storage. the republican leadership committee is to be the most important issues of federal type knowledge in management issues which are of vital importance to one of the most important job creating such as our economy, technology. instead of focusing on these important topics, mercury and other pollution spewed dpas updating toxic mercury pollution because the court found that the prior rule on behalf of the polluters violated law. under the obama administration, the epa is trying to do its job

and reduce toxic pollution as the congress directed in 1990. sep attempts to administer the clean air act, it's worth recalling the clean air act to step bipartisan support. the sign in to in to lob a republican president 40 years ago and strengthened substantially by republican president in 1890. they any empirical measure the clean air act is a wild success. it saves lives. major regulations implemented on the clear act have saved far more money than the cost to the implement. since the clean air act was passed commend the u.s. economy is currently 200% but the vibrant new clean energy industry that creates jobs without creating disease is associated fossil fuel production. the regulation the committee majority is attacking today's typical of the clean air act regulations that will save lives and money.

according to crs, the utility will save 6800 to 17,000 lives per year with a net savings of at least $48 billion. the republicans claim to be concerned to life-saving public health data were threatened director liability of the supply. once again, we're presented with a false choice. in this case, a false choice between electricity and clean air. those of us would've been outside today breathe cleaner air cleaner air brake your nation's capital as a direct result of the clean air act. and yes, there are four cars on the road and kilowatts of electricity being produced and when congress passed the clean air act in 1970. primary republican witness today, virginia attorney general cabinet cuccinelli has used his office to focus on narrow ideological issues that in my view squander taxpayer investment. he's subpoenaed a uva professor michael mann in 2010 because he

believed the well-regarded climate research might quantifies front and researching a lot. not surprisingly the circuit court disagreed and attorney general cuccinelli is appealing to the virginia supreme court. the witchhunt has strong condemnation from 800 virginia scientists. the conservative if almost every major newspaper in the commonwealth american association of defense science and so many others. it's appalling to taxpayer money would be squander in a vain attempt to discredit a single climate scientists. in addition to litigating against his own states, premier university founded by thomas jefferson by the lawsuit against the federal government for the epa findings of the greenhouse gas pollution poses a danger to human health and welfare. unfortunately, a character for the monarch republican party and attorney general cuccinelli has fulfilled the predictions come a suggestion it's given this

bizarre ideas he would very likely become an embarrassment to the commonwealth. i regret that we are holding this hearing instead of dwelling -- going into other topics i think would be more per.good and would create jobs. without i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. members will have seven days to submit opening statements extraneous material for the record. we will now recognize their first witness, the distinguished attorney general of the commonwealth of virginia, the honorable ken cuccinelli. pursuant to the committee rules, all witnesses here will be sworn. would you please rise and take the oath quiet do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? let the record indicate the witness answered in the affirmative. i will take a point of privilege

very briefly. i appreciate your being here today. i am going to regret that there were some levels of the previous opening statement that may have seemed personal and i apologize to the extent that you were offended. we appreciate your being here. the recognizer one of many attorney general's that is involved in this end i think i'm an overall committee basis, i would say we are very pleased to have you here as a representative in hope that you'll take the spirit of the full committee without any questions you may have from other opening statements. with that, you are recognized. you have to push the little green button first. and then you may have to get a little closer. thank you. >> chair and i sat ranking member coming from a member of the committee, and ken cuccinelli, chairman of the commonwealth of virginia and i want to thank you for the invitation to speak about the role today. one of my duties as attorney

general as is common among the attorneys general is to serve as the attorney for utility customers in my state, advocating for fair rates for customers for electric utilities seek rate increases from the commission that approves them. as you know, public utilities that have reset by state commissions are entitled under the u.s. constitution to recover from customers for necessary expenses they incurred to provide utilities. that includes the expenses to comply with federal laws and regulations. that means every time new environmental regulations are placed on electric utilities, it is actually the customers i represent to pay the cost. this isn't to say environmental regulations should automatically be rejected because they impose some cost, but it does mean the epa should follow the proper procedures to ensure the alleged benefits of the regulation outweigh the real world costs.

unfortunately the epa hasn't been following normal procedures in its regulatory impact analysis for the mact will come and epa conceded it would increase electricity prices and would cost jobs in certain sectors. yet the epa admitted it did not have sufficient information to quantify those losses. in fact, they will having a huge economic impact on this nation. first, it will increase electricity prices over the course of the next five to 10 years of between 10% and 35% but will vary depending on where you learn what the conditions particularly of her generation and transmission are in your region. that can be a financial death blow for businesses struggling to meet payroll and families on fixed incomes. second, retrofitting power plants to meet the standards will come as you all know be prohibitively expensive, so there's no question certain plants will close in the nation's electricity supply will

decrease, living to upper pressure on prices and likely drown out the possibly blackouts and streamed periods of use. the epa even concedes at least 10 gigawatts of electricity will be lost in the nation's power grid for its first initial analysis has over 80. that is a pretty germanic difference between the epa and the people who you would expect to know better. third, while the epa says it cannot quantify the number, it acknowledges the jobs will be lost. their estimates of 180,000 jobs per year between 20 to team in 2020. for virginia come in the is even weaker than for the rest of the nation, does not mr. connolly is part of virginia, which is worth it. majority of electricity for southside and southwest virginia is generated from coal. since the mact will increase prices for electricity produced from coal, the poorest part of my state will face the largest

price increases, including part of appalachia, one of the poorest parts of america. but it gets even worse. the most import industry and southwest virginia is coal mining. these regulations may pull more expensive and less desirable to use, which means the economy and southwest virginia again including up alicia will be devastated by the destruction of the coal industry and the jobs lost on with it. whatever you think of the benefits of the mact will come a decision about whether it's prudent policy simply can't be made without considering these other impacts and not just for virginia, but the entire country. what is even worse is that the regulation is important, the epa said just 140 days -- 104 days recently extended to 134 to review more than 960,000 public comments on the impact of the rule. if you compare this to other

significant goals for the epa favored few. for more than a year with less comments. this abbreviated review period occurred because groups that support the peace positions to the epa and then in a very friendly settlement, and epa agreed to the short review. this kind of gaming of the system is an affront to proper procedure and the rule of law and really should concern people across the fact term. this obvious attempt to brush the rule through so outrageous that as you noted, mr. chairman, i live with other republican and democratic, governor of iowa and territory of guam filed an amicus brief asking the court not to approve the consent decrees shorten time. given these major economic issues, it's not good enough for the epa to say that it? sufficient information to quantify than negative effects of his regulations. innings to collect information before imposing the will to make sure the benefits in fact outweigh the costs.

if the epa needs more time than it should take a common set of gaming the system by entering into a consent decree, this shortens the time for review. thank you again for the opportunity to address these issues. >> thank you. even though i didn't limit you to five minutes, you're perfectly prepared to deliver for five minutes. i now recognize myself for five minutes. the chart up there i think you're probably familiar with, general. it's a little deceiving, though for anyone watching it here that the large blue line represents the late entry nearly a million comments. the two others -- i will read them because they look like they are not there, but there's life there that represent 214 comments in the case of the middle one, for which there is 344 days of an intervening to evaluate. and then in the case of casper, 3907 in which there were 278, is

there any logical reason from your experience both as an attorney and as a representative your estate, that she wouldn't have for nearly a million at least as much time as you did for 214 comments. >> done a logical reason. >> what you think the reason is quite >> it's hard to escape this is being ran forward and i understand there are policy goals. given the impact and i would venture to guess having not read all 960,000 comments -- >> i'm sure it even combined no team highs, they probably relate primarily not to mercury, even though that's where this all begins. because of the massive impacts across the economy and across the industries that are it. >> i am going to put up another piece on this.

could you get that diagram up? this one baffles me a little bit. perhaps he could help explain it. when we look at health-related items in this new standard, if i read correctly that little sliver of red fire is the mercury that's going to be dead. all of the flu area represents particulates. if that's your understanding of what we're dealing with here? >> my understanding is nearly all are not consistent with this graph that any benefits will come from the non-mercury elements of this rule. >> most of the technology that has to be developed and implemented overnight and the cost will cause from the compared is coming not harmless, but particularly at nonfactor mercury is so many people are legit. >> that's correct. tautology to receive the mercury benefits if left to stand alone

is a lot simpler and cheaper to utilize them what's necessary for the whole package. i'm sure that's no surprise. but it also tried to radically though it quantified into the shutdowns of plans. >> let me ask on the question because he looked at the regulatory impact much more than anyone else has. my understanding is that when bp's mandate to regulate particulates comes under that, a whole different discipline. does that appear here as though they are combining 99-point some% of this bill subside under a section in the review process that isn't appropriate? >> absolutely. none of this is beyond epa's reach through more explicit authority that they have elsewhere in the act. and yet, i know there is always

or often in legislation there're sort of catchall phrases and whatever else you think might be unhealthy kind of language. when one gets crammed in there along with mercury is explicitly express our house. italian appropriate to address at this rate. >> a couple quick follow-ups. one of the ranking members from virginia mention one under 60,000 lines of the clean air act case each year the epa figures. many of the estimates appear that at least 280,000 jobs will be lost as a result of this legislation in its current form. how does that impact your state of virginia quite >> again, i point to virginia will be affected differently in different parts of the commonwealth. if you got a martinsville where they have over 20% unemployment, desalvo lost manufacturing their that we are rather hopeful if we

can economic and keep relatively cost-effective energy prices and make the match were difficult for that to happen in the swath of virginia unemployment is particularly high. imagine what happens at west virginia, which is not a rich area either. >> you are never clean coal, but this would still be cold i would be upset. back to manufacturing, i wanted to focus on this because i'm a former manufacturer myself. nature of american manufacturing is a understand is we take affordable energy and the leverage it to compete against less expensive labor in third world countries. in this essentially would take maybe two-kilowatt hour power and increase it by three or four times. it's a huge increase if your base fuel is: it becomes natural gas. is that correct?

>> i can't speak to the decrease of increase, but there is no question that the state we are in is much more marginal for us to become economically competitive and anything close to the changes described take size -- makes us uncompetitive with large loss of the world. >> my time is more than expired. >> is good for you to be better. i'd like to put on the record that i would like to have the joint statement from the attorney general of the state of maryland, my state, doug hanson and robert adam summers some of the secretary of the department of environment statement inserted and successfully implemented a law that required reduction in emissions from coal burning power plants. rio verde reduce mercury emissions by 80% without effect in my ability in doing so has put jobs in maryland.

has to be part of the record. >> without objections to order. >> mr. attorney general, exposure to the toxic pollution from power plants such as hydrolytic acid to mercury causes a wide variety of health conditions. these include asthma, which i suffer from another respiratory ailments and developmental disorders, birth defects, cancer and to. do you disagree with any of the signings? >> when not in a position to give you medical assessment. i'm just here to talk about the legal side. >> i understand that. you were sworn in in the technical state are you not? >> i think you take into consideration anything that might cause to provide these different things. that's why he asked. >> certainly take those things into consideration i was looking for a balance.

>> it has also been reported among industrial united states at coal and oil fired power plants emit the most of all pollutants in 2009. you disagree with? >> i'm not in a position to disagree. i would note that we have some co-located among their utility as oil and coal. and one thing would've led to the same because we see the voile infrequently, only when we have peaked demand, if those that's one way that would've provided more flexibility for peak demand why still achieving many of the pollution reduction goals we set here. >> it's been >> i've heard that, yes. >> do you have any reason to disagree with that estimate?

>> strikes me as quite optimistic, that it's such a large number. but i haven't done any independent research on that, no. >> mr. attorney general, andersen u.s. federal judge as he testified this to delay the final air toxic roles for one year, making many of the same arguments we've made here today. is that in the form of a brief? >> it was, yes. >> re: wiki or toxic roles have been legally required by the clean air act since 1990, 21 years ago? >> i am aware of that, yes. >> i'd like to enter into the record the judge denied this request. the congressmen would be given under way and i asked that be

admitted. >> without objection although it noted went hand-in-hand with the 30 day extension and may not be germane 30 days from now. >> i understand. but is that basically the same argument quite >> the same judge told the epa that if they need more time they can come back and she would grant it. so it is not from our perspective a close question. >> i understand. without i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. we now go to the gentleman from the coal producing alternate capital, cleveland, ohio, mr. kucinich. >> revert a time mr. chairman. -- happy birthday, mr. chairman. attorney general, welcome to this committee. as attorney general, isn't part of your responsibility to

protect the residents of virginia and not put them at greater risk for illness or even premature death to pollution? >> protecting the people of virginia is an important part of my job, yes. >> is their responsibility to protect the people of virginia from air pollution related illnesses that could cause premature death? >> part of what we do in my office is enforce environmental laws and we are progressives about doing that, so yes. >> how many prosecutions have you had of environmental polluters since been in office? >> ordinarily the way that is resolved is with the epa. i'd are not many. i know without a regular flow of them -- >> have you recommended prosecution for polluters? how many have you recommended? could you speak quite specific? >> we have resolved all of them with consent decrees. >> we meaning he'll?

>> inevitably it is our department of environmental policy negotiating on the epa. >> have you been in the negotiations related to resolve things >> my personal involvement is related to improving of those negotiated by the attorneys in my office and with epa and the defendant questioned. >> and you know, what the outcome of those have been? had they been consent on behalf of communities that have complaints about pollution? >> yes, that's exactly how they've been resolved. typically finds that requirements going forward in court order for all cared to be taken. >> cirrhosis has been instrumental, you are saying and

causing polluters to be signed. do you have any information you could present to this committee right now about specific cases? >> eight did not bring specific cases. >> but you could produce -- will you produce for this committee a list such cases? >> i'd be glad to. >> could you tell members of this committee. i was particularly interested in some of the equations you were talking about. you said that clean air standards -- they will paraphrase, that they can cost jobs. is that your position? what kind of jobs today cost? can you be specific as to the types of occupations? >> sure, for starters the most obvious is that since we are coal state, south assertion in the coal fact good and i'm like the part of her gender and front, northern virginia has fairly diverse economy, there is

not an economic alternative in southwest virginia. so there is a challenge which is the most overt. then comes the industries and businesses reliant on energy as a major component of their cost. and certainly any manufacturing that would take place, which we have been virginia, and primarily not exclusively in the southern part of virginia and that the western part of the state, though again it is scattered. >> thank you. you are saying that they cost jobs by definition the coal industry? >> sure. >> is it possible that if you don't have clean air standards that it could also create health problems for people? >> sure, that is the trade-off here. that's the trade-off. >> is dirty air good for poor people? because there'll be less poor

people of the air air is dirty or? is it good for poor people because there will be less poor people if there's dirty air? >> dirty air isn't good for anybody, jobs are good for everybody. >> can you tell me if you are looking at job calculations about the jobs created by poor air standards. can you think of jobs created by poor air standards? >> the comparison we are looking not and it is in our own. we are swallowing all the studies were as many being done as compared to where we are now versus what is proposed. we are not suggesting anything not to be undone. although i do think it would be far more appropriate for epa to decouple some of the elements of the world they are now proceeding on. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i just wondered if the gentleman was including its advocacy jobs created for undertakers when people don't survive as a result of poor standards.

>> the gentleman may respond if you'd like. >> sarcastically or in general? >> you're the witness. >> no, we are trying to look at this in the aggregate. and you know, as i said to one overt industry they can really be addressed from virginia's standpoint is the whole industry in the spinoffs they are. after that it becomes the energy cost associated with the gradual rising cost as those incorporated to the utilities because utilities paid none of this. it is the ratepayers to pay for all of this. >> mr. chairman, i appreciate given a chance to respond. we've been talking about commencing 17,000 lives a year on the line with respect to regulations. thank you, mr. chairman. >> i thank you goes. we now recognize mr. connolly for five minutes.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. in welcome again, mr. attorney general. the national capital region including northern virginia is classified as a nonattainment reach and in terms of air pollution. do you know what percentage of that air pollution is migrating pollution from coal-fired power plants? >> i do not. >> the surprise you to learn a third of the air pollution in this region is saturated to those migrating pollution sources from coal-fired power plants in this region? >> i wouldn't expect anything in this region to have started here. so i created that. the specific numbers don't really suggest. >> certainly if the attorney general, representing all of virginia, you can understand anxiety and concern in the northern part of the state with respect to pollution caused by

coal-fired power plants? >> i don't think that concern is quarantined to northern virginia. i think it is shared across virginia. additionally shared the desire for balance to be achieved as we gradually keep our air cleaner can improve the standard of living. >> mr. attorney general, the proposition is that showed the speculation going to affect, who would have devastating effects, both on sources of electricity, and jobs. in 1990, with the clean air act amendments, similar arguments were made. do not have been the price of electricity in the commonwealth of virginia? >> in the intervening 20 years, did it go up or down? >> i can't go back to 1990. >> what a surprise detour in electricity rates in the commonwealth of that time. it actually fallen by 35.6%?

>> would not entirely surprise me. >> does that not all into question perhaps then the claims that in this particular case that won't work and in fact electricity rates are going to go up? given the experience of the last 20 years. >> certainly be easier to analyze the argument if there were more than 134 days to look at 960,000 comments, presumably not all of which if you just compare them to other rules, you all had your own here from this committee. i would look at others that the chemical recovery combustion was 2.5 years commerce appertaining combustion engineer and a half for cement -- departments that manufacturing. >> wrister cuccinelli, we look at for the past month to consider questions for the same dancers. >> mr. cuccinelli, unfortunately time is limited. certainly the clean air act of

1990 were farmers sweeping them up in front of us now. what happened to electricity rates another coal-fired -- states with coal-fired power plants in western west virginia, north carolina, ohio, kentucky and alabama? are their electricity rates intervening 21 years since a sweeping set of amendments quakes are the higher or lower relative to 1980? >> i don't study other states electricity specifically. i sit i sit at the national compared to virginia, sunday borders virginia and where the rate case where it's relevant. >> would it surprise you to learn they're also cheaper? >> i wouldn't be surprised either way not knowing. >> mr. cuccinelli, i was under the impression that in the health care reform act, the affordable health care act, you were an advocate for nullification. you supported legislation. you supported legislation of the general assembly of virginia that made universal mandates illegal in the commonwealth of

virginia. is that not correct? >> nullification is incorrect turned and suggest you don't know history. vilification sinise says we are not going to obey your federal law. that isn't what happened in virginia. the general assembly in a bipartisan basis passed a law. to be exceeded the president signed p. paquette and those two are in conflict. as our constitutional structure provides, we went to court to resolve the disputes of authority related to those two laws. that is not nullification. >> general cuccinelli, you can answer any question you choose to answer, however you are only bound to answer questions that are within your made this a good subject for which were brought here. you may continue. >> mr. chairman, the purpose of my question was not to focus on health care. i wanted to get the opportunity to the attorney general to explain his position because my question has to do with whether -- you don't like

nullification and preemption. does the commonwealth of virginia had a similar preemption right if you don't want to subvert nullification power with respect to this regulation your fewest attorney general of virginia? >> i think the commerce clause. clearly gives congress the mayor for the federal government broad powers to address something what pollution across state lines, whereas if you compare that to the health care example, or during a particular individual to go buy a product, not regulating western commerce, or ordering them into commerce is a completely different comparison. i have no constitutional complaint with what is going on in terms of the exercise of federal authority here. my concerns are policy concerning chemical process concerns. >> so you see the two is different? >> absolutely. we put the processes in place to protect not only rights, but to

achieve the best policy outcomes. i know regardless, everyone here would like to achieve the best possible outcomes for this country. i think that we are more likely to do that if we actually take a legitimate amount of time to consider the material that is now before us that is simply not humanly possible to consider all the comments now before us on the incredibly short time. >> thank you, attorney general and thank you, mr. chairman. >> i asked him his consent up is another record the details of 1990 clean air act showing a five-year period for rule-making exception. additionally, i'd ask unanimous consent that the statement by the union for jobs and the environment, the public comments come utility communion organizations combining says epa data implies that no coal units in the united states meets all the proposed new sources hepa

standards. or the effect goodness of its pollution control devices. that's unions for jobs and environmental public comments. and with that, it would now recognize the former chairman of the committee, mr. towns. >> today get it wrong? >> i apologize. i no recognize the distinguished it from the district of columbia, ms. norton. i'm sorry, i didn't see which came first. i apologize. >> that's all right, mr. chairman. welcome, mr. attorney general. there appear to be two separate talks to your complaint. one is the process in the time for the process. i'd like to get to the substance because it would appear that some states already implement stringent mercury emission limits that are even more stringent mercury emission as i

understand bp is now composing. so i went to a set of states closed by a a way. can indicate, new jersey, new hampshire, massachusetts and new york. i hear is what the massachusetts department of massachusetts department of environmental protection said. experience in massachusetts in emission limits for mercury and other pollutants clearly shows that epa's proposed limits are achievable and effective. for example, although massachusetts mercury emission limit for existing coal-fired power plants are considerably more stringent than those proposed by epa. massachusetts would fill these and have been able to install control equipment with no impact on reliability of electric power

and have demonstrated compliance with the interests. mr. attorney general, i does the same technologies available to the state of virginia, for example? >> presumably there available everywhere. >> have you considered the possibility of using those very same technologies to achieve the results in virginia that has been achieved even beyond those even beyond those even beyond those even beyond those its? >> congresswoman, i think you are focusing on what amounts to less than 1% of what bp is doing and that is the mercury piece of this. the mercury piece is a lot more achievable with a lot less damage than if you pile everything else on top of it. all of your statements with respect to herstory i just accept them as stated in with

suggest that it wouldn't cause nearly -- not on an order not to tear the kind of challenge that the whole world the epa -- >> mr. attorney general, the northeast states of the coordinated air use as epa's opposed rule in here is what they see threw itself is the successful track record demonstrates there are no insurmountable cost -- emphasis on costs as you appear or timing various to achieving epa's proposed mercury and air toxic standards. now, they are speaking beyond the mercury standards. do you disagree with that statement? >> i am not quite sure what they mean by the air toxics. i'm assuming they mean the toxic gases, which you got the

mercury, acid gases. you have that particular matter. >> is a air toxic, so i assume they're talking about all the air toxics. >> if they talk about all, i would not say what that statement. if they were stickley kiki and the mercury piece. >> they are not strictly speaking of that. >> i think the mercury piece is probably within reach. >> you think virginia could move forward on the mercury piece? >> if you strip the other stuff out. >> these people when i had under him, mr. attorney general because they care about the health of their people in the air beyond what epa is now proposing. so you're going away for epa? >> no, ma'am, they are not. they are beyond the vp is proposing an area mercury. >> said they are beyond what they are proposing in mercury alone? they went ahead before epa

proposed. i'm asking you, don't you think virginia might go ahead i mercury allowances you think that is achievable? >> virginia could do that, but obviously it's made a policy decision not to do that. i would note that this all has, as i said before, the balancing consequences. we have a much lower unemployment rate than any state your name. we have a higher economic growth rate than any state you just mean. despite the economic challenges. >> mr. attorney general, i don't know if that case i will not accept them to look at those figures. was ligature concerned with the process. >> the gentlelady has an additional 30 seconds. >> i thank the gentleman. are you aware that the rule saying alliance apparently to be finalized in december would not have to comply with until 2015 and then extensions could be gotten after that if you

demonstrated that an extension was necessary? >> i'm more of the rule goes into effect was approved in mid-december to effect in january and other three-year implementation timeline, i also know what it takes to replace, to permit into all the steps necessary for utilities in my state to replace certain power generation that will have to be withdrawn in that time period. and we cannot match the two. we can get kind of close, but not match them up. >> in which case, that would be justified. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> that's always true. however, there is a limit on the epa's authority to just extend than relying on that from a business pleading standpoint is not some thing that i can argue before my state corporation commission when utilities come in and say we have to meet this. they don't have to rely on the extension of the law of virginia is dictated by the u.s.

constitution because they are granted to write a return is this race will pass through to all of our citizens, porous, richest and everyone in between. >> i think the gentlelady and i thank you attorney general. but that i recognize the former chairman of the full committee. i'm sorry. chairman, you're just cannot do it one more moment. but that it the gentleman from oklahoma for five minutes, mr. langford. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i apologize for taking at the former chairman's time. >> we will make up for it. >> thank you for being here. my concern is that i went back or decide years ago, congress was congesting hearings and discussions about pushing power generation not natural gas into into nuclear because we are running out of natural gas peers to no more natural gas out there appeared folks that were used to not need to go into coal. now, plus 35 years, now the

federal government says cole might not be a good idea. let's try natural gas and see how that works and it is better or if we can use wind. i think you need to adjust to the provinces the federal government and now use a series of studies to justify how we want companies to move, that is very difficult on power generations. you can't just plan for next year. better plan for next decade what they will construct. my concern is the cumulative effect of these regulations and if that is then evaluated, is it your opinion of all the thing is coming down i've got three pages worth of different rates coming down right now it is epa on power generation, weatherby 316 v., across tables, whether it may be for cool and a whole litany of issues from the china comes from the ground all the way to fly ash at the point at the end. do you feel that has been adequately studied in this hurry to get through at least a million different comments made,

with the cumulative effects also evaluated? >> appear after midwicket was inadequately? absolutely not. this hasn't even gone and they're still setting the finalization date in the middle of december. that's where my self financed process. of course it's november now. so that isn't what happened if they're going to keep to the schedule they've laid out. that is absolutely not been looked at. you mentioned some of the triggered gods with respect to greenhouse gases and i think of the switching of fuels, you know, the fact that we had epa over their improper process in the greenhouse gas endangerment finding was raised earlier. what is interesting about this is it that is so important, this makes it worse. and that hasn't been looked at either in any serious way or maybe. the 960,000 comments.

it seems the timeline has been set up so they won't be reviewed, not so that they will. >> that is my concern is that has not been enough time. the president has been very urgent to say we need to look at cuba to the fax if that is not occur to catechumen of effects with all the rates coming in this the day are coming down to the size of an. one of the statements made by epa was this may have a potential 10.9 alien dollars in annual cost on the economy. it's just that one regulation alone, $10.9 billion. then you start adding all the different areas of 316 v. and everything else coming down. it's fairly significant was happening. i understand comments made to say we continue to have regulations to the power industry. it presupposes some point that doesn't work anymore. you can't for a thousand regulations that they will continue to drive the cost on to

adding a regulations. doesn't work that way. at some point you to common sense. >> i certainly agree with that. i would also note executive order 13563 requires epa and other regulators and i quote to tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society consistent with obtaining regulatory check is, taking into account the cost of cumulative regulations and the pa has not performed cumulative regulations cost analysis in the utility now. >> what about the effect on reliability? >> i understand that is widely debated here. it is not much debated in virginia. we are looking for one of our utilities probably $250 million of transmission infrastructure costs. those bylaw passed right through to the ratepayers. on top of that, from a public policy standpoint, i was in the state senate. these are the ones people scream about. this is where power lines will

be built across 50, 60 miles of people's backyards that do not now exist and are going to be necessary to provide flexibility in the grid, to meet the reliability requirements that you would expect of a modern electrical grid. so we are also looking at that challenge. bennett talked about that at all. >> i would say again, if we make a major decision will affect future planning, we better make it right. 35 years ago we said let's the most critical because that's more abundant than it is for natural gas, now a now a treasury person that we say of denver studies instead of a knee-jerk reaction, which is the same knee-jerk reaction in the same kind of consequence if we don't do this right. with that, i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman from the nature gas producing state. and i think the former chairman of the full committee whose picture adorns the area just behind us, mr. talents for five

minutes. >> that only means i've been here a long time. >> okay we will make it six minutes. >> mr. attorney general, you testified today that one of the impacts of the air toxic rule would be closure of coal, fire power plants, which will in turn cause job loss. is that correct? >> and with the increase electricity cost that comes with it, yes. >> at evidence from our previous hearings on the subject before the set committee on regulatory affairs, suggest that many of these coal fire power plants are older and would've gone out of business anyway. what is your answer to that? >> i think you are certainly accelerating retirement to part of the cool flea. i do not think in a way to utilities and vision necessarily, but certainly that will be where they try to sacrifice another generation.

that is just logic. >> let me ask you this. in a meeting on june the first with investors, the chairman of the american electorate power by the name of michael moore's told investors the following and i quote: as you know, those are high-cost plans. throughout almost all of 2009, those plans probably didn't run 5% of the time because those natural gas prices. when we shut those down, there will use some cost-saving as well. and on balance, we think that that is the appropriate way to go. what is your response to that? do you agree or disagree? >> are second-biggest utility is one of their subsidiaries. apco isn't a peace subsidiary.

the 5% comment, we have some plans that fit in the category you described. i use the oil fired as an example. and mind you, there is some value to keeping fuel flexibility. anything if they are dirtier plants, even if they are but schumacher and all the time, have been available for peak time in the winter and summer as i was suggested great you on both the cost basis and the reliability basis that far outweighs the benefits he might get by shutting them down permanently, which as his comments suggest, what is going to happen. and i think when you -- moving them perhaps from a broad 24/7, 365 positions to using them as peak power would be a great alternative for america. he would achieve, even if you

accept all the health claims, everything come without disputing any of that, moving from one position to the other would be a huge boon and with tremendous cost savings from an opportunity cost perspective that are dropped on ratepayers because you moved them over instead of shutting them down. but that is not an option under this rule. it is not an option under this rule. in fact the opposite where you have to put in all the upgrades for their use some 100% of the time or 5% for a 5% plan. so of course you're going to shut it down. >> let me ask. ee plans to close two plants in virginia and glenn bland, is that true? >> well, i can't think for ap, but i certainly would expect they are on the box, yes. >> ap agreed to retire those plants under 2007 consent decree over violations of environmental law.

isn't that right? >> i don't know that shutting them down as part of any consent decree. >> my time is about to expire. mr. attorney general, it seems to me that your testimony before us today is a transparent attempt to blame the government for the fact that many high-cost dirty coal plants could not compete in today's market, even before the air toxic rule goes into effect. >> and they would be shut down of their own course. >> you know, i know when you answer, that you only represent virginia, but when you -- actually in the position of attorney general company do have to look at what happens in other states as well and then you make an opinion and actually evaluate whether it's good, bad or indifferent. you have to compare it with

something. so i want you to know you do have to look at other states. you just can't look at virginia. >> my comic to that effect was only with respect to specific data for those particular states. paper you've got to draw from experience of other parts of the country in other states and i do do that in trying to do what is best for virginia. >> i get back. thank you for coming to testify. >> let me make a quick comment as well. i would take a quick moment and then yield to mr. connolly and then we'll make a transition as well. there are 25 other states obviously rep senate in this brief. it's not just virginia we talk about at this point. this is not just a single state issue. this is a national issue when all that is happening. currently, what is in place on this is not just stealing with a small group of plants out of date, but there are no coal plants that can abide by this nationwide.

no one is at the standard at this point. that is the challenge to figure what do we do with this but no single utility will not be affected by this process? a quick question for the attorney general is well doing with the combined regulations we talked about the killing of effects is. american coalition for clean coal electricity estimated that some of the combinations, an increase electricity between 12% and 23%. i know we are guessing earlier on some figures. he did support pretty tough, especially. but numbers have you seen? >> and our last round of utility rate cases and i am now awaiting orders on what is the center ground since i've been attorney general, but in the last round we saw -- we analyze rate increases is related to federal, not state, just federal

environmental regulation and 35% to 40% of increases or pastor environmental cost. in virginia unlike north carolina come utilities can absorb these costs is to incur an ongoing basis. in north to any utilities can tinker until they flip a switch under the new plan timeline. so it happens a variety of different ways, but it goes. edelman had a couple townhall meetings as attorney general they were both on utility rates and the poor parts parts of our state because it is hard to describe from people who are not from poor parts of the state what utility rates mean to the people of these households. when you talk about 10 bucks a month or 20 bucks a month more, it is real money in a small house that is pulling me the

1250 kilowatts, which is an apco average. that is big dollars to them. it hurts when they aren't fixed incomes is a large swath of that portion of that you had is relative to the rest of virginia. we see that a lot of the poorest parts of virginia. make no mistake about it. there'll be economic economic consequences. you will make these decisions all the time about where the trade-off should land. make the mistake about this. do people hurt first and the people her first economically are the poor. they are the poor. patsy will hurt first of will hurt the worst. thank you, mr. chairman. >> with that i yield three minutes to mr. connolly. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would note that the attorney general's view of history in mind might be slightly different with reese that to utility rates in even the poor part of

virginia. many rate increases he is referring to occur subsequently to the reregulation passed the general assembly of virginia has the favorable to industry, not particularly favorable to this numerous. mr. attorney general, let me ask you just one question. he talked about utilities. the largest utility in commonwealth of virginia is dominion resources. as dominion resources requested that you challenge the air toxic rule legally or that legislation be introduced to prevent it from being implemented? >> now. as i mentioned earlier under mr. mr. rotation of nullification, virginia isn't in the constitutional position to step in on federal environmental regulation of the constitutional objection. even if we have legislation. the supremacy clause of the constitution is federal law trumping state law, the huskers

that you asked about earlier in the supremacy clause contains an exception when the federal law is not constitutional. no one i know whereof that's what epa is doing is unconstitutional. an approach. incredibly unique in terms of speed, particularly in light of the volume of the comments and impacts, which even if you asked that the epa's are one of the dispute. >> the answer is so far the largest utility they seek to overturn the rule. i mean on the federal level. >> have you received -- as the attorney general of virginia can have your seat communication or indication from the largest utility of the commonwealth that like you or others in fact try

to seek to overturn this pending war. >> now. my concern is smart ratepayers and it is with utilities. >> thank you. mr. chairman, i would just add my colleague from virginia and i do disagree in terms of interpretation of history. ..

i appreciate you being koln and collaborative in explaining what your goal is what virginia could do more expeditiously and quite frankly, the need to have nearly a million public comments evaluated in the way that is appropriate before we set a regulation that people may asked for extensions on but which may in fact be a different regulation that if all these comments are properly viewed in a public way. so your attention here and willingness to come on short notice we very much appreciate, and again, i appreciate people willing to come before this committee. it's not always pleasant but it's essential. i yield back. >> we will take a short recess and shift to the next panel. >> thank you.

>> [inaudible conversations] perciasepe >> the hearing will reconvene. we recognize the honorable robert perciasepe deputy administrator of the united states agency [inaudible] -- all witnesses are to be sworn. please stand and take the oath.

raise your right hand. thank you. u.s solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? thank you. with the record reflect the witness answered in the affirmative. pursuant to the normal routine, i know you have five minutes or more to give. you're entire statement will be placed in the record. you may read off of it or summarize it we would only ask you try to remain fairly close for the time for questions and with that you are recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman and representative connally and members of the committee. i appreciate the opportunity to appear for you to the on the mercury and air toxics standards. >> is your microphone on? >> i will move in a little

closer. it is clean air necessary to protect health and the environment from the pollution by the plants especially the oldest in the dirtiest and least efficient of them all. the epa will issue a final arcuri and air toxics standard which is the topic of today's hearing on december 16th, 2011. we are not the first administration to recognize the need to clean up power plants and issued rules to address that need. in fact, since 1989 when president george h. w. bush proposed what became the clean air act amendments of 1990, power plant cleanup has been a continuous policy of the united states government under to democratic and republican presidents. while past epa rules have made progress in reducing the harmful effects of pollution more remains to be done to insure all americans have a clean environment to which they are entitled. the queen of power plant rules, the mercury in their talks extended and across state air

pollution rules finalized earlier this summer will achieve major public health benefits for americans that are significantly greater than the costs. these pollution reducing rules are affordable and technologically achievable. there is tremendous public support for moving forward with these rules. since march we've received hundreds of thousands as has already been mentioned of the comments from the public urging us to reduce mercury emissions from power plants. the mercury and air toxic would have a significant public health benefit from a sample if we reduce mercury which can cause neurological damage in children exposed before birth. the rule as proposed also is projected to avoid thousands of premature death, thousands of non-fatal heart attacks and hundreds of thousands of asthma attacks. this would provide americans with five to $13 in health benefits for each dollar it costs. our analysis and past experience indicate warning from the consequences of moving forward

with these important rules or exaggerated. while not the focus, the mercury and air toxics standard rule has the potential to improve productivity and provide jobs. we estimate the proposed rule would result in 850,000 fewer work days missed due to illness and could support 31,000 jobs years of short-term construction work. the net of $9,000 of long-term utility jobs. money spent on pollution control and power plants provide high-quality american jobs in manufacturing steel, cement and other materials needed to build the pollution control equipment and installing the equipment and operating and maintaining of the equipment and many of these jobs that are jobs that will not be and cannot be shipped overseas. in fact the united states is a leading exporter of the pollution control equipment. our publicly available analysis shows the epa rules affecting power plants are affordable. the siskel lubber read the weather outside groups and some

in the industry who recognize that issuing the rules in the same time can help provide power companies with a certainty they need to make smart and cost-effective decisions. as we did more than two decades ago, we are also hearing claims the rules will lead to potential adverse impacts on electric reliability. epa analysis projects that the agency rules result in only a modest level of retirements that are not expected to have an adverse impact on electric generation resource adequacy. our rules will not cause the lights to go out. while there are some industry studies suggesting the rules will result in substantial power planned retirements in general they share a number of serious flaws. most notably as the congressional research service emphasized in august, these studies often make assumptions about requirements of the rule the inconsistent with and dramatically more expensive than the epa's actual proposals. in some cases the analysis performed before many of the regulations in question were even proposed. in closing i would like to

suggest that the committee should be clear about what is at stake and those who have stalled in cleaning up the pollution calls as those who have stalled the cleaning up the pollution call for further delay. deily encourages companies to avoid upgrading america's infrastructure and putting people to work modernizing the facilities and most importantly deily beans public health benefits reducing harmful pollution are not realized. thank you and i look forward to answering your questions. >> thank you. i will recognize myself for the first five minutes. and i will kind of take your opening statement in reverse order. if i understand the nature every time one of the political standards i just want to understand you really don't usually do much to the overall facility. it's no romilly additional clinical but isn't that true in this case? >> yes but obviously from the engineering perspective it has to be integrated and to the

operation of the facility. >> that begs the bigger question isn't it true that today there is no utility that you can show us that is able to implement this entire standard today. i know there are pieces of it in various places but no utility is currently able to implement isn't that true? >> i don't believe that that is correct. i believe we'll get the best performing plants are around the country. >> boe we look at that and you look at each plant and put together various plants and say if you do this and this and this like frankenstein you can get one person. but you make the assumption you can put together the best of all these plants. some of these plants have different long combinable operations in the current time; isn't that true? >> i believe that plants can make the standards and some do, but i would like -- >> is there any standard plant

today? use it some of them do. could you answer for the record of a single plant that meets this standard today we would be thrilled to hear that because we just had an attorney general, one of 25, 24, and sorry, who have asked for a delay as you know in order to get public comment but most importantly they have asserted else does coming and i will put it in for the record the unions or jobs in the environment public comments a union, combined trade union organization who believes that today there are no standards isn't a not uncommon the epa believes a standard will be compliant with the standard can be achieved within the time parameter and that it might be and i want to give the benefit of the doubt it might be that you could, they could achieve the 2015 isn't it part of the assumption not that they exist today that if you take all of the analysis they could achieve

by 2015. they are proposing for power plants has to be based on available technology that is currently performing at the level that we are the opposing. >> if you have the epa deliver us one power plant of what's just say make a lot or above that uses coal that currently meets the standard we would appreciate having the for the record and we will hold the record over. if we could put up the pie chart earlier today we had one of those 24 attorneys general who cities and there she is not a scientist skilled in this area that he believed when it came to the area that would be under this normal regulatory process which is the mercury that is incredibly small sliver of paint if this standard will only

affecting mercury he would be the shorter comment period with a great likelihood of achievement is possible do you agree with that of mercury is not what is driving most of the objections from what you can tell? >> that chart is correct. the best i can tell, mr. chairman. spinets from your analysis but we couldn't resist using your own figures because they seem compelling. isn't it disingenuous a term we like to use in washington more often than maybe we should but isn't it disingenuous for the epa to talk endlessly about arcuri and its effects of which were very concerned about when in fact the best record is particulates and if not 920 out of 930,000 comments the vast majority of those comments are of the march report should come

a portion which is probably achievable well within the time parameter three estimate the effect on children effect their -- >> my question is very narrow. it's not the effect of mercury. it's the technology exists today or can predictably exist to meet the 2015 s to mercury isn't the combining of particulate normally covered by another part of your authority it fairly disingenuous use of the benefit because the benefit of reducing the mercury and the technology to reduce the mercury for appears not to be in widespread conflict in fact you get to the mercury only standard you might likely have much greater implementation.

>> we can't quantify by neurological impact on children -- >> the result of the benefits as the pollution control achievement for mercury and arsenic amoco and chromium and the gases which are all regulated which have implementations we think have benefits is a good thing in those benefits also have substantial public health benefits so it is the same -- >> the same equipment that is making those reductions and fine particles >> these are the controls but will reduce the other divisions emissions. >> i recognize the ranking

member. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> one follow-up i think the gentleman. for roughly 90 present of the benefits york claiming under this regulation would already occurred under project of that reduction under max isn't that true in other words your double counting you have some of the regulations would cover 90% of this your accounting 100% of the reduction in particular when in fact 90% of it is going to occur and those of the benefit, so i guess for the record the differential between the two standards the last 10% on a particular its what portion of the co benefit would actually occur in other words it is the last little fraction of reduction.

>> by the program which clearly the amount of reduction here in the cost my understanding is that about 90% of the particular reduction under that part of the regulatory authority order basically. >> what i have to answer is this rule is aimed at reducing the air toxic emissions those air toxic emissions i mentioned in the acid gases or the same control technologies are used. >> yeah understand that but here's the point, much of this standard for the particular is below what you say is safe by your own figures. so when you say you get down to the sluve ball you now have clean air, you've defined clean and safe and yet in this regulation you are regulating on the standard lower than what to

say is necessary. in a nutshell is in it true that your regulatory authority in said the point in which air is safe? >> your staff is shaking know behind you. if you can answer that you think you have a regulatory authority it needs a threshold which is saved by your own standard i would like to hear it. two quick points deregulating air toxic here and it's a technology standard that's looking at the festival technology, the maximum available technology as for the mac stands for for the toxic. it gets those benefits. it gets the benefits of reducing the fine particle pollution which we think is great and there are health benefits even below the standard. >> why is it you have 15 milligrams per cubic meter per billion etc., etc. 15-milligram standard and yet you've got your new you are now

sitting -- that is would you consider safe on the one hand, and then you come in below 11.5 milligrams and i can't think in terms of that small but i agree the particulates even in the small amounts are important to look at. but why wouldn't you change your standard, supported with science, change your standard to in item come to an amount below the 11.5 before regulating and claiming benefits below the 11.5. doesn't it seem like you've declared queen as 15 and regulating below that and taking credit for cleaner -- i'm not a scientist and i will not claim to have any expertise in this. i can just look and say there is an inconsistency like a set of books that don't balance. you may not know where the missing money is that if you don't balance you go looking for it. why not have a standard that is adjusted based on science to match the greater regulatory requests you're making.

>> we are making the air toxics. the nickel, the or cemex, the acid gases, the kunkel technologies to read a spread of door claiming the benefits of the particulate. >> they are real. they will accrue to the american public. why not lower the standard to the 11.5 or below so that you are consistent in what you say you want to reduce to respect a air quality standards set under the science process where we have science advisers that advice on what level is adequate, adequate for the protection of public health. it doesn't mean that there are not public health benefits below that level. and that's what we are looking at here. these are co benefits from controlling the air toxics, that is the objective of this particular rule making. >> thank you for your efforts and i recognize the ranking member. >> i thank the chair.

mr. perciasepe, the chairman said after the question of whether any coal-fired power plant in the united states could possibly be completed with the proposed rule i have a list in front of me of existing coal-fired power plants that are already fully compliant with the proposed rule including four in my native state of virginia despite the testimony of the previous witness that nobody in virginia could become plight. i got four of the power plants, coal-fired power plants suffer fully compliant today. are you aware of them? >> i know there's some that are in compliance with of the rules. >> i would ask without objection. >> there is a new one under construction in your state and virginia city. >> i would ask unanimous consent -- >> we will be providing information. >> is it also not true that

nearly 60% of all of the coal-fired power plants that report emissions to the epa are compliant currently with the proposed limit for mercury? >> i don't know the exact number. perhaps my stuff behind the has the exact number. >> he and i would ask that be entered into the record. >> we can't base the standard on something that hasn't been met by an existing -- >> my point in asking the question is the consumer is some cut off the source of electricity in the united states is a false premise given the fact 60% are already compliant on the mercury standard is and it further to 73% of all of the reporting units are already complied with a proposed limit for hci? >> it's likely. >> 70% i ask that the injured in the record also 70% of all or on the limit for the particular

matter. what we are trying to do is make at the margins and improved for those not comply and some of which as we already heard in the previous testimony the old appliances are probably on the chopping block any how it would serve both consumers and debriding public of the sort of use this occasion to perhaps move on. we also heard from the german concerns about why didn't you just take a lower level. in the previous of ministration try that and wasn't there a court ruling that it was -- and required more rigorous enforcement? >> on a fine particles i think it was an ozone that there might have been a court ruling or court activity. but i don't know about fine particles. the bottom line is there are health benefits.

you're talking about this rule. the previous administration -- >> please finish your sentence to be spread there's a 20 year history. >> you're about to say -- >> the previous administration proposed control for mercury in 2004. >> and what did the court of law -- >> the court of law through those out because they did not comply. >> that is the answer to the german's question. why are you doing this? it is not unique to the obama administration. the previous administration tried to be with the chairman suggested. why not settle for a lower level in a court of law said not good enough and told epa you have to come up with new regulations. they are tougher than that; is that not correct? >> if the court said that the -- yes, that's correct. it would be regulated under a different part of the clean air. >> that's the answer why you are doing what you are doing to

become the court told you you had throop and throughout the bush administration to have a lower standard. it isn't because you just, you know, in some law somewhere decided to just be painted of every one side by coming up with the top part to reach regulations and as the data shows they aren't as a majority of the unit's reporting already meet one or more of the regulations. was this standard on the toxic pollutants envisioned or incorporated in the 1990 clean air act amendments? >> yes. >> why did it take 21 years than to employment fell law passed the 1990, into the law by the republican president? >> it's hard to imagine that it's taken 21 years to get to this particular point, which obviously flies in the face that we are going to fast. has been looked at numerous

times by epa. there have been proposed regulations that were not properly completed, and we are in the situation now in this administration of having to be guided by the judicial branch towards the end that we are now aiming at. >> thank you mr. perciasepe and mr. chairman. >> thank the gentleman. social studies was a long time ago for me. i familiar with the legislative branch. i'm familiar with the executive branch and even the occasional the executive branch over reached. sue and settle was new to me. do they ever encourage groups to sue them? >> knowing that usually we get sued when we are not doing with the congress asks us to do and that is usually what results in knous getting on a schedule that is different than the schedule -- >> then you never invite lawsuits and there would never be anything to indicate that you

have suggested that someone would sue a friendly lawsuit shall we say? >> never. >> not that i know of. >> what is about december 2011? 21 years waiting. health benefits denied. >> we've waited 21 years and we have almost a million comments. wouldn't you think we ought to make maybe 20 to so we can fully digest all 1 million comments? >> it might be good to see something about those comments since they've come up. >> of those million comments, 900 something thousand the vast majority are in favor of the rule of those million comments as you know some people have systems they can reply are

unique as opposed to duplicates of comments. >> 22,000 is still a lot, not a million, 22,000 seems like a lot to digest between now and christmas is not between now and christmas. we've been working on this rule for a long time. the comment period. we left it open longer than we normally do so that we would expect to get a lot of comments. >> have you asked the court for we recently asked the court for another 30 days to finish the work. we have read every one of those comments and we would be replying to every one of those comments in the response to the document that we are currently working on. >> we left the comment period open longer than we normally do and therefore we put the staff to the task that we would need to be able to reveal those comments. >> did you have an opportunity to listen or watch the president's joint address to

congress several weeks ago? >> i did. >> he mentioned regulations and he mentioned some that are having a deleterious pernicious effect on industry then he said we should have no more regulation than for the health, safety and security of the american people and i think that he's identified 500 that at least 500 that can be done away with. it strikes me as curious -- let me ask before i say this -- are you arguing that the position of this regulation is actually going to create jobs? >> we believe the jobs will be a net positive in this sector. >> how many cold jobs to you think will be lost? >> we expect -- >> one of the things you have to realize is we are investing, we, the country, not weak epa, we

are investing in this role in the coal-fired power plants. we are going to make a major capital investment. >> how many col d'izoard students we will lose? >> do you think we are going to add some construction jobs how many jobs will be lost because neither one of us are not even enough to believe there aren't going to be jobs lost. >> i expect the amount of coal that is used will be roughly flat. the plans we will invest in will be many will lock in the fact we are going to be using coal for many, many -- >> what with respect to job loss? >> we have a range that we've identified 900 permanent gains in the middle of the range some go slightly below zero. >> i'm just asking about job loss. what analysis did they do about the job loss? >> that is the net gain is

9,000. >> so epa did factor in the losses to the coal industry and others? >> yes. >> my time is up. sorry. >> a month to think you on behalf of mr. connally and myself. >> [inaudible conversations] spec on behalf of mr. connolly, chairman lysin and myself, thank you. we will recess of the third

panel and we will provide the information suggested to the chairman and follow-up and of course every question we will follow up as quickly as possible. thank you for your time and i appreciate question. >> we will be in recess for five minutes. [inaudible conversations]

the hearing will now reconvene. we now welcome mr. josh bivens. he is an economist at the economic policy institute. mr. bivens, i noticed you were here for the previous panel. so, you recognize pursuant to the rules all witnesses are sworn would you please rise to take the oath, raise your right hand. you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? once again let the record reflect the witness answered in the affirmative chance once again, the witness is recognized for five minutes for his opening statement. i think the committee for the invitation to testify today. my name is josh bivens. ayman economist of the economic policy institute in washington, d.c.. by professional peer reviewed research standards the cost of the air toxic are very large but somewhere along the way the debate moved on the ground of job creation which is a little odd because regulatory changes just aren't big drivers of job growth.

but in my testimony, and especially my written testimony, i sketched out of a regulatory change in general in the air specifically can affect job creation and unemployment. i conclude that the rules like almost old regulatory changes will have trivial effect on job growth over the long run but over the next couple of years particularly if the rate remains high the rule will likely create jobs and lower the unemployment precisely as the unemployment rate is high to did will was implemented would have clearly positive impact on job creation so in short the deily to the implementation of the rule based on the deals to the wider economic weakness have the case entirely backward. there is no better time from now from the job creation perspective to move forward with these rules. my research in the written testimony indicates the toxic roel adoption would lead to the net creation of about 28,000 to 158,000 jobs between now and 2015. the primary economic impact will be in significantly boosting health and quality-of-life

leading to benefits at least five to ten times larger than the cost and we are here to talk about jobs or at least that's why i've been asked to be here to talk about jobs so let me say a couple words on it. the job impact of regulatory changes dependent am wide econoc impact. when the economy is functioning well the jobs from changes are going to be small for two main reasons. most important is the well functioning economy the federal reserve can neutralize any boost or drag on overall employment growth that may result from regulatory changes to the conventional monetary policy measures they can raise or lower the interest rates. we may criticize the targets that the fed edolphus, but in a well functioning economy they will be able to hit these targets. moreover the direct first from the impact of the change on the employment growth are going to be modest because they carry offsetting influences so the fed won't have to do that much to counterbalance them. on the one hand employment because of regulatory changes boosted because the investments needed to bring could them into

the compliance so the purchasing and installing scrubbers. on the other hand the voice of the price level of energy because the regulatory change may be transmitted to the overall economy by causing a slight rise in overall prices and this may cause a reduction in spending but it's clear the first funding package before the federal reserve tries to neutralize the of the regulatory changes are indeterminate and it's important to note that even regulations that have large measure compliance costs are no more likely to lead to job losses than those of the smaller cost compliance costs go on both sides of the job creation letcher and represent both the skill of investment needed to bring the firm's into compliance and represent the sort of potential increase in the prices that may result from them. when the unemployment -- when the economy is not functioning well specifically like today when unemployment is high even as the short term policy interest-rate cut told by the fed on the synopsis changes and the most important changes that the fed can a logger neutralize any effect of regulatory changes on employment growth. so instead of the fed

counterbalancing these changes are actually have multiplier effects so they would ripple through the economy. the paper in my written testimony based on his positive and the - first effect as well as the effect of the likely multiply it to the economy and it comes to the finding of the dominate and i just want to point out quickly that its estimates are awfully conservative. basically they are conservative because the only real adjustment to the results i make is the assumption to the fed can't or won't clean against whatever happens to the employment because of the regulatory changes. but actually there's plenty of reason to think that they will be very little scope for the overall price level to actually rise given how much demand is in the economy today and basically the idea that when the past utilization rate of the utility of this at the lowest rate on the record of the regulatory changes will lead to the larger spikes is a very hard thing. in the second, when you have economies with high rates of unemployment, chronic excess of supply the often see the rapid disinflation, and that is what the u.s. economy is seen basically since what we now call

the great recession started and this actually leads to the real interest rates rising even one of the federal reserve is trying to keep them down and this provides a brake on economic growth. even in the power generating sector is passed on to the general price level this will actually addressed the upward pressure on the interest rates and this would be likely not to be positive for the overall demand. i don't include the consideration of affecting my papers so in short i think my estimate is likely job impact of the country by 2015 actually allow the wide scope possible for the negative impact to run free so i think figure every conservative. to be clearly want to conclude this is not a major jobs program it's something that should be done because it will help americans but it will not reduce job growth. >> i thank the gentleman and yield myself five minutes. >> first of all we want to compliment you. i've never seen an economist with so many. i try to listen to your opening

statement. it was pretty amazing because it did balance so many but, but, but, but so i will look forward to doing for your conclusions once again after the hearing and see if i can't reconcile them. but let me go through a few things i think are appropriate to your presence here today. first of all, you are here funded by the bluegreen alliance, is that right? >> no. i employee of the economic policy. >> do you work with the bluegreen alliance? >> yes, i have. >> would you say that it's fair to say a coalition of unions and environmentalists are essentially the people that you work with closely? >> i have worked with closely, yes. >> what a surprise you to know the international brotherhood of the workers of the afl-cio has opposed this implementation of the standard at this time?

>> i did know that. >> without objection by the like to enter that into the record. >> without objection, so ordered. >> i'm not an economist, i don't have a ph.d. so i'm going to make everyone look look set the record of this hearing a little bit simpler and i appreciate the but of your knowledge and capability to balance that so i'm not taking away from it but i just think that most of us have to understand this a little differently. this standard does not create new less expensive energy, is that correct? >> it does not do that. >> it does however when fully implemented in 2015 reduce pollutants in the bus has positive health benefits, is that right? >> that's my understanding. >> okay. and although there are some jobs

created as a result of implementing the standard, those jobs are by definition either temporary, 37,000 or so or permanent. the permanent ones or bad for mission greater ongoing cost of producing the same amount of electricity, is that correct? >> i think that's correct. >> okay. so to put it in terms of my economist economic professor at kent state would have said those are rocks in the knapsack. the benefit is to get clean air and whenever you get from that is fine but your ability to walk long distances are repeated and this is an additional burden of the ongoing cost of producing the same amount of electricity would you say that's correct? >> with one caveat. we're using the same amount of energy but producing cleaner energy than we would have. >> and the benefit of cleaner energy would be the health care benefits clearly and we all agree to that.

so on the one hand you have a rock in the knapsack the cost the cost is at least 9,000 permanent greater jobs estimated to be about $11 billion by what we might call the low side the epa estimates. we will forget about the dollars and gist understand you have 9,000 more jobs to produce the same amount of electricity and those jobs will add forever to the cost of producing that energy. so, with that assumption as we look at the speed they want to implement this three years after the look-see period understanding by about a month, what if 100% of the mercury and 90% of the particular it worked out to be an answer which could be implemented with more available technology today, in other words, what if you could get 99% of the benefit all of

the mercury reduction and 99%, and i am using that as a hypothetical figure of the particular at reduction you could get that for a fraction of the cost, let's say 1 billion in additional cost representing only hundreds of additional workers hypothetically? if that were the case as an economist, wouldn't you want a cost-benefit looked at a vast majority of the savings perhaps in the health benefits 100% because some point you have a drop-off in the improvement. i grew up in cleveland, a place all the walls of black and you could see the error when i was a young man, so i'm very aware of the improvements made since the 60's. my question to you is wouldn't you as an economist wouldn't want to have that reformation at your disposal to make the calculation of cost benefit to the economy on a long-term basis?

>> yes. could we achieve the same goals more productively leslie burr need it? in the long run that sounds right. i would say in the short run we have a jobs crisis everyone agrees with that and those compliance costs represent job-creating and investments will be made to the corporate sector showing no sign of any way showing signs of sitting on a massive amounts of savings without seeing any need to the job-creating investments so that to me is why we are assuming we from the due diligence whether or not the rules should be done if that is the case and it strikes me is the case now is the time to do them because what will help solve the jobs crisis we of the next couple of years. >> i'm not sure if you were there earlier but what we have explained to us is it was five years of rule making implementation after the passage of the clean air act of 1990 and there has been as much a full year for less controversy less-expensive propose rules while this one enjoyed roughly

three months now extended by a month, so the question would be not with an economist but the standpoint of wanting to go in million comments evaluating vose and evaluating the cost benefit that comes from those suggestions if that would give you 90% or 10%, and of course allow additional technology to get the rest, but in that be advisable for your finding the optimum benefit to the economy in a way of affordable energy, cleaner air, and of course job creation on both sides? >> yes it would be useful to know if that was a possible scenario. >> well we hope it is and with that i recognize the ranking member. as amihai thank the chairman. by the way, you asked earlier whether there was -- with her there were any coal-fired power plants that might meet the new standard. i think you were out of the room when i entered into the record

the list of the coal-fired power plants that would right now meet the standard including the four in my native of virginia which contradicts the previous testimony. i would have now been corrected there are actually at least six at the station and the city plant both run by the resources would be fully compliant today. >> hopefully the epa will codify that list as exactly that and i appreciate the gentleman. >> i would also point out that for the record all of at least six coal-fired plants in virginia would be compliant or south, they are not in northern virginia. >> you don't get to represent them? >> i don't put the first witness does. you may recall his concern for the poor communities bearing this brunt. dr. bivens, falling on the chairman's question about trying to follow the testimony you are now our third witness and we have actually three different sets of data in terms of job

numbers. our first witness cited the industry funded a study that claimed that perhaps as many as 180,000 jobs could be lost the second witness said that the midpoint and their analysis was 9,000 jobs would be created and you just indicated if i heard you correctly somewhere between 28,000 of as many as 150,000 net positive charles created between now and 2015 if this rule were to go into effect. to what do you attribute the syrians in these estimates that is awfully hard as a member of congress to sort of make the right decision policy wide with such a wide variety the coterie of the loss or creation estimates. >> i can speak clearly between the defense of my estimates and the epa that the industry funded study is pretty opaque so i can only guess what is driving it but the difference between life and the epa is the restricted to looking only at the likely job

impact within the utility itself and one supply industry that's going to supply of i think we're missing a good chunk of the job impact buy not looking at the full range of jobs created by the investments and spurred by the need to make regulatory change so that is what my study trust to do is look at both in the utility sector and outside and looking at the positive and negative. the industry studies that have -- that i have seen that have topped up big losses regarding this rule i think make two big problems generally to read each one is a little different. first there seems to be a big discordance deutsch and compliance costs and the cost implications. so basically, they have compliance costs that look, you know, relatively big say two times as big but in the of the price four times as large and given the compliance cost the dollar value was the skill of investment that support jobs those should actually move in tandem with the price increase. the only reason you have to

raise the price is if you have to hire new people in order to do this if you have to do to comply with the regulatory new regulatory regime, and so i think that the consistently had price increases that are well out of line with the rest of their study actually. and the other thing they don't do i think is properly account for the very different macroeconomic environment we're in right now so we simply assume it is what is the investments deutsch dropping to the u.s. economy at a normal plant in time we are not have a normal pleaded time we've had 9% unemployment even while the interest resource to get zero and the jargon of the liquidity is a really important context for how the economy is operating right now. >> my time is limited so that we ask this question now. we've heard assertions made it this kind of regulation is a job