accomplish that. secondly, it makes any kind of cost-benefit analysis, do we? >> the cost-benefit analysis is that what we're talking about, sir? >> no. i mean, that would be a part of that. you don't have -- >> yeah. >> you don't know for sure. because you don't have a model for the technology. >> no, but we know the industry sees ccs technology as a pathway forward. we also see it as one available to it in ones we're hoping with d.o.e. assistance it will continue to progress and get less and less expensive. that's how technology gets developed. but in this case, all of the components of ccs as well as those together have been demonstrated over and over as being viable and effective and we believe they will be the path forward for coal. coal is a big pot of our energy supply. i know, it's going to continue to be a big pot of our energy supply. we've tried very hard to make sure that we look at the

technologies available to it today so it continues to have a path forward. >> but we don't tend use research funds for things that are already been determined adequately demonstrated? we're using research funds to try to prove this up you're using it as an example adequately demonstrated. it doesn't make sense. >> we are coordinating closely with d.o.e. and if you have listened and heard from the d.o.e. folks today, you will know they share our opinion about its availability and been demonstrated. it's exciting to think that we could make it more cost-effective moving forward, and that you could expand the range of sequestration opportunities. so they are actually working very hard with the industry to continue to move that technology forward. that is only good news, sir. that's not bad news. >> but we still don't know whether it's adequately demonstrated. >> gentleman's time is expired.

pursuant to the discussion about the efficiency of the -- relating to the subpoena. i ask unanimous con stoant enter to the record a letter from the texas commission on environmental quality they received last week that makes clear, quote, that the data provided to date lacks critical information. er appreciate your being here and appreciate your patience. we've heard described on this committee and throughout the congress, frankly, questions about epa's reliance on faulty and secret science, questions about epa's transparency and accountability. first of all, i want to thank for you for the transparency and accountability the epa provide

for the data response this committee has received. and i'm just curious sometimes they ask for information sometimes for document or data as evidence by testimony by questions here today. i'm a strong supporter of congressional authority. i'm concerned about whether we may be overstepping our authority in term what we're requiring of the agency. we're just one committee of many who is making these types of requests to the epa. and i wonder if you could tell me how much time and energy is spent by you and your colleague at epa in responding to these volumes of requests. >> congresswoman, we know how important it is to be transparent, and we'll do a our best to respond to any requests that congress brings to us. it's a significant burden in terms of resources. but that's just the amount.

i don't mean burden in a negative sense. we will be to be open and responsive. we received thousands of these type of requests. we do our best to answer them as expeditiously as we can. i think the times we've had difficulties is when we've been asked to relieve data that the epa doesn't have available to it. then it becomes an extra effort for us to try to make sure we bridge those gaps. scientists we fully expect that researchers themselves will access that data as they've always done and work it out that way. >> let me just ask you this. we've heard some discussion of conflict of interest, and i can understand and we've heard testimony in this committee that when you're forming -- when there's peer review done and deviling in to some area of expertise. it's a narrow area. there are only so many folks

that have the kind of experience that you can draw upon. some may be in industry, some may be academics who receive grants. when you assess conflict of interests and, you know, i'm just like a chief lawyer. and i always thought that the idea that behind conflicts is revealing those conflicts, having them assessed and making a determination whether the conflict -- ib dependence of performance in appear review situation. is that how the epa look at conflict of interest? >> that's how we do that. you're right. there are opportunities or instances where we have a very narrow expertise that is not represented that is critical to a look at the science question or technical question. in that case, we do a thorough investigation. we post the results of that. so the people can know the background. and we can make sure that it's

balanced to the equitable discussion. and as tran parent as we possibly can be. and so we do that both for folks who are the scientists as well as folks that bring their history and the industry to the table. >> is there anything necessarily exclusionary whether a person receives billions of dollars in a company or profit from an industry? or whether a person receives thousands of dollars from the administration in terms of doing research? is there anything exclusionary about that that would prohibit service on a scientific advisory panel? >> i don't believe so. but what it really means is we must have a rigorous and transparent peer review process. we must rigorously share that information with the public so they can, before the panel is impaneled, they can offer their suggestions and comments and criticism. and we can make sure that we have the most robust

comprehensive science available us. >> thank you. i want to ask you about your work around climate change, because there's been a lot of discussion also. is it your view from the administration that you have sufficient data to back the work that you're doing around climate change that, in fact, it's happening and there are certain cause l effects that would enable you to do rule making in that area? >> i believe i have a wealth of data that is more than sufficient. i believe that the supreme court has agreed with me. which is nice. >> great. can you tell me about some of the rulemaking you're engaged fhfa going in that direction and relate that to the mission of epa of protecting our public health and the environment? yes, the president -- reductions in greenhouse gases

as well as addressing adaptation and international issues. epa to some extent is involved in all three. i think the most important i want to get at is our opportunity to reduce greenhouse gases to try to mitigate significant impacts associate increased emissions and higher levels of climate change. and so what we are really looking at is first and foremost regulating greenhouse gas emissions from the power sector for new facilities and existing. we have already issued a proposed rule for new facilities. how we best put out a proposal next june for existing facilities. the reason why we want to do this is that climate change is not an environmental problem. it's a serious public health in economic problem as well as an environmental challenge. and so what happens when with a

changing climate is the weather gets hot or weathers hit hotter the 0 scone levels increase. they go to the hospital more often with asthma. in this country today one out of ten children have chronic asthma. we are talking about a serious public health challenges. allergy seasons extend, we are seeing health impacts from different types of mosquito and other diseases moving north as the weather gets warmer. things are changing and things are not changing for the best in term of public health in a changing climate. it threatens the health, safety, and well being of communities and individuals. it's something we must address and now. >> thank you for your testimony. thank you for the work you do to protect all of us. thank you. >> thank you, miss edwards. the gentleman from illinois is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for coming and testifying today. i believe what we're doing is

important. that being said, i have a number of problems with how epa has done its job putting forward rules without adequate -- all while energy consumption is increased by 47%. gdp increased by 219 percent. that's why i continue pushing your agency to base regulations on sound scientific principles and practices. make your data set open to the public for review and utilize common place statistical measures and methods all of which epa seemedded at verse to when the fact don't necessitate what often appears to be a politically predetermined regulatory approach.

as you know, section 316 b. of the clean water act requires best technology available to minimize harm to a qualityic organizations a-- to expand your regulatory power. when relying on the science, epa has not been able to justify the rulemaking. this is because the cost always outweigh the benefits. your agency is recognized there will be no benefits human health and the economic benefits for potential improvement to commercial fisheries and recreation bodies. the youth benefit will not justify the new cost either. since the agency has been unable to justify these rules with their standard methods, i'm troubled with the idea of nonyouth benefits that you are now attempting to put in place.

even more trouble sergeant way epa is intends to assign value to the benefit pulling. ic every member in this room can attest to the inaccuracy of polling and troubling to me that the epa turn away from science and to a public opinion to promulgate regulation. when epa did the survey asking how much money the public was willing to spend and save give number of fish. the numbers predictly came back inflated then they punted the issue to the science advisory board. on a site-specific bays is. 316b is the first attempt to justify rulemaking with these willingness to pay surveys, i'm also worried the controversial methodology will encroach in to other rulemaking. if this happen, public opinion polling will become the backbone

of many epa regulations instead of science. i think it's important that states are allowed to continue exercising permitting discretion i'm asking could you confirm that the epa's final 316b will not rule states to consider nonuse benefit or require plant owners to conduct willingness to pay survey in the permitting process? >> the final 316b is the office of management and budget. i'm constrained about getting to too much detail. but we have heard similar comments during the public process. the survey that we did was appropriate on the national level to get a handle on people's willingness to pay for the types of improvements that these technologies would bring. we don't expect that to be the way in which states -- make case by case decisions. >> again, i think the most important thing to ways it on science and not public opinion. potatoeses. you can ask us how we feel about

them. when designed not being realized those predictions have not been realized the agency is to our farmers and everyone else downstream must get answers from regarding the yearly adjustment for the requirement. and 2012 rule came in january of that year. what is troubling is how long it took epa to issue their final rule for 2013. it didn't happen until the milted of august. as important that our businesses and farmers be able to plan ahead for this, you give the committee assurance you will focus on getting a final rollout

in a reasonable amount of time this year and wonder if you can give a perspective state or time frame when we you expect to have it publish. my time is winding down. i want to be respect of theful five minutes. anyhow the issue is bringing certain toit businesses. the sooner question get these -- i agree. >> this happened quickly. i ask you for my farmers and businesses to.

i yield back. >> thank you. gentleman from california is recognized for questions. >> thank you, administrator mccarthy about your testimony today and appearance before the committee. i have to you it's -- my colleague on the other side of the aisle on the epa. my colleagues and i have seen firsthand how the epa -- my constituents and i have seen firsthand how the epa and clean air act have improved air quality and advanced public health in my district. nationally it's just as compelling. a study by the epa shows by 2020 the benefits of the clean air act will outweigh the costs by more than 20 30 to 1. infant mortality and 2020 expected to prevent 17 million lost workdays because people are

healthier. i believe the epa is driver of innovation. pushing industry to deposit new standards that product the environment and improve public health and create jobs. the administrator mccarthy, could you go to more detail about how the epa rules have actually created jobs in our country and what grown because of epa action? >> thank you for asking that. it helps me to put the job quote in a little bit more perspective. i think you would see as we have done considerable amount of able sis we do with every rule about every significant rule looking at job implications. we have been able to make the comfortable pollution reductions at the same time we have been able to continue to grow the economy here in the u.s.a. we are looking at actually a pollution control technology industry that now tops around $2 billion annually. we are leaders internationally

in those issues. it's because we've been moving in a concerted pace to get better and better at how we reduce pollution and doing it in a they is affordable and extremely beneficial too the public health. we are talking about saving millions of lives. we are talking about really improving the health of most vulnerable populations. our children and elderly. we are talking about growing jobs, not taking them away. we can provide you with significant more detail. i appreciate you asking the question. epa is about public health. but we do it always conscious of how we can reduce economic impacts and actually build the economy at the same time. >> i want to clarify something. my colleague cited the crs report, which indicated conflict of interest found among the member academic members of the

advisory committee. however, the report, which i have right here, made no such conclusion rather noted that these grants are actually to academic institutions whether the member is employed. and not the member and only a small proportion of any grant maybe pay it to a member. is ha your understanding as well. >> yes, it is. thank you, congressman for raising that. >> the discussion was committee subpoena regarding the harvard and american cancer society studies, i would like to enter to the record letters that the chairman received on october 30th from harvard. they highlight the serious ethical and policy concerns regarding the release of individual -- >> without objection. those letters will be made upon

the record. they were addressed to the epa and not to me. >> okay. thank you, mr. chairman. if as i understand the science advisory committees, the industry is in your opinion, is industry adequately represented on this committee for a full balance of views? >> members on the panel don't risk specific sector. they represent expertise and knowledge and experience. from my experience in working with these panels, is that folks have worked in the industry usually provide a perspective that is necessary on the panels. it's a broad and balanced panel when we pull them together. it's required under law and we go above and beyond to ensure that's the case. >> in your view there's no such closed loop that these are open-minded panels that are not

contained by a particular ideology. >> that's exactly what we're required to do under the law. i think we do a very good job in ensuring that it is not at all closed. it's very open. we just look for good expertise so we can get the best science. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. the gentleman from georgia is recognized for his questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. administrator mccarthy, i have a very limited amount of time and very many questions. please answer as quickly as you possibly can. i'm a physician. i want to make sure that we are on the same page about basic principles of toxicology. one of which is two aspirin relieve a headache. 50 is toxic doze. would you agree that the dose makes the poi assign. >> i don't want to speak to -- >> the dose is very important to us. >> the answer is yes.

drop 55% over the last two decades, it's noted on the website for your agency has been very concerned with the health effect associated with fairly low dosage low level of particular matter. clean air act regulation. >> i do not know. i cannot an that question, sir, i'm sorry. i don't know what the word suggest is.

and i don't know how the scientists would interpret that. i wait until they tell me. >> okay. epa's most recent assessment stated that there was, quote, strong epidemiological evidence linking short term expo to pm as measured in hours -- is that still true. >> i believe so. >> okay. if the dose makes the poison as you indicate you believe they do. and i do too. do you think that hundred of thousand of people die from fine particular level lowest level. why has your agency conducted a series of human tests in north carolina that exposes unknowing volunteers that have no knowledge of the exposure including those with preexisting respiratory issue and asthma to particularly concentration

that's more than 60 times the standard. yes, ma'am, you have. inspector general has been investigating this, and we found out about this through a freedom of information act. were they informed they'll be subjected that epa thinks cause mortality and cancer especially since it came from susceptible populations? >> it's my understanding that the human studies work that are doing was recommended by the national academies. t done with the highest ethical standards. we medically -- >> madam. i disagree. they were noun egg they were being exposed to high level of exposure. and as far as i'm concerned as a

position of a scientist it's totally unethical and unacceptable. let me ask you one more question. my time is running out. are you signed up for obamacare. >> no. >> why not? >> i'm lucky enough as federal government i have health care available to me. which i've signed up for. in a few years, when it's not the case, i'm be happy to have other available -- >> our president says that obamacare is much better than forcing most federal employees in to obamacare and obviously if you're not signing up you don't think it is. i have run out of time. mr. kennedy is recognized for questions. thank you, mr. chairman.

thank you for being here. i apologize for the voice. it's been going around a bit. i want to start out by saying, welcome. it's nice to see a member of rid sox nation here today. and certainly in front of our committee. >> go sox! >> there you go. i want to thank you fur yo hard work over the past several works and i look forward to working with you in the years ahead. i had a couple of questions, if you don't mind, and first is actually an issue that is pertaining to my district. over the past few decades epa made a michelle progress in attacking the lingering pollution and contamination issue. that weapons check have dire long-term health and safety consequences not to mention financial ones. back home in my district i have concern about the cost of compliance with some of the regulations.

the price tag of compliance can seem nearly impossible. this is an old industrial city with an unemployment rate around 18%. similar they are looking at $100,000 to meet new regulation for storm water manage. they included a new pilot program. but the price tag around that is about 111 million upfront. it would be felt tremendously by local businesses. the surrounding towns are looking to the 5eu7d million and $35 million through the same pilot program. when i talk to local officials

and businesses they have a desire to be epa compliant. they are bringing up their children and grandchildren in the neighbor. they see the value of clean air and water. they are concerned about the effect of contamination, pollution, and how they wreak havoc on their own town. but they're stuck. and so i wanted to ask you in your opinion is there any assistance that the federal government not just epa but the federal government can give these already strapped municipalities struggling already? thank you for raising this. your voice in this discussion would be welcomed. we are working on these issues pretty diligently. primarily with the conference of mayor. they all understand the challenges. why it's important for their

public health and environmental resources we tackle these more challenging water quality issues. but we're working on this on a number of different fronts. and epa clearly has funds available to help support this. is it enough to go around? no. t never expected to be. it will be a challenge. we try to prioritize that and make sure we're getting the biggest bank for the buck helping those most in need. we are trying to work on making it a more collaborative process. where we understand the constraint that the city and towns are in. and don't expect things they cannot deliver. we worked with the partnership to find the least cost opportunity to make continued environmental progress moving forward. >> thank you. >> and if i can ask, i apologize it's -- my understanding there has been two studies much discussed today. if i can refer as a harvard study and the acs.

>> yes. >> would you characterize those institutions as represent yiewtble. >> yes. >> well, known. >> yes. >> through contractors for the agency. through the international community. through epa. >> through epa and sometimes public/private partnership. >> yes. and that rerue is all government funded? >> no. >> so in fact part of that funding of done by a group that was actually funded by awe motive industry? >> yeah. >> thank you. yield back my time. >> mr. kennedy you elicited the shortest answers of the day. congratulations. >> the gentleman from indiana. >> thank you. thank you for being here.

a brief statement about -- i'm at the cardiovascular surgeon. i know, about health. i recently reviewed the data from the american lung association about particular matter. and look at the background on the funding for all the study and lo and behold everything they used was pretty much very far left leaning global warming activists foundations that privately funded these things. and in addition to that, the potential health benefits based on computer modeling. not on actually data but a computer model projecting their data results in to the future. not based on actual factual data with human studies.

i had the chief medical officer come down from new york and discuss it with him in my office. and voiced my disappointment that an organization that is highliest teemed would be using data which in my view was biased. my question goes to in another direction. in september your agency proposed a rule -- not certainly the first in the administration's war on coal what i'll call war on coal. the district of indiana i represent is nine coal mines. every coal mine in the state, our state, 88% or so of our power comes from coal. coal supports the economy, jobs, indirect and direct, helps family put food on the table. i grew up in illinois. my dad was a coal miner. i've known the industry forever. i wouldn't be here if it wasn't for that. the new performance standards

for new power plants will essentially prevent you admit the policy and i quote will -- emission changes or quantify benefits through 2022. in your review, should the federal government regulate coalfire plant in the manner if there are no clear benefits? that's up or down? your statement you made incorrect there is a benefit through 2022? the quote of the first few pages of the cost-benefit analysis result in negligentble co2.

>> which is a reflection of the industry and the market as it sits today. >> okay what you're saying they should regulate it even in light of the fact the epa admits there's no benefit. >> the issue that coal is not been invested except new a few instances where carbon capture and sequestration is being invested in. we want to make sure we take advantage of the new technologies make sure we go what the clean air -- >> i think that's fair. i think the industry would agree that constant innovation and technological advance is something that the industry believes in and will invest in. >> they do. >> that said, is the technology currently commercially available on large scale for indiana and the midwest to meet the propoised standards?

on a large scale? >> you might quote the technology is available in some academic setting or in an area of the country say where things are very close. specifically related to co2 emission capture and all of, you know, my understanding is currently there is not the commercially available and large scale technology to comply in indiana with the regulation. so the regulation is in place. it's in place. but there's no commercially available technology to comply. is that true or not true? >> we believe that cc is commercially available. is it going to be broadly disseminated at this point? no. we don't believe so. most of the facilities that are being constructed are natural gas facilities. they're the most competitive. where coal is being invested in is being invested with ccf. >> thank you. i yield back.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for being here. i start by mentioning the first job i had out of college was at the epa in washington, d.c.. >> really? >> and i left to pursue other interests and here i am with you. it's nice to see you. welcome and thank you for your service. >> i wanted to ask about hydraulic fracturing. fracking. they have identified a lot of things like highly -- immigration of highly skilled individuals, corporate tax reform, overseas profit, international trade, simplifying and stream lining regulation. improving communication to energy infrastructure, creating federal budget.

and responsible -- shale gas and oil reserve as important component of competitiveness worldwide. so first i wanted to ask you a little bit about do you think it's possible that develop them responsibly? >> i believe so. so if so, tell me about what you think the approach should be. i want to give you a little bit of time. i feel like i didn't get -- you were interrupted times when you were trying to give the answers. what should be the approach to the development of this? i have a touch on two things in particular. one is, the obviously water and water supply and quality. and the emission of gases including methane which is the super pollutant. and how you avoid double regulation. as i understand there's other asians in the federal government that maybe doing things overlapping or inscant. there's a lot of state governments working on the issue as well. >> first of all, i want to agree

with you about the importance of the expanded natural gas availability. i think what epa has been doing. the president very clear about the fact that natural gas and the availability has been incredibly important to the country. but also needs to be done safe and responsibly. i think the committee we're working on a large project with the agencies of the federal government to look at water quality challenges. or implications associated with hydrofracking and new unconventional oil and gas exploration. we are in the middle of that study. it's robust. we have done a lot of outreach and gathering as information as

we can. doing technical workshops. we expect that a draft will be out for peer review the end of 2014. we want to work in partnership to make sure they're able to meet their own needs and fulfill and get answers to their own questions when they arise. on the air quality side, we have a couple of things happening. we have actually already put out an air quality standard to address methane from emissions related to natural gas facilities. of natural gas exploration. in particular, fracking. at which time there are a lot of eoc emitted. question capture those. it be reused. there's an ability to actually move forward in a cost effective

and actually profitable way. working with other agencies as well as states and local communities. so while hydrofracking raised concern about whether it can be done or is being done safe and responsibly. they are working with states, local government, and the industry to make sure unhow to answer those issues effectively from a size perspective and in a way that continues to maintain the availability of inexpensive natural gas as strengthen the economy as well as help us reduce air emissions. >> i appreciate that. i think it seems like a reasonable response. one thing i ask you someone practiced environmental law for a long time. pleased to do what you can to

work with the administration. very frustrating for the public. we want to be done responsibly and in a way people can understand. thank you for being here. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. >> subsequent thank you. i really only had two things i wanted to walk through and everyone in the committee with us here yesterday, i'm sorry you're hearing parking lot of the same theme again. these large data sets that are used particularly in thing like pm10 which is a big deal in the desert southwest. we have thing called dirt. without grass on it. it really does affect our lives. why so controversial why so partisan to put up -- what, i mean, is down to the individual because you and i know with all other data you are a social anthropologist.

when being vetted and doing the review you got downtown line item. if something personal you do a nonidentifier number. you strip the personal data and put the data sets up on websites where it's a egalitarian. a they can get it done to the line item data and say here is the noise in the data. at least you have a communal international fight over this is good and bad and those on the conservative sides it may not yield what we think it will. why is that a difficult doftion have? >> i don't think there's any

prelim controversial about making data available. i show you from earlier in the year it was stunningly -- all that epa is really trying to do is responsibility under a number of laws. which is basically we want to be supporting to the extent we can open this transparency. sharing information, sharing data. meeting our -- but. >> may i finish? one thing i think we need to have make sure there's a clear understanding. we have obligations to protect private information -- >> but -- but i will -- >> that's a bizarre comment. because do what everyone else does strip the personal identifiers. >> we are actually asking those same questions. if you -- >> but how do you -- use as an excuse not to give them data. >> i'm not trying to offer excuses, congressman. i'm trying to be as responsive

as i can. we need to be careful in how we maintain that confidentiality and working with -- [inaudible] there's all sort of protocol. i was involved in -- it's not that hard. and if you are also using proprietary data inappropriately you're making public decisions for the public that affect the pub billions and billions for the dollar. maybe for the good or bad to use -- something i want to show real quick can we put up the slide? this is sort of my fixation of how we accumulate data and do analysis and study of things. in my maricopa county, pima

county, pal county. i have a mention to flex of a million people. and as i understand there may be a rule once it's there it's hard move because you lose the baseline data. take look at this. you have put your preed next to a large stockyard. next to a railroad track next to deserting aing can you imagine what you get from this? yet, this is dozen and dozens and dozens of miles away from where my population base is. how does that not create preversion rescuing in your

underlying data if trying to built good quality statistics particularly in pm10 you are getting so much noise in the data tap. this is ticket call background were just bouncing off the wall livered. >> i'm happy to spend my time and bring folks in. when we do the rules we propose a monitoring plan an work with states. we take public comments on the plan. >> my county, state, and community have been begging for years to put this in a spot and ignored. >> we should have that conversation. but i think our obligation is to look at air quality across the country. in a they reflects [inaudible conversations] >> actually, we do most of the monitor done in a population basis. some are not. clearly this one was not one of

them. the gentleman from texas is recognized. >> thank you. thank you for being here. the chairman in his opening depend said that the epa should answer, he believes the epa should answer the american people. do you agree with that? >> we work with the american people, yes. have you ever heard the statement that all scientists

are only sure about one thing and that every scientist before them was wrong? >> i have not. >> you have not heard that. you might learn something. does science ever change or get proven wrong. >> yes. >> frequently, doesn't it? >> yes. >> if you're here to talk about the central role science plays in the epa regulation what is the second thing that plays a role in the deliberations? >> there are -- three things. >> quickly. >> science, law, transparency. >> we're off to a good start. you said i don't remember the exchanges with. the rule was in to omb. >> omb. but a law that played a parking lot -- three things did. by law you are supposed to submit the same rule on the same

date. or by that date. is that accurate? >> i'm not aware that is the specified in the law. but we certainly engage the asb and have a process. -- >> you said you have a process of doing that. >> yeah. >> if you are to submit it at the same time or the same cay. i would say that's a exacting science. >> we actually sometimes quality them even before it goes to the interagency. >> you're to be commended. it you don't submit that at the same time as objection earlier, in essence you're going around the law you just said you're here to commit science, american people in following the law; right? you're actually going around that law that's not what i --

>> that's not what you said. i misunderstood i apologize. let me go on. you said there are researchers that have contracts to verify data in your earlier comments. you don't recall that. well, i was taking notes. you have contractss toerer fie data. do you ever get biased results? >> actually, our entire peer review process is designed to minimize any possibility of that. >> right. >> i think we do a good job. >> and so mr. chairman, mr. hall mentioned parker county earlier where you had epa retracted statement where they said fracking contaminated the water supply. are you aware of that >> i'm aware that the epa developed data and provided that data. >> okay. okay. and when mr. stintson questions you on the standard for fuel

efficiency, you said pretty much, quote, you weren't here to speak to manufacturing warranty and liability. >> i can't speak to this -- >> right. >> statements to about it, no. >> and as essence if effect an entire car industry, it doesn't matter -- >> very much so it matters. it matters to us and we will be attest forking that reason. i'm not -- that's not -- >> let me move quickly. he said on grant recipients, he said you said in response to him that you have spread -- procedures to ensure they are fair-minded let me submit as as by owner. if we put business people on the science advisory panel can't you apply the same procedure to make sure they are fair-minded? >> we provide the same procedure to anybody that is on -- >> so you would be okay having more business and industry exparts -- experts on a panel as well as fair-minded. >> our job is to balance it and make sure hay are doing their

job correctly. >> quickly i have carbon capture sequestration. i'm district 14. $400 million was the cost of that project of some 60 was supplied the d.o.e. for the aara. so you said that ccs had been demonstrated to be cost-effective in your exchange -- >> i'm sorry, sir. i said reasonable cost. >> a reasonable coast. okay. let's go with that. $400 million project. 60% of the $2 40 million come from the federal government. do you think it's reasonable to believe that industry can duplicate that. if 0eu67% of the money has come from the american taxpayers? >> i think in our analysis that has been put out we're taking comment on would indicate this cost is reasonable for new facilities moving forward.

.. be to be in the business, it's not a tricky question for you. would it be before november 2014? >> i do not know.

>> you have not thought through it? >> needs to be proposed and final -- i have not even been briefed on that because we are still looking at the science in the right to keep the policy and legal questions aside. >> very quickly, you did a national survey of the willingness of people to pay? >> i believe it was. >> did you also survey the industry to see if they were willing to pay for the epa opinion on whether or not it was cost cost-effective, and did you also do a survey to see if people were willing to pay for the loss of jobs and jobs were exported offshore because our plants cannot compete? >> i think that we are seeing a little bit of apples and oranges. i'm not sure it's time for me to clarify what the survey was doing and what role it was applying. >> we will talk off-line. >> thank you, sir.

the gentleman from newtown, mr. stewart is recognized. >> thank you, madam administrator, thank you for being here today. i'm sure that you just enjoyed your warning. >> i'm honored to be your. >> thank you. i must say that you have worked hard to serve your country. but there there are so many things that you and i disagree with. and that i believe that the epa is working not for but actually against the best interest of the american people. some of them have been brought up to date and is hearing so far. and the interpretation of the navajo waters and the clean air act. we have those standards that were mentioned and it's going to affect huge part of the west.

the standards for the carbon emissions and standards that we have spent some time slip talking about coal-fired power plants. all these are taken together, i believe with these new rules and proposals are harder for new working families and they take away economic freedom and opportunity, i believe. and they have the effect of making washington dc more and more powerful and more and more centric to the american people's lives. frankly, the american people are less trussell of washington dc due to this and i'm sure that you have a sense of that as well and very clearly, some of the questions and concerns indicate that to you as well. but let me focus on one of them, if i could. it will affect the democratic and republican histories and the states. and i will start with a simple question, and that is not

intended to be a budget question at all, do you think it would be appropriate for the epa to propose a standard that would be impossible to meet? >> if it is a health-based standards about what is healthy and impacts associated with it, we need to rely on the science to say that. >> would you propose a standard that would be impossible to meet? would that be appropriate for the epa to do? >> it really depends upon the question. if it's a health-based standards, you said is based on the health impacts. >> once again, it is impossible to meet comment it doesn't matter what it might be. and i think that everyone would recognize that. >> we would not require the impossible, sir. >> i appreciate that and it wouldn't be appropriate for the epa to set standards that are actually below naturally

occurring levels and if i could call your attention and i suppose you have seen something like this before regarding the ozone standards. the areas in red reflect these counties. it indicates those that anticipate the 60 parts per billion and if you see that, i represent parts of utah and it got some of the most remote, they are very beautiful, but some of the most unpopulated areas of our nation. you could include yellowstone national park in this map as well. and yet using it as an example, 66 parts per billion, which is above what some of the proposed standards are and are being considered. and i guess i would just ask if you are aware that some of the

most remote and pristine parks of the country have an ozone that exceeds the range of this proposed standard? >> there is no proposed standard at this point. let's just make sure that people are not confused by that. but i would also say that i know the science advisory board is looking at this issue with the staff so they can establish some recommendations to me, moving forward and take a look at these issues. >> okay. maybe there isn't a proposed standard and it depends on what the meaning of the word is is and we could go back to technical definitions. but there is certainly definitions of a standard of 60 parts per billion. >> i do not know whether that is part of the consideration that the science advisory board will advise her advising on.

>> this spring we were told that that was a standard that they were considering and that they were not only considering it, but it was one that they were leaning towards. and we expected it to be the new proposed standard. i guess i would just conclude with this since my time is waning. and i wish i had more time. but there is nothing that these western states can do to achieve that kind of standard and it will have a great economic costs by the epa's own estimate. $90 billion, by summit could be 10 times that amount. i would like to talk another time about just the wisdom and the sanity of the epa proposing this standard that is impossible to meet that would be incredibly expensive. and once again, coming back to my opening statement, and why that generates so much suspicion and so much ill will in the

american people. with that, i thank you, and ms. chairman, and i yield back my time. >> thank you. the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized for his questioning. >> okay, he is not here and so we are going to the gentleman from texas. >> hello, ms. mccarthy, i'm over here. i know that we are kind of jumping around and i think that earlier you gave me my favorite tweet of the day. which is i am lucky enough -- [inaudible] >> the quote that i'm lucky enough not to have to sign-up for obamacare. and that is wonderful. i wish my constituents could stay the same. >> i think i was referring to i'm lucky enough to have good health to you.

>> doucet also hear testimony they are $2 billion in new jobs from the epa i would like to point out that one facility alone in my district is a 7 billion-dollar of new construction representing 13,000 jobs in your administration and they are saying because of a two-week furlough it will take many more weeks to look at this. and i would request that given the circumstances of our poor economy and the fact that this needs to be done, it is meeting all the epa requirements and i would ask that you, and i will follow-up with you, that you look at this and expedite expediter. the 12,000 jobs is a lot of jobs. >> i'm sorry, what kind of permit? >> the epa permit. it's been sitting there in your office. >> i'm happy to follow up. >> there is also another plant that wants to export corso will be buried here in my district and altogether we have $52 billion that is being held up by the epa, which by the way is more than sequester.

i'm just saying that there are a lot of jobs that are dependent and i would like to give that information to you so we can facilitate the jobs that i know this president wants and i really want to help him out in doing that. texas represents 50% of all adults in the united states and in my district, we have 30,000 people moving to our district and there has been over a million wells frats and a lot of bracketing and there is a general history in the united states of people independently drilling for oil and producing products that this nation relies upon and we are going to produce more than saudi arabia. i think it's because the independence and the driver of the american spirit are part of this. so that we can see a future where we have independence from the middle east and it has great implications under foreign

policy and people's future. and i'm really frustrated when i come back to my district and i have people coming to my meetings in saying that we want the jobs and i have to tell them that i'm sorry, that someone from the epa is not letting us have the jobs and i'm just begging you, please open your heart up, get these permits done, they've done the work and they've complied with all the regulations and i don't see, for two weeks they say that we shut down the government and it shouldn't take months to recuperate the two weeks that is lost and i don't know, i even had a plant that's not in my district, now a lot of them are close in the united states and they are spending $100 million upgrading this and so now the chinese are going to produce it. now we won't have enough for it those that are coming from china, i mean, really frustrated that we have so much opportunity in this country and again and again and again, it comes back to your administration want to hear about, okay, it's locked up

here and there and everywhere and i go to town hall meetings and i would love for you to come with me and i will invite you to a meeting where we can share the podium and hear from the people individually who are losing their jobs because we can't get the permits and i am troubled that again, time and again, i just can't get any satisfaction except for the rolling stones, of course, from your administration. >> that's just the temptation to think. >> go for it. but we can work together, i will still appreciate it. >> this is an issue that frankly i just have not heard for a long time. i think we have been trying to do our best to expedite this as much as we possibly can, knowing the economic implications of that. so if you do have concerns, we need to tackle them together. >> one thing that i would like to add for my colleagues. he wanted to clarify that in the

report, in places for the record that if i could please insert the. >> go ahead. >> thank you. >> the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. throughout this hearing, you have touted the importance of transparency. and i agree. we have, said in your agency announced it would hold public sessions on reducing carbon emissions from the existing power plants to consider the public concerns ahead of the development of the epa. i was disappointed to learn that all of the epa sessions are in major metropolitan areas and none of these would be in the 10 states most reliant upon coal fire power. in november you were sent a letter saying that kentuckians party lost more than 6200 coal employment, reducing it since the commonwealth began keeping

the statistics in 1927 and unfortunately these jobs and job losses are forecasted to continue and increase as the regulations come online and in this letter, we request that you hold these listening sessions and kentucky for the sake of openness and transparency that you have espoused today in the eyes of kentuckians and the american people, recommitting this listening session in the commonwealth and other similar states like north dakota where my colleague is from. those that are reliant on the coal production and electricity, as you will see. >> we have received a number of requests for additional listening sessions. and i would like to explain that those 11 sides are actually our regional offices. because it is part of that. >> we appreciate that and we appreciate that you have held these sessions outside of the offices and i'm glad that you do get outside of the office and

see the people that you affect every worthwhile and certainly you must realize that if you fail to hold these listening sessions on greenhouse gas regulations in the states whose economies depend on the coal industry and electricity, this will be perceived as an effort to avoid negative public opinion and he realized that it will be perceived that way. >> i think people should realize this is before we are proposing this and there is also opportunities for individuals. >> okay, i can let you take all of my time if you're going to answer the question. most other air pollution is a function of this, and many of these states have been recognized as having air-quality urban issues for the most part. so residents of rural areas, like myself, who rely on what he

does and affordable and renewable carbon neutral source of heat energy, they are perpetually perplexed by the epa's fascination with regulating this form of heat since it is primarily the rural form of heat. we believe that the one-size-fits-all comes from washington dc from bureaucrats that have never experienced this or maybe even the exercise of collecting it themselves, that they really aren't qualified to regulate our source of energy, especially when you're you are taking where other sources of energy as well. let me read from the old from the website on the new rules that are being proposed or pre-proposal, certainly from the website. the epa is revising the performance standards for new

residential wood heaters and this action is expected to include the following appliances , wood heaters, stoves, hydraulic heaters in and the list goes on and then it finishes with these standards would apply only to new residential wood heaters and not to existing residential wood heating appliances. is that your impression that these rules would apply this way? >> that is all they do apply to. >> you can promise us today that if americans like the wood stove that they have that they can keep it? >> this particular part of this act does not address existing for these types of pollutants. >> i have one more question but i'm glad that you can assure us that we can keep that if we like it. and i hope that the promise that we can all keep. one more thing that affects rural america. i hope it is a urban legend.

is anyone looking at regulating cow flatulence? >> okay,. >> not that i've heard of. >> part in the? >> the methane emissions from cows, can you assure us that you are not looking at that ennobling epa is? >> no, not that i'm aware of. >> thank you, mr. massey. the gentleman from wyoming is recognized. >> welcome, administrator. in the agency's recently repurposing new source performance standards for power plants, you set levels for coal-fired plants based on the use of carbon capturing technologies and you did not require that same technology for gas fired power plants. by requiring this for the coal units only, are we applying a standard that is higher

regarding the carbon that is emitted from the coal generated power? it just sounds like this is not an all of the above energy plan. it seems to single out coal for punitive treatment. can this really be defended as a transparent and equitable application of the clean air act? like the administration that you testify for, they support opportunities in natural gas and soda water, and i support them also for the new coal fire plants. cold and liquids. all the reasons that the epa has for declining to define these technologies to be the best system for gas-fired units and apply with equal force and so why require it and it strikes me that the answer to that question is to set a precedent.

the epa is under a consent to create and issue new source performance standards for refineries in the near future and will that rule the best system of these technologies that is unproven on a commercial scale? that seems to be the new definition of adequately demonstrated. when the epa requires a technology for new coal plants that is not yet in commercial operation, what is to stop it from doing the same for other sources of carbon? earlier in response to the gentleman, you said that the cts technology is ready according to the doe. in front of this committee and the summer, they couldn't give us a date for the technology to be ready and then the former secretary of energy was here two weeks ago and he testified as well that commercial technology

currently is not available to meet the epa proposed rule. so our problem is that this committee is receiving conflicting testimony from the former secretary of doe at your sister agency. and i find it interesting that the epa claims that regardless of this new rule, no one plans to build traditional coal plants. so does this rule achieve any of the epa carbon reduction goals? by its own admission, the requirement of the carbon reducing technology for plants that were will never be built, but at the same time it is requiring no reductions from natural gas plants, even though they are being built in greater numbers than ever before. this does not make sense to me. and i would just like to ask if it makes sense to you.

>> could address the issues that you have raised? >> just. >> okay, in terms of why we wouldn't be proposing the ccs on natural gas, we do not have that kind of wealth of data that we have for the demonstration of it on natural gas as we do on coal and we know that they run differently and that the technology is different and we know that the gas stream for natural gas is different and we did not have the data available to be able to propose the ccs on the natural gas and we went with what we knew to be demonstrated with the technology moving forward and we do have data on the coal fire power side that addresses these for being robust. but we will look at the comments that come in. relative to the doe, they have been in this vast and very supportive of the way that we are looking at the data in the industry sector moving forward.

>> squeezing in one more question before i run out of time. >> okay, sorry. >> let me ask you, and this is kind of a yes or no question. is it the epa's view that section 111 of the clean air act gives state primacy in the implementation of new source performance standards for existing power plants? >> yes, it is the state implementation that needs to be developed. >> okay. >> the one i wanted to hear was this idea that we are not going to be making any progress moving forward because most of them are natural gas. while we are trying to do is make sure that new facilities like power plants that are around for 60 or 70 years, that they take advantage of the technologies available to them today, so that they can be part of this next moving forward and coal is important now and it also will be in the future.

>> the gentleman from north carolina. please go ahead. >> thank you. >> i'm sorry, from north dakota? >> yes. >> okay. >> thank you i misspoke the first of anything other than north dakota's. >> thank you for being here today. but i would love to ask him questions about the hydraulic fracturing. but before i do that, i would like to follow up on the invitation by mr. massey for you to go to kentucky and hold a listening session on your way to north dakota on the new standard for we would like to submit and i'd love to talk to you about october 18 of the record, mr. chairman. >> okay. >> it just seems like in the spirit of transparency, that having these 11 listening

sessions in the cities where you have regional offices, that it's okay as far as it goes. but what a wonderful opportunity it would be to add some more listening sessions. so i would really love to have you commit to these other places. >> i appreciate that. i just want to tell you that that is not the extent of what we're doing and those are the major listening sessions, but the regional offices in our administrations are branching out to the individual states as well. >> i understand that. i understand it in that in a place like north dakota where there are jobs at stake, there are a lot of really wonderful and smart experts and scientists who work in this every day to provide lots of good information and a better method might be to hold a listening session in public view for everyone to participate in i would appreciate it and i would love it if we could work out the details at another time with what time in cities and cities

and all that. but i also want to talk about the hydraulic fracturing study that you are engaged in. because i have concerns about it, especially the study design and some of the goals of that study. because as we have discussed previously with other witnesses, this idea searching for what is possible is problematic from, what i think is a real scientific standpoint. one of the primary goals is to answer questions like what are the possible impacts of the hydraulic fracturing and service bills on drinking water resources. and it appears that if the epa advisory of science board shares this concern as well. and one would be no quantitative risk assessment, including the research effort, does the reader has no sense of how risky and

the operation may actually be an impact in drinking water and this is also a significant limitation of the work. there isn't a possibility sufficient to this regulatory action in her mind? >> i actually think that this is purely a scientific research project so that we are able to understand the potential implications. it is not a regulatory decision. >> yes, but again, the possible versus probable. i mean, what is the standard and probability before we continue with more leaders and resources, given the fact that hydraulic fracturing is not a new technology. >> yes, yes. >> so is there a line and you can understand why the industry and the states that have this could be concerned that we go down this path with the possibility of a standard and the uncertainty that that creates as we become more energy securing this country.

>> my understanding is that this is a number of research projects that we are looking out for the potential for impact on the water supplies and it is the first step in looking at this and a comprehensive ways we can be sure that we are doing things safely. >> i agree that this is one been part of something more comprehensive. because the director in may of last year stated that the agency is doing a pretty comprehensive look at all the statutes to determine what holes may allow for additional federal oversight. so is this part of the comprehensive look for the holes and opportunities to regulate through? >> my understanding is that, and we can certainly follow up on us. but this is purely a research project and it is not, at this point, it is not talking about what laws we might utilize or what regulations we might want

to do. >> can be found in the holes would you know of any regulatory holes that might propose further regulation. >> we also need to look at hydraulic fracturing on water quality. >> the gentleman from florida, you are recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you, madam and minister for your testimony today. i really appreciate your direct responses. >> thank you. >> following up on the questions that we had earlier today, concerning science-based management.

how many ice ages have become part of her do you know? >> i'm sorry, sir either not now. >> okay, some say three and others say five. do you think we've had ice ages before? >> i'm quite sure of reading about those but i am not a scientist and i don't want to pretend to be for you, we can get our scientist to respond. >> i would really like that. and normally, we can't have ice ages without a warning. matt between them. and i was just wondering if you happened to know what the temperature was here on earth between the last two ice ages. >> i'm sorry, sir, i cannot answer those questions. >> if i told you the earth was 30 degrees warmer before the last ice age, without surprise you? >> they would not influence my decision in terms of listening

to the science and consensus around climate. i leave the science to the scientists. >> don't you think the history of the earth should have a bearing on science? >> i'm positive that it does. >> i just don't want to pretend that i am a scientist and have that discussion because i am not. i do listen to the scientists and i listen to the consensus that is being drawn. >> i listen to them as well. and i don't claim to be a scientist. but i don't put my head in the sand and ignore science. >> absolutely. >> berm wondering what impact you thought carbon emissions have on previous global warming between ice ages. >> the intimation that i have available to me relates to all of the work that is done by the number of scientists scientist looking at the climate issues and climate changes, and i'd pay

attention to that and i apply the science and decisions moving forward. i am not either comfortable were qualified to have a science discussion with you on these issues. >> do you see the promulgation of any rules that would enact of the carbon tax in the future? >> say that again, sir? >> dc the promulgation of any rules that would enact a carbon tax for this country in the future? >> only if congress provides that mechanism then no. >> okay. >> mr. chairman, i can't get my questions answered, so i'm pretty much finished. >> i don't believe we have any other members with questions. so ma'am, thank you for your presence today and we may have additional questions and we hope that you will reply to those.

>> may ask one favor? >> of course. >> i know you asked me a lot of information about the subpoena issues and i want to make sure that we both understood one another. so if we could meet afterwards, i want to make sure that i gave perfectly correct answers and that our expectations are the same on what you are looking for and whether or not we have complied with that and what you're looking for next. i want to be very respectful of you and the wishes of those department. >> i am encouraged by your answers and i hope you will give us the data that we would like to have independently verified. did you once tell us that if you like it you can have it?ees"

correspondent david sanger. it was hosted by the asia society in the month of september. [applause] >> thank you. thank you so much, tom for the wonderful introduction. [applause] we are privileged to be here with you today. [inaudible] [inaudible] >> we are having this conversation for 40 or 45 minutes, something like that,

and then we will leave it up to all of you and all who are watching this on the internet and have a way of sending in their questions to the moderator. those are supposed to magically appear on the ipad. if they do not, the questions have all been eliminated out there right off the bat. so i was on a panel recently with the head of the nsa chief alexander and before we sat down he said that i really don't like questioning this. [laughter] >> so let's start with tom rid. mr. thomas rid, you have come to a definition of what cyberwar is and is not. and i think that we all agree on this panel that we have seen

gradation of cyberactivity and intellectual property and corporate secrets, state secrets, espionage that is cyberenabled and we see occasional cyberattacks on infrastructure, which is what happened in operation of the games and against iran's nuclear program. we see denial of service attacks in an effort to bring down banking systems or freezing of the entire "new york times" website, as was managed to do over the summer months. so for a good number of hours. and then, there is the overall cyberwar, which you described in

these terms, and for those that i hear that did not have to suffer through this, which is near a thousand pages long. so it's very good in new york for killing rats, but you use a very classic definition of cyberwar. so which of these will not occur? espionage is happening, some infrastructure attacks are happening. clearly denial of service attacks are happening. and what is it that you are saying what happened. >> first of all, i would like to specify that i'm actually not talking about the future in the spirit of the book is the opposite, looking at the records and the technical possibilities. and then i think we need to put this cyberwar debate into context. many people use this and we are

talking about the war on drugs and cancer and poverty and we are talking about the real thing at the same time. so i'm trying to do is to help distinguish, which can still be very serious, and the real thing. executed with the help of a computer code and i need to meet three criteria. one is a could be violent or potentially violent. and it needs to be instrumental in terms of somebody trying to change someone else strategically, and it needs to be political in the sense that somebody takes credit and if you run those three criteria for all

this cyberattacks that you have seen, they don't usually meet those criteria. so first of all, what is it? you mentioned this already, grouping those injured three different sections. cybertalks, withdrawing a system from a system and only external computer attacks on the industrial control system and other attacks with critical infrastructure insiders and we are talking about very small numbers, as you mentioned. and the second is espionage or in children's operations and commercial or political in nature and third we are talking about subversion activism, which in a separate problem is part of

cybercrimes. i think each of those requires a separate discussion with sometimes an intensive duration. so i'm with you on all that except the part where you say that you're not trying to be predictive. because the title of the book is "cyberwar will not take place". which sounds a little bit like the future. [laughter] >> go right ahead. >> theoretically in french it's about the trojan war and used in that example to encounter this. >> okay. so chad, let me take this to you. you have heard tom rid, the doctor's discussion of this. >> just. >> but you don't get paid by your clients to worry about the

past, you get paid to help them for the future. so if you sent them all copies of the book by doctor tom rid, they would stop paying you. [laughter] >> so you are concerned in the range of crime and subversion in espionage and sabotage and can you tell us at the far end of this, whether you see these types of attacks on infrastructure to be a one up for a were a wave of the future, and whether you think that it could fit with the definition of war, violent or potentially violent political war. >> thank you. i would like to thank the asia society for having me and colombia here in new york and i went to the college and i live just down the street and got my

international relations degree and i appreciate the work that the asia society does. and i think that it's great that we are having this discussion coming on the heels of tom donovan's important address regarding our relationship, not only with asia but with china and the topics of cyber. i respect tremendously tom's intellectual work and i have a lot of appreciation for the in depth analysis that he has been given an i would respectfully disagree, however, that the fundamental definition, that it's intended to change behavior. by that definition, for example, if you think about the cia, when

we used to do code in a number of things that we had to do to protect the united states that did not rise to the level of overt violence, nor did it -- we didn't claim credit for it than there were a lot of things that happen behind the scenes that would have constituted this in the art of war. and if you go to this as david alluded to earlier, war is politics by another means. so i would have a slight definitional difference. but the second thing that i've asked to think about by the many terrorist attacks are taking place in some of them are claimed and some of them are not and we just saw today what may be viewed as a violent terrorist event, we don't know what the multiple individuals involved

and tom izzo got ahead of that investigation. that certainly in the boston bombing initially, it was not the initial claim of responsibility, but clearly a terrorist attack and in my view, we can define this as war is politics by another means and then certainly terrorist attacks are the poor man's way of conflicting with their desired outcome on another power. and if we go to the issue that david has pointed out, i would tell you that that is an exact example, if you define violence or credit and it would not have qualified as an act of war, because nobody had claimed credit for that. and depending on how you define this, you can define it as

killing people or worse in that respect, and violence can simply mean destruction of property or systems as well according to this definition. on the question of whether or not this would become a tool of the future, at the beginning tom said that this is where cyberwar is coming, that was very much a quote like paul revere. my position will be not only is it wrong, but it's happening every day around the world and we will go through many more examples tonight to discuss it. and i think that cyberwar is

happening or cyberconflict is happening. then we can talk about this, so much of it is directed at china and i want to be very clear of this. and this is the single most important act of the nation and the national will to serve and what happened with this attack, it essentially happened, what happened was the society was attacked and the iranians believed that they were collaborating with other powers to stop their nuclear program, which david wrote about at that time. and essentially extracted the retribution or the physical disruption of over 30,000 computers, which now it

literally destroys the system and blinded the values of the millions of records that are all reserved and it would be the equivalent of just your core source of national strength and it was an act of war and it was done by the iranians and i think it's a great example of this. >> before i go on, let me just please circle back to doctor tom rid and say, okay. and to examples that we subscribe to, in the olympic games and the centrifuges are made to blow up, you have probably seen the photographs of these giant floor-to-ceiling devices with supersonic speeds.

when they blow up, it's like setting a bomb off and you don't want to be standing next to him and to this day, we don't know if anyone was killed or not. and then you heard about chad describing the attack on saudi arabia. neither one of those bigger definition. and i think we need to be more honest about this and we have real problems with this. and what i'm saying is that we need a concept and real solutions for the problems and when we are talking war all the time and violence all the time, we are getting close to what needs to be done. and we want to discuss the possibility of the specific acts and we need to get a little bit more technical about it. >> yes, we can come back to that. >> okay, so you are in the

foreign service and about seven years. okay. and we are not, tonight, we are not going to ask you to explain chinese foreign policy. >> that's certainly what it's like in america. [laughter] to all the better reason. okay. but we are going to ask you to explain why it is that the u.s. government gets so worried about technology built by companies not just huawei technologies. and your concern is the following that if you bring a piece of equipment and they basically make the skeletons backbone of the internet in a way, and you bring an it in from a country from which you believe is searching at least on the

espionage level of intellectual property theft, we won't go yet to the other definitions. then you are inviting into the united states hardware that a foreign country can exploit whether they are with the permissions or not. so they can use that to help infiltrate the data that they want or understand the structure of networks in the country, and that is why we have such a trouble in recent times in the u.s. market and you had one of your executives say that they were not that interested in the u.s. market with these restrictions. so the first question is the hardware a back door and for a government like china?

and secondly, whether it is or isn't, how do you change the perception of the u.s. government then on that issue? >> that's a great deal of questions and not opening. and so to answer this. because we are a leader in this industry, why make a 35 billion-dollar country. we have 150 different markets and we count customers with over 500 operations in the world, including nationwide operators in every country that they want. and we are a leader in this technology. >> at the can't deny that. and we do have this, not with any of the major nationwide

operators. that we are a resource in terms of understanding the challenges that we face in today's cyberage and we also incidentally have challenges that are raised by globalization and interdependence and the trans- nationality of the industry. there are benefits to the globalization as well, companies like this that bring to the market to which they do business with affordable broadband. and he made an interesting point on the concern about hardware coming from a certain market. and whether you are huawei -- hi technologies or ericsson or cisco, is a global company you are conducting research on development and coded software and building product than relying on common supply chains on a global basis, all but

china, and you are all subject to common and global vulnerabilities and what the industry is challenged with now and what huawei technologies is globally promoting is how do we acknowledge that there are benefits that we want to continue driving for the economic benefits and the drastic challenges of globalization in our industry, which are threats to the supply chain of information technology companies, all of us. and unless we raise the bar for everyone with appropriate standards and disciplines that are certifiable, you accomplish nothing in terms of better securing networks and the integrity of data.

so let me take you back to why the u.s. government has such a concern about huawei. huawei has been blocked in the u.s., as you yourself have said, american communications companies will put the equipment in, even though you have other countries that work. and they are doing that because they have a specific concern that the chinese government is acting nods -- not with the global market in mind, but with their own narrow interest in mind. are you telling us that that is a completely false way to think about what huawei does and what is the relationship to the government? >> absolutely. a great deal of the challenge that huawei faces in the united

states is all geopolitical and that as well and beyond this company. again, we are 150,000 people strong and we are remarkably diverse now. 70% of our business is outside of china. and we are a multinational company and we are not china. the suggestion that we can better secure their networks or the integrity of data by picking one player or any one player or major vendor out of this equation is wrong. and actually it is distracting to hold up the other players that are equally vulnerable to compromise. and so until a few months ago, we would have said that they were the perfect example of a company that the u.s. government will not purchase from because of geopolitics outweighs the global market description.

the geopolitical description. and in the aftermath of this investigation, you could argue that google and horizon and at&t and anybody who has received a warrant from the pfizer court and turned over the data, can essentially be charged with exactly what the u.s. government is charging huawei has done and what they would say, this is the mirror into which the government of the u.s. has been looking and projecting or assuming and they have never been asked by any government anywhere to compromise its goods or services or others to facilitate in this activities and hasn't happened and what didn't. and it would be -- we had a

witness testify in congress last year and the expression he used was it would be commercial suicide to do so. and as you pointed out, in the wake of the edwards noted revelations, what we read now on a daily basis that these companies that work on trent were compromised unwillingly in many cases, that they are experiencing a rather devastating impact on their current business. and it's a rather remarkable demonstration of why you shouldn't do this. it does reflect the potential for corporate suicide and exactly the thing that huawei would not let happen to itself. you can even say that the edwards noted in revelations, in light of this being a potentially devastating impact on companies that have been exposed as being compromised,

but the revelations may have marked the beginning of the end of knowing corporate complicity, whether willingly or not in government espionage and there is an opportunity now at this time, for industry to move forward and establish pragmatic and true standards to better secure the networks and to undo this crisis of confidence in the industry globally. >> okay, so you were the chief of staff at the department of homeland security during the period of time when we now know, that the definitions of what the u.s. government wanted to get out of the internet providers took place, all the companies that we were talking about here.

and when the court was issuing these orders, basically to turn over the data, including as we now know, the telephone laws, not the conversations, but the laws of the phone calls made, the haystack in which you could pull the needles. please tell us how that clamping in to this giant data pipeline differs, if at all, from what the u.s. government tries to do with like what it huawei does and nothing has been classified. >> you can still keep going. >> okay. [laughter] >> with respect, it is a fair

question. .. to read the constitution in article iv, the government does have a ability to search, but when we say in our country they can't have a right to an unreasonable search without probably cause. what that means is in order to

have a search you have to have something to search. and the accumulation of the data of the haste act, the meta data itself is an example why the government isn't sitting in the system today. it has to ask for the voluntary agreement of the companies to hand over -- they're getting a subpoena. this is voluntary if you go to jail. >> i say it's a fair point. >> well, when i say what, i mean, the government cannot forcibly -- is not technically inside the hardware, which is the concern with the chinese are inside the hardware. which is different from -- you asked me to distinguish between the meta data program and what the rather concerns are -- >> what your telling us, chad, is that the u.s. government isn't in the hardware because it doesn't need to be because it issues these orders to turn over

the material that runs through the hardware. >> correct. that's what i'm saying. >> great. supposing with chinese government went to central -- >> use shake shanghai bell as an example. >> that would be great. [laughter] supposing they went to waw lay and say you have a lot of data flowing through your servers. some of outside china. we can't touch those. we would like you to put this in a repository in shank -- shanghai if we need to go in and see what ibm or boeing is planning for their next defense system they're building we have a way of getting at it. would you see a distinction

between what chad described which is the u.s. government out of the own legal structure pulling in the data and the chinese government seeking the same kind of thing? >> there are a lot of different levels to that. first off, what chad described and with a you are talking about is a distinct between a company that builds the plumbing and a service provider that run the water company. what has been happening or what we've been reading happening here is rather than drill random holes to cite certain information that lead do you a crash register in malaysia. they dropped a siphon to the reservoir. >> correct. >> and sucked it out. >> for clarification, while you build hardwares there are some countries which there's never

been any substantiate yaitionz of any current or past penetration or comprise of hugh way equipment. the concern we hear is profrequentive. what may happen someday in the future -- i'll resist the temptation to go back and talk about shanghai bill and cicso operations in china. all of which are equally vol emotional comprise as they are here or might be in vietnam or elsewhere.

huawei made a conscious decision it's in our best business interest to maintain the integrity of customers, networks, and their subscribers data, period. we are not going commit commercialed is by violating that integrity. >> if you receive a legal wander you have go the same thing that verizon, at&t. it's an important point there's not a country in the world that doesn't have lawful intercept. meaning they have their own jurisdiction and in our country under president clinton we passed -- a communications assistance to law enforcement act. and we collectively as taxpayers gave a sub sky -- sub sky to the companies to pay for the hardware and sofar