and regulations impact our nation's small firms. to this point our committee has already examined several epa regulations and the agency's obligations under the regulatory flexibility act. what this hearing has shown is the small business impact can vary from rule to rule. when it comes to electricity generation, it is clear that the direct cost are born mainly by large utilities. however, with regard to the discharge of certain chemicals into the water, small businesses and farms are likely to barrymore of the actual costs associated with the regulations. yet epa determined neither rule will have enough of an economic impact on small firms to trigger an analysis. during today's hearing i hope to hear how the epa is implementing its obligation under their regulatory flexibility act as well as conducting outreach to

small firms. perhaps most importantly i want to know how it determines not meet the full requirements of the act. there's no doubt small businesses want to problem tent our environment and should in many regards be an ally of the epa. not only are they leading the way when it comes to environment technologies but they can also help the epa craft regulations that promote clean air and water without overburdening the industry. it is my hope that today's hearing will help bridge the gap between the epa and the small business community. resulting in a cleaner environment and a stronger economy. with that i thank the current administrator perciasepe for his participation today and i yield back the balance of my time. thank you. >> thank you. in 2009 the honorable bob perciasepe was appointed by

president obama and confirmed by the senate to serve as the environmental protection agency's deputy administrator. for four decades he worked on environmental issues within and outside of the government. mr. perciasepe previously served as the head of epa's water office and later its air office and prior to becoming deputy administrator he was the chief operating office for the national audubon society. he has served as secretary of environment for the state of maryland. mr. perciasepe thank you for taking the time to be with us today. your written statement will be entered in the record. please give us your oral statement. >> chairman graves thank you, ranking member velazquez thank you for those comments and thank you for the opportunity to testify and answer questions of the members. i'm here today to talk about epa's actions under the president's climate action plane an under the epa and u.s. army corps of engineers recently

proposed rule that would clarify jurisdictional scope of the clean water act. climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our time threatening human health, welfare and our economic well being and if left unchecked will have devastating impacts on the united states and businesses. that's why president obama laid out a climate action plan in june of 2013 in which he directed epa and other federal agencies to take steps to mitigate the current and future damage caused by carbon dioxide emissions and anticipate for the climate change that has begun to be set in motion. epa play as critical role implementing the plans one of hits first pillars which is cutting carbon pollution. from future and existing power plants the largest source of carbon dioxide emissions in the united states. in june of this year epa proposed a clean power plant for

existing plants, the plant is built on advice and information from states, cities, business, utilities and how thousands of people. it empowers the states to chart their own customized path to meet those goals. the epa's stakeholder outreach and public engagement in preparation for this rulemaking was unprecedented. stafrgt last summer we virtually met with thousands of people and hundreds of meeting with stakeholders such as municipal and rural cooperateives. now we're in the second phase in a it has already begun. we already had dozens of calls and meetings with states and other stakeholders and more

formal public processing includes a comment period that runs through october 16th of this year. public hearings are being held this week in atlanta, denver, pittsburgh and in washington, d.c. in addition to the president's action plan i also want to take a minute to talk about the recently proposed jurisdictional rule under the clean water act. in recent years several supreme court decisions have raised complex questions regarding the geographic scope of the clean water act. . for nearly a decade members of congress, states, local officials, industry, agriculture, environmental groups and the public have asked our agencies, the corps of engineers and epa to make the existing rules on the book more consistent with the supreme court's rulings. for the past several years epa and courts have received input from the agriculture community while developing a proposed rule using this input the epa and the corps worked with usda to ensure the concerns raised were addressed in the proposed rule.

proposed rule does not change in any way the existing clean water exemptions associated with agriculture, ranching and forestry activities. epa also sought wide and early input from representatives of small entities while formulating a proposed definition of this term that reflects the intent of congress. that was reflected in our prosed rule. epa is prepared to report sum raising the small entity out treech date the results of this outreach and how these results have formed the development of the proposed rule. since publishing the rule the agency has met many times with small businesses and entities. most recently they paid in an sba sponsored roundtable. we look forward to continuing these efforts in to the future and before we finalize a rule and during the remainder of the public comment period as we

write the final rule. thank you again and i'll be happy to answer your questions, mr. chairman. >> thank you, administrator. i appreciate it. administrator mccarthy was in missouri my home state and she was talking about obviously waters in the united states and made the statement that the concerns of farmers and others and i want to make sure i say it right the proposed rules and the concerns about the proposed rules are silly and ludicrous which i would submit the concerns of farmers and small businesses and everybody out there are not silly or ludicrous. a lot of these concerns may have been identified if the epa had complied with the rfa and that is my basic question here today is why the epa did not convene small business advocacy review panels. that's what it requires. they are formal panels. you cite in your statement that you got input from the ag

community. i would like to know what that is. when you say small entity outreach what does that mean and why didn't you all, you know, do what the rfa does require, because, you know, informal outreach is not small business review panels. [ inaudible ] >> i'm sorry. thank you. i'll get the hang of that in a second, mr. chairman. under the rfa, whatever the regulatory agency is not just the epa -- >> yes. >> -- is required to look at the small entity subject to the rule. this is the interesting thing of the waters of the united states rule. it's a definitional rule. it defines where the other parts of the clean water act will actually apply. so it doesn't directly impose

any requirement on anybody if they are not discharging pollution. so it doesn't directly impact large businesses or small businesses in any direct way, and so the jurisdictional determinations of whether the clean water act would apply or not and whether a state agency who is implementing the clean water act under the arrangements under law would have to require an entity small or large to get any kind of permit would only be related to whether or not they were going to discharge pollution. and this regulation does not regulate discharges of pollution, just where the existing permit programs would have to work. but also more importantly we are -- we are reducing the scope of where the clean water act applies from the current on the books regulations that the supreme court was acting on in the last decade. so we're not expanding where permits would be required.

and so when we looked at all of that together, we didn't see the applicability under the regulatory flexibility act. however we did see a desire as we almost always have to engage all stakeholders including small entities. we're planning more round-tables as well. >> when you say -- when you say no discharge, that's discharge can include dirt and sand, runoff, water, rainwater. >> rainwater is not a pollutant. >> well, when it interacts with dirt and sand and you're carrying dirt and sand that's considered a pollutant by the epa. >> it would have to be -- let me just be clear. the jurisdiction of the clean water act is where the existing laws and regulations would apply, not in any new requirement. so if you have to get a permit

now, you would have to get a permit under this. but if you don't have to get a permit now, it's most likely you will not need a permit under this. if you plow, plant and harvest, walk cows across a field all these other things you do in normal conduct of agriculture, if you do that now you can do that under this rule without any additional requirements from epa or the corps of engineers. >> we go back to my original question. you did say you are reducing the scope in terms of the clean water act, didn't you >> reducing it. >> in your economic analysis the epa's economic analysis you say there's a 3% increase in jurisdiction. >> so, the existing regulations were done in the 1970s and modified in the 1980s and they have a very broad definition of what waters of the united states are. essentially we're asking field

biologists to go out and determine any place on the landscape where water is running have some impact down street on interstate commerce. the supreme court said we can't use interstate commerce as a way to do this. it has to be based on some sort of scientific basis. they used the term of art of significant nexus. when we went back and looked at 20,000 different determinations that were done in the last five years, and we applied it as strictly as we could, we saw somewhere there would be where the applicability would go away and we saw somewhere they made the wrong call on the ground. even with the old regulations. so we were being conservative and said this looks like it could increase the amount of positive determinations for jurisdiction by 3%. but the existing regulation is much more expansive than that and hasn't been applied completely european formally around the country. this will actually constrict

that. >> why didn't the epa do small business, you know, the formal small business advisory review or advocacy review? >> well we didn't do it because -- it isn't that we didn't want to talk to small business but we didn't have the formal panel because the panel is for the direct impact on a significant numberle of substantial -- a significant impact on substantial number of small entities and the direct impact is not geared for this rule. the impact if any and we think there will not be much if any is from the existing regulations that would apply. >> so what you're saying is that you determined, the epa determined that there wasn't going to be an impact so you didn't have to comply with the rfa, which is the process of determining if there's impact. >> we went through that analysis. >> to small business to help make that determination. >> i believe we're required to

lay out our rationale for what i said in the proposed rule. >> i think this is far reaching. in fact, you know, the term navigable waters is used some 80 times in the clean water act. when you come back and, you know, you do something that's so far reaching and we use new terms like significant nexus or in one of the expansions of this too is now a jurisdictional or a water that's adjacent to the jurisdictional water which i don't even know what that means in terms of how expansive that could be. that could include anything. it comes back to as well when you're making that determination on, you know on discharge or what that significant next sues that's an extraordinarily significant subject

determination made by the epa. the impact that's out there with this it really bothers me that you all determined that this isn't going to have an impact because we believe it does. you know, in a big way and to say we don't have to comply with the rfa because we don't think there's an impact is wrong. i've called on you all to withdraw this rule. i'm asking again. i think the epa needs withdraw this rule and go through the process the way it should be gone through and follow the law, and i'm very disturbed by that and very disturbed by some of the things brought out just now. i wasn't expecting -- i wasn't expecting some of your answers. with that i'll turn to -- i'll have some other questions i'll turn to ranking member velazquez. >> thank you, mr. chairman. deputy administrator, the clean power plant provides states with some flexibility to meet emission reduction goals as they see fit.

what happens if states fail to submit their plan by the deadline or epa concludes a plan is not satisfactory? >> it is our full hope and aspiration that that won't happen. that's why we're spending a lot of time with every state. we tailored this rule so it's tailored for every state and we're meeting with every state to work through how they can make their plan successful. >> in your testimony you highlighted that many industries including agriculture and forestry will continue to be exempt from most permitting. do you expect the new rule will necessitate additional industry

exemptions? >> you're talking about the water rule? >> yes. >> yes. well under the clean water act agricultural activities are exempt from the rule. from the jurisdiction of the clean water act so that if even a water is jurisdictional under the proposal, if you're doing agricultural activities you're exempt you do not need to comply with any permitting process and we're not changing any of that. one of the things we've tried to do is clarify issues that farmers brought up to us concerning ditches where they may do some ditching to drain some upland areas when it rains or industry may do some on their industrial lot or some ditches at the side of highways. for the first time we've made it clear those are not jurisdictional. those would not be under the jurisdiction of the clean water act. >> okay. deputy administrator, i guess that you understand by now that

there is frustration in this committee regarding the fact that we have the regulatory act that would allow for agencies to compel or create a panel review process so it will give a voice to small businesses. >> yes. >> and i think that if you do that, the agency wins and small businesses also will win, because you will issue a better regulation when you have input from small businesses. and small businesses will be more satisfied because they feel that you have been able to listen to them. i don't know why the reluctance -- i just do not understand how do you conclude or come to a conclusion that there is not direct impact on small entities, because you haven't provided us the process

in which you arrived to that conclusion. >> well, certainly, i want to be able to provide that to the committee and we will endeavor to do that. whenever we do a rulemaking and we make a decision in our proposal that the direct impact -- there may be indirect impacts, but the direct impact is not from the epa rulemaking, then the law prescribes that that does not require a panel to be set up. but i want to be clear. it doesn't mean we shouldn't reach out to small businesses. >> i understand you did. >> and work with them. >> i understand you did, right? but my understanding is that the outreach took place three years ago and the language now is different. >> on the water? >> yes.

>> yes. we had a whole bunch of sessions a couple of years ago when we were working on guidance. people told us not to do a guidance due to regulation. we proposed regulation which is built on some of the work we did back at that point. but since that time we've been working with sba to do roundtable discussions. as i mentioned we had one on july 21st and planning to have more before we finalized the rule. roundtable discussions with small businesses. >> so, will you please share with us what do you learn from that sba roundtable? >> well, on the water side, believe it or not we're learning that small businesses really want clean water, and it's becoming clear. there was a recent poll done by the american sustainable business council that found 80% of small business owners want protection similar to what we're talking about, 71% said clean water is necessary for their businesses. but we're also finding -- we're

also finding they want to it be -- they want to be clear when they are in, when they are out of that jurisdiction. and so one of our objectives is to take the existing regulations, which are -- see one of the issues we have is people haven't looked at those old regulations back in the '70s and '80ss for a long time. when we put out a new one trying to replace it they only look at the new one and the old one is vague, very vague, downstream interstate commerce. not a scientific principle. so we're trying to pull it back into a more defined place to provide that increased certainty and that would be our objective and we're hoping to get more comment on that. >> thank you. >> to clarify real quick. you bring up dredging. there's no exemption for ag. >> if they are discharging pollution like from a points

source of pollution. >> okay. that can include again rainwater -- >> if it's runoff rain it's nonsource pollution and wouldn't be covered under secretary show 7b 2. would have to be in a pipe and something that is discharging and congress in 1987 asked that large animal feeding operations that discharge into a point source would be covered under 402. that's in the 1987 clean water act amendments. >> thank you, mr. chairman. administrator perciasepe, i want to thank you first. i know that one of the things i'm working on is the proposed rule that is out there with regards to wood burning heaters. i've offered a bill to stop the nonsense of what you're trying to do. and i understand that there is some discussion going on between you and industry folks which i'm

very thankful for and i hope that proceeds. i think this is -- i tuned need for conformity across spectrum of this, but to go down the direction that we were going down there is problematic for me so i thank you for the willingness to work with industry. with regards to the other issue before us today, it is stunning to me when you make your statements, sir, that you didn't see the effect on small business from trying to define the word in the law. to redefine or clarify is going to have dramatic impact. when you say -- if you just define the word "customer" you redefine it, suddenly you have from a small group of people to a large group of people. take the word "navigable" out of this is unbelievable to me. and to not then go through the

process of checking out and doing the due diligence and the small business report and analysis before this is either extremely naive and incompetent or it's arrogance in its highest to flaunt your authority by ignoring the laws, the rules, the process the procedure. this is unacceptable. absolutely unacceptable, especially whenever you look at the fact that within this law there is also the word hydrologically connected. which means all the waters above ground, underground, wherever hydrologically connected it affects everything. this is extremely important. extremely important. i can't stress it enough. especially for rural parts of our country. i offer you the opportunity to discuss it. >> well thank you for that question. you know, those are really --

you're getting at the crux of the issue under the clean water act, and we have to look at the body of everything that's been going on, not just old rulemakings of the corps of engineers and epa but also the supreme court rulings and what they have been telling us to do and they have consistently been clear that it is not -- it is not just navigable in the traditional sense but particularly when you deal with clean water the stuff that floss into the navigable, if it's polluted it will pollute the navigable. so everybody from justice scalia to justice kennedy have made it clear that it's more than just the navigable, it can be seasonable. i think that's a quote from justice scalia. justice kennedy uses the word significant nexus. to go back to your question and i think, mr. chairman, may get to yours as well, significant nexus is a new thing that the supreme court gave us. so we're trying to find out how, the purpose of the executive

branch putting out a proposed regulation -- and i have, you know, dicta here from chief justice roberts telling us to do these regulations. one more second. so nexus is definitely hydrology. you can make the argument that rain falling is connected somehow. so one of our jobs in this rulemaking, one of the things we're most interested in getting back, more input on is how do we define significant? everything might be connected but it's not all significant. so back in the old regulation it said if it had any impact, probable or any impact on downstream interstate commerce what we're trying to use is the say evens of hydrology and saying it has to have certain characteristics that are identifiable by a hydrologist

that there's enough flow that's frequent enough and enough that it carries these characteristics on the landscape. we tried to do that in this rule. >> you just made my point, sir. why didn't you have -- why didn't you go through the rulemaking process that you're required to. you just admitted it's a tremendous impactful situation that you're discussing here and you don't think it won't impact small businesses when you say it's huge, you're getting the supreme court involved to define things in your activities and it's not worthy of going through the process that you're required to do to go through and figure out the impact on small businesses? that's what this hearing is all about today. >> we're work with small businesses and the small business administration. >> up just talked about how important it was and how big a problem it was and still you didn't go back what you were suppose dodd which was to determine the impacts based on the effects of it.

i see my time is over. stunning. absolutely stunning. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to submit for the record a letter from the waters advocacy coalition. it is signed by 39 different organizations, among those the american farm bureau, the american gas association, foundation for environmental and economic progress, national association of home builders, many others. the basic content of the letter is objecting to the insufficient analysis offered by the epa on the impacts that this rule will have. >> without objection. submitted. >> thank you. mr. perciasepe, i'm sorry. okay, bob. as the letter that i'm just referencing from the waters advocacy coalition is noting the

agency certified waters of the united states rule as one that will not have significant impact on a substantial number of small agencies. but you didn't provide any factual basis for that. did the epa simply fail to do this because a factual basis didn't actually exist? >> we provided an analysis to make the determination that the rule itself, looking at direct impacts, which is what we're required to do under the rfa would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. >> what do you qualify as a substantial number? >> well it's more the direct impact hand the number. >> so we don't know what the number is when we talk about who will be impacted? >> we're not expanding the jurisdiction of the clean water act. any entity that's covered by the

clean water act will continue to be covered by the clean water act. >> actually you're saying not making more covered but in your testimony you said people wanted to be clear whether they are in or out of jurisdiction. but under the determinations that are being made you can extend jurisdiction. >> that's not what we're promotions. we're proposing to not add any new waters to what is covered in jurisdictional. we're trying to exclude -- >> is there any connectivity between all waters. >> there is. >> doesn't it give you complete control? >> they are not all significant. we make it clear in the rule they are not all significant. >> what's significant >> we define some hydrologic characteristics that would make it significant. >> what are they? >> if you look at a flowing area whether flowing all the time. >> year round? >> i said whether it's flowing intermittently. >> what's intermittently.

>> not year round. it could be ten minutes? >> well -- it could be enough that water floss there frequently enough. >> what's frequently? >> you're not going to let me answer. >> i'm just trying to get down the actual definition because of the arbitrary nature of this rule. >> it's not arbitrary. if you'll let me answer i can give you some clarity. >> go ahead. >> in the science of hydrology you can look at a depressed area where water flows whether it flows full time or part time it will exhibit characteristics on the bed. there will be banks. there's a high watermark. these are identifiable to hydrologists. you don't have those characteristics there's enough volume of flow that makes it jurisdictional under the clean water act. that's limiting to anything that

might have an impact downstream to interstate commerce. >> what you jubs described to me, i live in southwestern united states, colorado. we get one rain storm and with the lay of our land you can get a high watermark with a ten flow that then disappears. what you're describing to me a high water flow that happens once a year. >> an ordinary high watermark is not something that's wet for ten minutes. it's seen on the rock from debris or discoloration or cut in the bank of dirt. erosional features are not covered. we excluded those. >> i would like to move on a little bit. move in a different direction. if you put out a rule under epa do you expect it to be followed? >> well, yes. >> do you. should you comply with the rfa?

>> yes. we do. >> is it appropriate right now under section 104 of the existing clean water act that both retroactively and preelm tlif you're shutting down projects before determinations have been made under the rfa? >> i can't answer that question because i'm not sure what zmoosh your preemptively shutting down projects right now based off the proposed rules? saying that you cannot proceed? >> we have not done that. >> what about -- i'm sorry. >> they have not issued the rule. >> but we got a proposed rule. >> right but we have existing regulations that are more expansive than the proposed rule. >> up in alaska i read pebble mine, crystal bay, have you shut that down before the analysis has been done? >> our regional administrator made a finding that is out for

public comment. there's been no action taken on that. >> no action, so it's not allowed to move forward until the action takes place? >> they can do whatever they want while that action is under consideration. that action is to look at an area of water that we would not want to see discharge into. >> thank you. i don't know if we'll have a second round. i'm way over time. >> mr. collins. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. perciasepe, i got to give you credit. i think you knew you were coming in to the lion's den today and here you are. do i give you a lot of credit. it's hard to defend the indefensible and that's what your agency has cents you here. in full disclosure, mr. perciasepe and i participated in a hearing a week or so ago on this very same issue on the science committee and i'll admit i concluded that hearing by saying to bob that the public

doesn't trust the epa, farmers don't trust the epa not to overreach, congress doesn't trust the epa. and at that point in time i pointed out the rule should be withdrawn. plain and simple. and the epa should start over. what we had in our committee hearing in science is we kept hearing words like "confusion," "uncertainty," "misunderstanding " throughout this hearing. this was democrats and republicans alike. i would also like to point out, we all know about gridlock in washington. there's only one agency that unites democrats and republicans and that's distrust of the epa. your agency has united us where it's very hard to do so. >> please don't talk -- don't represent me, okay. >> well here's what i can say

fact tally to our ranking member. a majority of congress. a majority of congress. 240 plus members, republicans and democrats signed the letter that i authored to the epa saying we don't trust you, withdraw the rule. that was a majority of the members of congress. and your agency has continued to disrespect congress to go down your own road and, again, continue in this rulemaking when a majority of congress, democrats and republicans and on the science committee the harshest questioning came from the democrat side about this particular rule. and i just came from a hearing in science on the clean air act and the war on coal and a former obama administrative official from the department of energy summed up the epa this way. to paraphrase the are a a arrogance of the epa is beyond pale. the department of energy was not

legitimately asked to participate in some of this rulemaking and, in fact, he called it a political agenda by the administration and the epa. this is a former obama administrative official less than two hours ago. so, my question is very simple. given the facts, the majority of congress has asked you to withdraw this rule, why won't the epa withdraw the rule, start over? there is no rush. you're not under a deadline. there's no judicial dead lynn. what's the harm in listening to congress and withdrawing this rule, clarifying all the misunderstandings and confusion and everything else and come out with a clean rule? why won't the epa do that or will do you that? let me start with will you withdraw the rule, yes or no? >> the agency -- >> yes or no.

>> no. >> why not give end that congress has asked you to do so. >> you all have put the agency in a very difficult situation. we're trying to improve the situation out there, given the supreme court constantly -- >> why won't you withdraw the rule and start over. what harm is there in withdrawing the rule and starting over when a majority of congress is on the record asking you to do so, republicans and democrats? what is the harm in doing that? and do the rfa. what's the harm? is there any harm? is there something we don't see? >> we continue with the uncertainty that everybody -- >> what is the harm in withdrawing the rule? >> the harm would be in maintaining the uncertainty that currently exists, and we are not going -- we're going to continue to try to solve that problem. this is just a proposal. >> let's be clear. you don't care that a majority of congress -- >> i do care. >> who sets the laws -- >> i do care.

>> has asked you to withdraw the rules. >> i do. >> why don't you withdraw. >> i need to fix the rule. >> congress has asked you pointedly withdraw the rule. you just said no, there's no legitimate reason, there's no timing, there's nothing but the arrogance of the epa. mr. chairman, i yield back. >> go ahead. >> i have a supreme court chief -- >> that was my question. >> who is saying why don't the agencies do this. so, you know, there are three branches of government. i have one branch that wrote me when i was acting administrator please do a rule. now a branch saying withdraw it. i'm going back to the constitution. i have another branch of the federal government saying when are the agencies going to get their act together and do a rulemaking. >> just do at any time right way. >> it would be in everybody's interest to -- >> would the gentleman yield.

it's kind of cynical. and look i'm a member of this committee for 22 years. i've been fighting the administration whether it's a republican or a democrat when i feel that things are not done right on behalf of small businesses. but i have to say when it comes to repealing obamacare the supreme court is the law of the land. when it comes to the issue of the water, the supreme court is telling them that they have to address the issue. so we don't win in this house. >> just to clarify. there was a judicial deadline? i just asked to clarify. was there a judicial deadline? >> no, sir. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and i would like to submit to the record from a roundtable we

held in arizona about a month and a half ago the transcript. >> without objection. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. perciasepe, and from future from now on known as administrator bob, how's that. >> deputy administrator bob. >> excuse me deputy administrator bob. there's a rumor going around you'll be leaving us in a few weeks, is that true? >> yes, it is correct. >> and this is how you celebrate your departure is hanging out with us. >> i know that i'm trying to be -- i'm trying to represent my position of my agency and the president correctly here but i view this as my solemn duty, you know, to do so. >> so, you were in fronts of the science committee a couple of weeks ago and as i shared with my staff and even some of the members on the other side i thought you treated me particularly fairly because some of the discussion having spent a

lot of time digging in to this waters of the u.s. rule is complicated but you do understand our stress level particularly for those of us from the arid southwest what some of these rules mean. i am going to ask a favor of you. >> yes, sir. >> because rumor is you're leaving in three weeks. in the science committee there was a request from mr. weber from texas specifically asking for any of the maps that fish and wildlife and i know you provided some of the maps but we would really like to get our hands on any of the mapping that was provide by fish and wildlife in helping to sort of design the impacts and the calculations, particularly economic impacts of this rule. >> okay. i think we may have provided those maps earlier this week but if not i'll absolutely make sure they go in there. >> if you have my notes may be -- >> fine. there's always a running back and forth between all of us.

but let me just say that when i did look into that, i did discover that some maps, the maps were created back as far back as 2005 and they have been updated since then. and they were not for regulatory purposes. but i think all the maps that i think we had, if they are not at the committee now they are going to be there this week. >> deputy administrator bob, one of our concerns was the mapping used to do the economic analysis and trying to understand the impact of the rules. there was one scenario that i left from last week and i really want to sort of walk through because you have personal experience on this. when you were was it the sierra club before? >> no national audubon, bird conservation. one of the projects was in our dry salt river. >> yes. it's a beautiful project.

under this updated waters of the u.s. rule, do you believe you would have to get a 44 permit to do that project today? >> the actual restoration. >> the retention, the movement, the capturing of the water, the actual project. would that project from beginning to end today require a 404 permit? particularly also there was some environmental damage, i mean old batteries and everything -- >> there was a battlefield site across there and i think as i mention towed i worked with the former mayor of scottsdale to do that project. it may have gotten a 404 permit. >> i think they did some of the water channelling. >> the project was streambed wi have actually gone birding and looked at where there's been some water brought in to there and some vegetation is now

growing to attract, in that streambed, if there was a disturbance of the streambed, they would have required it. >> because there's two mechanics and i have only 45 seconds to run this through. one was in many occasions where we tried to do good acts, my fear is that if this gets an expansive interpretation, all of a sudden, the good act are going to be required to get a 404 permit and go through those hoops. in some ways is there a potential we're creating a barrier. i'm going to let you sort of combine the answers. last time, i sort of walked through a scenario, okay, this isn't about the water. it's about anything that's a pollutant in the water. our little scenario of the dry wash behind my home and i put fertilizer and plants and sediment and 14 inches of rain i get a year that all come on a tuesday, it's running down the wash and hits the birdie river and the birdie river hits the

salt river and runs into this rehabbed area. i use fertilizer, i move dirt. it potentially got washed down that dry wash into a running river. do i potentially need a 4 zur 4 permit in planting my tree, and what's my exposure that may not be your intent today, but the way this is drafted, there's a whole new cause of action and future litigation coming at us that the lawyers now get to spend the next decade moving that direction? >> well, the quick answer is, you know, and i want to be -- put the asterisks next to this, i would love to go to your house and look at the project myself, but i would say it's highly unlikely it's significant under the way we prepared this rule, whereas the existing regulation, the law on the books the supreme court has been opining about,

has no such clarity of what's significant. it simply says anything the field biology thinks might have an impact. >> i'm way over time. litigation exposure. >> yeah. i mean, i think it would be less than what currently exists. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and i will follow schweikert's leading and call you deputy administrator bob. and also based on hearing that you are going to be leaving, probably after today, you figured you should have left three weeks and a day earlier. well, we're going to try to just get some questions answered. there's been a lot of discussion about how the epa's new rule can negatively effect small

business. can you, you know, just list or describe a way that it can positively affect small business? >> well, i'll just do something very quickly here. on the water definitional rule, the waters of the united states, we firmly believe, and we heard this from the discussions we've had with small businesses, that a, they want to make sure that the law is interpreted correctly because they want clean water. but second, they want to be able to have the clarity or the certainty of what's in and what's out. we are struggling to do that. and that is our intent, to try to do that. and we'll continue to endeavor in that. on the clean power plan rule that we have talked about a little bit here, one of the things that epa has laid out there is that we want states to

really seriously consider energy conservation as part of what their plan might be. i know for sure that the whole sector of energy conservation, whether it be smart grids or how to make things better in your house is going to be very oriented to small business opportunities. >> as a matter of fact, through homeland security and the cyber security bill, i have a piece of legislation that was amended into that bill, and to do a smart grid study for upgrading the grid across the country and benefitting areas that tend to have natural disasters and also looking at manmade. so that's right my alley. now, what -- why are you having such a hard time getting small business to understand these issues?

>> well, i think that we are spending a lot of time with small business. i know that one of the issues the committee has is why not do that under their regulatory flexibility act, and it's because a lot of the impacts that may or may not accrue and a lot of the benefits that may or may not accrue, depending on how these proposals unfold, will be indirect impacts, or indirect opportunities, and the regulatory flexibility act deals with direct impacts. so we're not regulating somebody who does an energy conservation project with a new kind of thermostat or something, we're not regulating those people, but they may have an opportunity to provide more business. so we have -- we have reached out to small businesses. we have a roundtable under way with sba on the water rule. we're in the process of finishing up a formal hearings

this week on the clean power plant, and then we plan between now and when the rule is finalized, and even way before that, to spend even more time with small businesses, whether it's small coops or the small municipals or even the indire indirectly impacted small businesses. >> you know, around the complexity of all this, you know, the clean water act, you know, increases the amount of time it takes to make jurisdictional determinations. in your estimation, how much shorter time will these jurisdictional determinations take with the proposed rules as opposed to the old one? >> the current one, because of the way it's written, requires almost every request for any project that might be near water, for them to go through a process on a case by case basis with the corps of engineers. well, the other thing we're

trying to do here, and the intent is to have enough definition so along the lines we were talking about earlier, congressman, that it would reduce the number of case by case determinations, therefore make it more quickly apparent whether they have a jurisdictional issue or not, but i also want to point out, if you're not going to discharge pollution or put fill into the water, it wouldn't matter one way or the other. >> thank you very much. i yield back. >> mr. hannah. >> hi, how are you? >> i'm fine. >> good. you know, if you're trying to prove that you're trying to make things easier, you're not really doing it. as you can sense. the cynicism in this room is at least on our side of the aisle, profound. and i don't think that it's born out of some disinterest in the environment or anything like that. i think for one thing, your f m

former administrator, lisa jackson, her comment that it wasn't her job to paraphrase, to worry about the economy, if you remember that, was, i think, a scary thing to hear for everyone in the country. and the subjective nature of the conversation here today and the notion that so much about this has a potential to be arbitrary and capricious and the concern that the farmers and builders and contractors that i deal with daily, i was in construction for many years, it's not in any way, and i'm not surprised that you said that businesses are concerned to have clean water. who isn't? that's really not much of a statement, with all due respect, or a surprise. the problem, your organization has is nobody believes you.

that you have no credibility here because frankly people feel put upon. and the burden, i just went through almost 13 years in our community to get a 404 permit through the army corps of engineers for something that was a relatively simple process. and it would appear to a lot of people i know, and i'm sure you hear this, too, that the epa is now our enemy, not our friend. that somehow everything has become so burdensome, so complicated, so drawn out that the growth we look for in our economy, the opportunities that lie in front of people, that you're an obstructionist organization and not someone who ushers them through the process. and for people in business, you know, every bureaucrat who walks through the door feels like they're throwing an obstacle at their feet. and here you are one more, but

yet you're bigger than all the rest. and people assume that you can in some way interfere in everything, everywhere, all the time. and when they hear the definition of navigable waterways, that, and people want to believe -- people are inclined to believe that it means the water off their roof. so when you explain it, it doesn't -- and i'm just telling you the way the people i work for feel. they don't believe you. and they're concerned. and if the concern seems disproportionate to your intent, which i'm listening to you, and i believe you're earnest in what you're saying. you need to back up. because frankly, the outcome that you desire is going to be pushed back at by this entire country, not because it isn't an outcome that we might all want and even agree on, but because frankly, nobody believes you.

i wonder -- i mean, i wonder how you feel about that. or if you even agree. >> well, i haven't, and nor does the epa, do polling to determine who believes us or who doesn't believe us. >> but you don't have to. >> let me just say what i believe, okay. i don't believe that most people don't trust epa. the polling i have seen, for what it's worth, back in the past by others, shows that people prefer epa to be setting standards. and you know, i don't have enough data on what every person in the united states thinks about -- >> but preferring to have them set standards is not the same as being -- as trusting them. >> yes. so this trust thing is a problem, particularly if congress has it. this is not an idle problem, and we need to work on that. i'm here today, trying to

explain what our intent is. and to try to build a bridge. >> i appreciate that, but you're not going anywhere with the presentation i see today. backing up and blaming the supreme court or using them as a crutch, that also isn't helpful because at the end of the day, this place has the ability to do -- to do what it would like to see done. we have the capacity to make mistakes here. to undo what you might record as good work and may very well be good work, but if you can't make us trust you in that regard, you're going to have an outcome that you don't like, and potentially we may not like. my time is up. thank you, chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. appreciate the deputy administrator for being here today. if i have asked a question that has been asked before, if you would restate the answer, i would appreciate that. one thing that many of my

constituents are asking and i share the same concerns as my other colleagues, i have been trying to understand the claim from the epa administrator in kansas city a couple weeks ago and similar to yours here, this would provide more certainty compared to your current regulations. can you tell me if this regulation would allow the federal control or regulation of ephemeral streams? >> it would -- it would make ephemeral streams jurisdictional if they exhibit those hide rologic characteristics that would be an indicator of significant flow. >> would that -- we get into the definition of significant and i have been through this at the state level. would this increase or decrease the amount of clean water act jurisdiction compared to current

law? >> we believe it would reduce. >> it would reduce that. have any states suggested otherwise in their comments? >> i haven't read the state comments yet. >> have you read any comments about -- >> the comment period is open until i think october. >> you haven't peeked at them earlier? >> i have been out talking to states. >> and they disagree with the statement that it reduces? >> i haven't heard that. >> i'll give you a clue in kansas. the estimates are from our state, it increased the jurisdiction by 400%. 400% more jurisdiction under the proposed rule, instead of regulating 32,000 miles of stream miles, it would increase that to 134,000 miles. how could they be that wrong? you're claiming jurisdiction goes down in the state of kansas, i actually live there, and we worry about our environment. as a farmer myself, i consider myself a first environmentalist.

how could they be so wrong in the misunderstanding of your rule? >> i don't -- i would love to see their analysis and i would love to get our staff to sit down with them and understand why we see such a different situation. i know that there are more than half the states already cover ephemeral streams themselves. including kansas. >> the issue -- >> including kansas. >> not under the clean water act, sir. the issue here, is one of navigable. can you describe or define navigable for the committee, please? >> the navigable in the webster dictionary -- >> no, in your dictionary? >> in the clean water act, navigable has been defined by congress as waters of the united states. that's what the definition is in the clean water act of 1972, and the supreme court -- >> so navigable is an adjective? not describing the waters of the u.s. it's a limit on the jurisdiction

of the clean water act. it doesn't describe every water of the u.s., sir. you are clearly wrong. >> well -- >> can you define navigable. limit on the power. >> navigable waters include waters that flow into traditionally navigable waters that can have an impact on the biological, chemical, and physical integrity of those waters. >> it's a navigable water that flows into a stream. so nonnavigable waters by that definition then become navigable? >> no, waters of the u.s. >> they include nonnavigable waters. so there's a distinction? >> through the clean water act, it's looking to control water pollution. and controlling water pollution, even if the authority of the federal government is limited to navigable waters. and controlling water pollution

that could enter it. >> under navigable waters. >> water pollution -- >> this is a -- >> from other streams. >> do you believe this is going to bring some certainty? here's a body of water in western kansas. it actually rained. once upon a time. this was a few weeks ago. is this a navigable stream? >> is neither navigable or waters -- or jurisdictional under the clean water act. you can -- >> you can guarantee me today this will not be under the jurisdiction of the epa. >> i'm not going to go further than what i said because that's just unfair. i would have to go out and look like that, but it looks like wetness in a field, which would not be navigable. which would not be jurisdictional. >> it might flow down the road ditch to a navigable stream. >> it doesn't matter. it didn't fit the characters i described earlier or the soil or the vegetation. it's a puddle in a field and it

would not be covered. >> that's the guarantee, a puddle in a field, the road ditch in western kansas will guaranteed not be covered. >> a road ditch that's not a channelized stream would not be covered. some road ditches actually channelize in a stream, but putting that aside, road ditches, the vast majority of them are not going to be covered. not be jurisdictional, and wet fields are not going to be jurisdictional. they're not going to be jurisdictional. >> i yield back, mr. chairman. >> ranking member velazquez. >> mr. chairman, i would like to ask unanimous consent to submit for the record a report from the american sustainable business council that found that small business owners are concerned about climate change, 57% are concerned about carbon pollution. 53% are concerned about climate change. and 53% believe climate change will adversely effect their business. >> without objection.

>> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. just a couple questions, sir. with regards to power plant oversight, i know that apparently, correct me if i'm wrong, it appears that the agency when they figured the costs of the rules and regulations in power plant rules, that they considered on a global scale. is that correct? the cost benefit on a global scale. >> well, i'm not -- i'm not exactly sure of that term there. but when we look at -- >> you take other factors besides what we could consider domestic things that would only effect the united states? do you take into effect whatever cost savings or costs otherwise

may be affecting other areas of the world, our neighbors to the north, south, east, west? >> i don't know the answer to that. i'm going to say generally no, but there have been instances where obviously we have cooperated with other governments like canada on acid rain where we have done joint work together. but i would generally say we were looking at the impact in the united states. >> well, what i have been told is that you do take into account, calculating benefits on a global scale, our cole referenced rules which have a dramatic impact on coal-fired electrical generation plants, which i've got a couple in my district. in fact, one closed up as a result, parlths partially, of the rules that have come down. and i'm just kind of curious why you included the cost of savings

or other benefits of other countries over what should be, i would think, only the cost benefits that would be for us domestically. >> i really apologize. i should know what you're asking, but i don't want to guess. so if it's okay with the committee and the chair, i would like to -- >> sure. >> we can research that and provide the answer. >> sure. other than that, i'm -- just one other concern. when you go down the road with these different rules and regulations that you're looking at, basically, the president seems to be trying to implement carbon tax rules around the congress by implementing some of the rules through your agency. i think it's very, very concerning. i think, you know, again, when you do this, you need to go through the rfa process to find

the effect on small business, and it's very concerning to me that we're even going down this road when you look at what australia just did. australia implicated the carbon tax two years ago and found it increased costs significantly, over 15%, and affected thousands and thousands of jobs and they now have withdrawn that. i think we need to be very careful going down the road we're going down and we need to make sure we continue to adhere to the process and the procedures that are in place which today we're talking about the regulatory flexibility act. it's a very, very important tool for analysis and not only for you but for us to make sure that the rules that you're putting in place are something that we could go along with, that we believe our constituents, our small businesses are having to live under and would be beneficial to them rather than costing them. again, when you see what's coming out of other countries with regards to the kind of power plant rule and regulation

that's being proposed, and they're backing off, it should give us pause. and for certain to be able to cause -- i would think would be a red flag it to make sure you adhere to the process of procedures. if you want to respond, sure. >> sure, just a couple quick comments. first of all, i want to be really clear to the committee. we believe that we should be looking at the impacts of all different segments, whether it's small business or large business. i just want to be really clear about that. and somebody at epa did make the statement earlier that it's not in our job description, but it was not lisa jackson, i can assure you that. it was not. it was a lower level epa employee who made a mistake. that's all i'm going to say, made a mistake. now, on the -- >> follow up on that, sir, before you move on to your next comment. that's why it's important that you do the rfa, because that affects the economic concerns

that we have. and when you have a comment like that -- >> right. >> -- that gives us pause. i'm sorry, go ahead. >> there are two things. i want to make it clear we're not trying to implement a carbon tax or anything here. the clean air act is a very specific authority to look at sectors. so in the last term, we did a light duty vehicle regulation to reduce the greenhouse gases from light duty vehicles. we worked with the department of transportation to make sure it aligns so the automakers only had one thing to look at. we reached consensus with the automobile manufacturers. we had consensus with the small automobile manufacturers. we exempted them from the rule completely, and then they came back to us and they said we want to be able to opt in if we're making really efficient cars because we want to sell our credits to the other automobile manufacturers. so we have an opt-in for small businesses in that rule. so i don't want you to think we

don't really do think about this. that's the two big carbon, so-called carbon rules the epa is working on. one is automobiles which is in the process of being implemented now and it has those kind of provisions i just mentioned and the other one, which is power plants, which we haven't implemented yet, which is something we have to work at with states, where we are going to be continually looking for ways that we can incorporate ideas and opportunities like that to be able to deal with small businesses. and we hope that many small businesses will capitalize on some of the business opportunities as well. but we do -- we do look at this. i want you to believe that. and not not trust us. >> thank you for your comments. i yield back. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to associate myself with many of the questions and comments of mr. lukt ameyer.

one issue, and deputy administrator, does it disturb you, and you're talking about, it's admirable they were able to achieve this with some of the small car companies wanting to be able to sell their carbon credits back. does it disturb you when we talk about the sense of congress, which created the epa, by the way, had rejected cap and trade? and effectively now, we're seeing it moving forward in a r regulatory action. i'm just quoting you. you were saying they wanted to be able to use their credits in regards to -- >> we always do this. in all of our automobile rules, if one automobile manufacturer does a better job of pollution control than another, they can move those credits around between the automobiles, but they can't sell it to a power plant. it's inside, market mechanisms is something the epa has used in

rule making going back to the early 1980s. >> i understand that, but i guess my point is congress had rejected it under a democrat administration, cap and trade, and this is not a cap and trade program. this is the ability to trade credits in between -- again, we have been doing it since the '80s. >> and i think that's really part of the concern, is we see stepping stones to movement. if we go back to water, when secretary salazar, secretary of interior, was initiating, were you familiar with the blue ways program? >> no, sir. >> blue ways was coming out of the department of the interior which is effectively a precursor to the waters of the u.s. i would invite you or your successor to make sure they read the reports that were coming out of the blue ways program. effectively citing pollutants coming from far away farmlands in the midwest, and it effectively really goes to mr. schweikert's point in terms of once water is put on the

picture that mr. holtholtzcamp shown you, we may not define that as navigable, but as it flows down, that backflow becomes all navigable waters. that's really the concern that people has, is once you start regulating, it does have impacts, and those costs that are going to be associated with it. through this committee, we actually have the empirical evidence through regulatory costs in this country right now, americans are paying $1.8 trillion in regulatory costs, and no one is suggesting we get rid of all regulations, but those are real costs. right now in colorado, yesterday, you held epa hearings and unfortunately, you held them in denver. we sent two letters to the director requesting that the hearing actually be held in the impacted area in craig, colorado, moffitt county, in my district. we received no response from the epa. would it be appropriate when we're holding these hearings and i think you heard loud and clear

the importance of these rfas, to actually go to the impacted communities rather than just going to urban areas? for hearings? >> well, we are -- the hearings are just one aspect of our outreach. we've tried to distribute them around the country into different -- in different parts of the country so people have an opportunity. but let me just say this categorically. epa will meet with anybody who wants to meet with us on this, and we're going to reach out to virtually every state and the constituencies in every state and we're in the process of doing that. >> can we get aheld of you and you can help facilitate with us for director jackson to come to craig, colorado, and we will meet with them. >> well, you tell me who it is you're meeting and i'll try to figure it out. >> we're going to meet with community leaders, state legislators, the impacted private entities in rural colorado that are going to be

impacted by proposed epa rules. >> so we would want to work with the state of colorado because they're the ones who want to implement it. >> you would be willing to come? >> i'm willing to get on the phone and get with the governor and try to figure out how we do that. >> great, we would love to have you come in. and i think when we're talking a lilt bit -- >> have a meeting. i don't know where the meeting will be, but we'll have a meeting. >> i think that is part of the problem. we just had rural coloradoen said had to drive 4 1/2, 6 hours to go to the meeting in denver, colorado. it is important that when we're talking about outreach not to discard rural america. when we're talking about the states who are going to have to implement it, do you share with me some of the concern, when we're looking about some of the carbon credits, if you want to see blue skies and a coalifiered power plant, come to craig, colorado, with me.

we'll be able to see that. the concern i'm hearing, these are senior citizens on fixed incomes. young families just getting started. they're seeing taxation via regulation to where those utility bills continue to climb. is this taken into consideration at all by the epa? >> our economic analysis shows that energy bills will decline. >> when? >> through between now and 2030, the energy bills -- >> if i'm paying $100, it's actually going to go down? >> national estimate. the energy bills will decline 8% to 9%. >> i'd love to see that study. >> we can point that out if the committee would need to have that. >> great. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> i will be brief here. in looking through some of the rules and use of terminology, i

think what seems to be bothering a lot of people, words like significant. and here in the proposed rule in the federal register, it says for an effect to be significant, it must be more than speculative or insubstantial. now, so when we use that word, is there any data behind that that would suggest what that means? >> one of the things we're trying to dale -- i believe, i may be wrong and somebody behind me may be able to clarify. i believe that's just the language that the supreme court used and what we're trying to do with the rest of the rule is actually try to put a boundary on that. >> yeah, this is actually out of the regulatory text. >> we were probably writing that in there, but -- justice kennedy's opinion. so what we have done with the rest of the rule is try to say, what would they be? it gets back to trying to do it

on a scientific basis as opposed does it -- >> the problem is small business in trying to adhere to something and reading through this, they're going to -- they're not going to know where to take something using the word like significant. so i guess i would conclude simply in saying -- let me also go to another point today. too many times in congress with the public, it looks like the epa has a, quote, solution looking for a problem. so today in our science hearing on the coal plants, a data point came out that said if the united states industrial complex and the united states power generation complex produced no c02 whatsoever, none, they were all shut down, how would that impact the amount of c02 going into the atmosphere in the world? the answer was 2%. so here we are, so we could shut

down all the power plants, we could stop all our production that emits any c02, the impact on the world is quite insignificant, negligible. 2% is not going to have an impact, not given what we're doing. so that's part of the issue when i say the frustration on our side is the need for jobs, the growing economy, and then having the epa overreach for something that's not needed. again, a solution that's looking for a problem, a problem that doesn't exist. certainly not that we could have any impact on. so it's just interesting you, i believe, admitted there's a trust factor between the epa and congress. clearly. there's a trust factor between our farmers. and i always have this saying, don't bring me a problem without a solution. the epa has a real problem. congress doesn't trust you. farmers don't trust you. the public doesn't trust you. so what's the solution? don't bring me a problem without

a solution. it's a simple solution. withdraw the rule. start over. understand what you've done wrong. reach out. study the small business. do the rfa. that would mean so much to, i think, this congress and the country for the epa to say we were wrong. we got ahead of ourselves. we admit that there's misunderstanding. we're going to withdraw the rule, take all this into account, and since there's no judicial deadline, we'll move forward on another day, you know. we screwed up. you know what that would do for your trust factor in congress? it would take you a long way. so all i would say, i know you're leaving, but for my two cents worth, if you could convince your superiors to withdraw this rule, your credibility would skyrocket in the epa. i would suggest you seriously consider it. i yield back. >> mr. schweikert.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. deputy administrator, sort of a continuation on a bit of a thought exercise here. significant nexus. ultimately, i believe in your definiti definition, it's driven because of multiple supreme court rulings? >> right. keep in mind, it's a definitional rule, so it's defining something. we had it defined in the '80s and the '70s in a broadway. the supreme court has several times said, can't use that approach. you need to come up -- >> some of the significant nexus language actually came out of the supreme court language? >> that's right. um -- >> i'm going to ask you actually for a personal opinion and i know that's a little awkward and instead of your hat as depistry

administrat administrator, but you're leaving in three weeks so you're allowed to have an opinion. >> i am a citizen of the united states. >> over the next decade, your personal opinion, how much litigation is ultimately going to take place in defining the significant nexus? because the regional differentiation of that is incredible, if you think about our lives out in the desert southwest compared to other parts of the country. so where i'm heading on this is, your personal opinion, how much litigation are we going to look at in just once again, soon as this rule, if this rule goes into effect as written, in fixing these definitions or typing them up or politicizing them or moving them. what do we expect to see? >> you know, maybe it's sort of also a little bit toward mr. collins who just had to leave, answer. i can tell you that gina

mccartha and me, as long as i'm here, but certainly my immediate supervisor or boss, gina mccarthy, want nothing more than to build credibility and confidence in the congress. so from a personal perspective, we would hope that we would be able to get out of the situation we've been in for 40 years with everything keeping going to the supreme court and try to get it that to stop. and at some point, you know, which i don't see -- if we do nothing, it will continue to keep going up there and they'll continue to keep -- >> but if you also do this, in many ways, the term significant nexus is a new term of art. and now we have to define it. >> right. >> is a significant nexus different in oregon compared to the desert southwest? is it different in -- >> yes. >> -- building that box? and where you're hearing a lot of stress in our voices is for

places like maricopa county, arizona, one of the third, fourth most populous counties in the country, we recycle every drop of our water, every drop of it. we think we do some of this really, really well. is it going to be litigation being driven on another, how water -- the significant nexus of water in delaware and all of a sudden we find out the way we operate in our region, we're back in court, having to redefine for a definition that works for us? >> in my minute and a half i have left, you actually just touched on something. you heard the credibility discussion, distrust discussion. could you share with administrator mccarthy two things for me? if you have the chance. one is, stop giving speeches where you vilify us, where in

your language, you say you're going to go after those of us who have questioned. where that only real scientists are worthy, and those are quotes from articles. you didn't say them, but the administrator did. and the second part of that is, transparency. it's not good enough to tell us what your study says. we need the data sets. it's unacceptable to have proprietary data saying, well, we hired a contractor to do it. you need -- if you're going to make public policy, public policy needs to be done by public data. the public deserves the right, right, left, activists, researcher, to see the base data sets and modeling. because i think actually some of the distrust comes from the inability to see that base line data and know you could stress it and reproduce it. so that's more of an editorial

comment, but i actually thing it would take us a long ways to openness, transparency, and rehabilitating the relationships between the agency and the public. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you for coming in. and i might suggest because you have said on several occasions, you're seeking input, you want to. we have been talking about credibility and transparency and you want to hear from the business community. but i would suggest that you comply with the rfa, and why not do it voluntarily? why not go through the steps that are laid out? and you know, and help your credibility out considerably and do it through the process? that's really what this hearing is about, why the epa does not follow the regulatory flexibility act, which is what this committee is all about. and it does require all agencies, the epa included, to conduct outreach and assess the

impact of rules on small businesses. hearing from those small businesses early in the rule making process is going to identify these problems that come up and hopefully as has been pointed out, produce better solutions and better rules. but unfortunately, epa, you know, is not complying with the rfa, and the result is confusing. it ends up battedly crafted regulations and you end up in situations like you're in. but the community is going to continue to engage with the epa to make sure it complies with the regulatory act. and i ask unanimous consent all members have five days to subimate information to the report. with that, the hearing is adjourned. thank you. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> a couple of live events to tell you about on our companion network c-span3. the house energy and commerce subcommittee will focus on the implementation of the affordable care act, and we'll hear about the gao's report on the website healthcare.gov. that's at 9:15 a.m. eastern. at 3:30 p.m. the atlantic council hosts the former palestinian prime minister to discuss the future of israeli-palestinian relations. >> sunday on booktv's "in depth." ron paul has written more than one dozen books on politics and history with his latest the school revolution on american education system. join the conversation as he takes your calls, e-mails and tweets live for three hours.

to next month for author and historian and activist mary frances berry. "in depth" on c-span2's booktv, television for serious readers. >> secretary of state john kerry is traveling to india today for talks on improving relations between the two countries. earlier this week mr. kerry was at the center for american progress urging india to expand trade and do more on climate change. this is 45 minutes. >> we are really honored and thrilled to have the 60th sec of state john kerry join us today to discuss america's relationship with india as we launch tap india 2020 program. throughout history secretary

kerry has reinforced the strategic partnership between the united states in india. he supported the crucial civilian nuclear agreement in 2008 at maintain just support for india's full, permanent membership an expanded u.n. security council. with the new government in india, faces both challenges and real opportunity. prime minister modi came to power with a mandate to shape up india's economy and redefined the country's role on the world stage. through cap in the 2025 we hope to work with key stakeholders in the united states and india to build an even stronger relationship between our two countries to seize on the opportunity for positive change. we're so please have secretary kerry at our inaugural event. secretary kerry has a long and distinguished career in serving his country on the battlefield, in the senate and not as

american diplomacy around the world. he represented massachusetts in the u.s. senate. in fact, i grew up in bedford, massachusetts, and he was my senator and i'm proud to say my mom always voted for him. his service in the u.s. -- [laughter] i left at 18 but i would have voted for him. he served in u.s. navy during vietnam and his years as -- may decide to care one of the country's leading voices on foreign policy issues. proud son of a foreign service officer, his understanding of today's foreign policy challenges uniquely qualifies him to the america's top diplomat. since he was sworn into office, secretaries been one of the most active, energetic and ambitious secretary and u.s. history. he has dived headfirst into some of the world's most difficult problems. i know as the world faces greater and greater instability with international crises

erupting seemingly daily, it is easy for all of us to turn away. that is what is so crucial secretary kerry is in this role. because without his career he has stood for the strand of progressivism that is international in outlook and engaged in the world. that brand of progressivism that believes that an engaged america strengthens our own security as we work for peace and stability around the world. however, hard that is. i know the world is a difficult place and getting more dangerous, but secretary kerry also knows that without active engaged american leadership, it will get far, far more worse. we are lucky to have him in this role. i believe he is truly the man for this moment. secretary kerry, thank you for being here today, for all the support you've had of cap over the years, and it is now my great honor and privilege to introduce secretary of state john kerry. [applause]

>> neera, thank you very, very much. thank you for confirming to me your mother's fealty. i'm deeply appreciative for her support through the years and i'm sorry we lost you when you were 18, but i'm glad you wound up here, as is everybody else. we're delighted that you're here. it's a privilege for me to be back at the center for american progress, and i am very, very apologetic for the delay. i know i've kept you all from your appointed rounds and i apologize for that. it's good to get the telephone unglued for a few minutes here. obviously, we are still working hard at trying to deal with the issue of the crisis in the middle east. i spoke to it a little earlier today, so i'm not going to

repeat what i said, except to say to all of you that we want to be able to find a way to get to a table to discuss the underlying issues which are real and impactful on everybody and on the region. and we hope to be able to find the magic formula by which the violence could cease for a long enough period of time to try to find that sustainable ceasefire which could allow you to move on from there. the region has known violence for far too long. too many innocent people caught in the crossfire, too many lives ruptured, and so it is imperative for all of us in positions of responsibility to do everything we can to try to find a diplomatic way, a peaceful way forward if possible. it is a privilege for me to be back here at the center for american progress.

ambassador sandhu, thank you for being here representing the embassy, the dcm here, all of our ex-ambassadors and ex-assistant secretaries of defense and otherwise greatly appreciative for their supports and efforts to advance the very crucial relationship between the united states and india. and at a time when so many people are, you know, back in history when they were looking for a lot of simple slogans and silver bullets to cure an immediate problem, which was pretty basic, that the democratic party was out of the white house and sidelined in the minority in both the house and the senate, that's when a guy named john podesta stood up and was determined to get past the day-to-day ups and downs of the washington echo chamber, and

helped to shape a principled and progressive policy agenda for governing. john knew then what he practices now in the white house for president obama. good policy is good politics. so -- excuse me, let me get rid of my flight here, good policy really does make good politics. i always found that and i've always tried to practice that. under neera tanden's leadership for the last couple years, cap has continued to prove that good ideas are still the most important currency in our political debate. and that is a principle that has also guided cap's work on foreign policy, especially in convening track ii, the first intensive climate change dialogue between the united states and india. india 2020 builds on that

success by showing how the united states and india together can tackle global challenges, from security in the asia pacific to providing clean energy to delivering more inclusive growth. and vikram singh and rich verma are going to help lead us together on that, bringing some of the best minds together in terms of policy and politics, and i thank you very, very much for your contribution. rich and vikram, thank you for what you're undertaking. it is really a dialogue about what is in most people's currency but not always yet fully blossomed, one of the most important relationships internationally. now i just got back, as i think you all know, from a pretty intensive trip to egypt, israel, the west bank, and to europe, working to try to find an end to

the violence that has threatened our ally israel, and which has also cost hundreds of innocent lives in gaza and elsewhere. the fact is that we were able to produce at least the beginnings of a ceasefire process, a 12-hour ceasefire, then confusion over 4 hours and 12 hours. but the bottom line is the concept of that, i think, is still appreciated by all, and the key now is to find the road, not the question of what. now there are some in america who question america's efforts actually not just in america. there's some people who ask this elsewhere. but particularly here, they question about our efforts to bring peace to various conflicts around the world. i think they ought to ask, what's the alternative? make no mistake, when the people

of israel are rushing to bomb shelters, when innocent israeli and palestinian teenagers are abducted and murdered, when hundreds of innocent civilians have lost their lives, i will and we will make no apologies for our engagement. ungoverned spaces threaten us all. instability threatens us all. and upholding the rule of law and humanitarian standards are not only national security imperatives; they are the right thing to do. this is who we are and this is what we do. and frankly, i think it is what we do with greater gusto, with greater grounding, if you will, in international rule of law and structure, than almost, almost any other country. but i want to be very clear about something, and that's why i'm here today.

even as we focus on crises and flashpoints that dominate the daily headlines and govern the cable talk shows and so forth, even as that happens and they demand our leadership, we will always act with long-term strategic imperatives foremost in our mind, and that's why we're here today. you can go to any capital in the world and you can find different nuanced and self-assured perspectives about american foreign policy. but if you were lucky enough to have the top hundred foreign policy thinkers sit in a room together and you asked them to name the most important relationships for which the united states, with that relationship, will most affect the direction of the 21st century, i can guarantee you this, every single one of them would rank the u.s.-india relationship right up there in the top tier.

so i want to emphasize the key relationship for the united states, one of the key relationships for the united states in that context is the deepening relationship with india, and particularly trying to deepen our ties with india in terms of our strategic imperatives, both of us. it doesn't matter just to us or to india. it actually matters to the world. and that's why, in my first months as secretary of state, i went to india. and it's no coincidence that at the time, that in prime minister modi's first 100 days in his government, i'm now returning to delhi for two days of strategic dialogue and discussion. and it was no accident that in the intervening time, we've had many discussions and meetings and the prime minister, former prime minister singh, came here

to the white house during that period of time. but then, of course, they had an election. and as everybody knows, from certain number of months during an election, things tend to be put on hold. now is the time to renew that dialogue with a new government, with a new set of opportunities, new possibilities. this is a potentially transformative moment in our partnership with india, and we're determined to deliver on the strategic and historic opportunities that we can create together. in a globalized world, we recognize that yes, india's going to have many different partners. that's the nature of the world we're in today. but we believe there are unique opportunities for just united states and india, and that the dynamism and the entrepreneurial spirit of mumbai and bangalore, of silicon valley and of boston that is precisely what is

required in order to solve some of the world's greatest challenges. president obama is absolutely right to call this a defining partnership for the 21st century. india's new government has won an historic mandate to deliver change and reform. and together, we have a singular opportunity to help india to be able to meet that challenge, to boost two-way trade, to drive south asia's connectivity, to develop cleaner energy, to deepen our security partnership in the asia pacific and beyond. the united states and india can and should be indispensable partners for the 21st century, and that is, i assure you, the way we approach the modi government and the way we view this particular time. this week, secretary pritzker and i will be emphasizing those opportunities as we meet leaders of india's new government.

now we face, as we all know, and neera talked about it, and it is true, this is a particularly challenging moment. forces that were pent up for years in the cold war tampened down by dictatorship and absence of freedom to speak have suddenly been released everywhere, and everywhere everybody is in touch with everybody all the time. it changes the face of politics profoundly everywhere. people have more information, more ability to organize, more ability to talk to each other. so we do face a host of critical challenges together and we face a world in which more young people more rapidly are demanding more from their governments with too many places

where there's too little response. and that is a challenge for all governance, none more so than what we do to link our economies, india and the united states, in order to further our shared prosperity agenda. what we do to strengthen global security and a rules-based international system, how we turn the challenges of climate change into an opportunity for greater cooperation and economic growth, these are the big challenges. these are opportunities for us. our countries have had a decades-long relationship, and i can personally remember the lingering sense of suspicion and distrust when i first went to india at the end of the cold war. i traveled to delhi, mumbai, bangalore with executives from companies like raytheon and nextel, companies that are doing booming business in india today. i remember talking to then-finance minister singh

about the reforms that were needed and the opening up of the economy and the ability to be able to attract capital and have rules that made sense to everybody that we all understood. i remember that back then, and i felt then the possibility of the enormous potential of a closer, stronger partnership. and now, it's not hard to see how in this moment, we can actually deliver on that partnership's full promise. the new indian government's plan, sabka saath, sabka vikas, together with all, development for all, that's a concept, a vision that we want to support. we believe it's a great vision, and our private sector is eager to be a catalyst in india's economic revitalization. american companies lead in exactly the key sectors where india wants to grow, in high-end manufacturing, in infrastructure, in healthcare,

information technology, all of them vital to sort of leapfrogging stages of development so you can provide more faster to more people. india also wants to build a more competitive workforce, and already 100,000 indians study each year in american universities. but america's community colleges actually set a remarkable standard for 21st century skills training. we should be expanding our educational ties across the board, increasing opportunities for young people in both of our nations. i know prime minister modi drew from that energy of india's youth during his campaign. he repeatedly pointed out that while india's one of the world's oldest civilizations, it has the world's youngest population. prime minister modi has said that young people have a natural

instinct to rise like a flame. and he has spoken about india's duty to nurture that instinct, and we believe, frankly, that's a duty for both of our nations. and that means strengthening the exchange in technical education, in vocational programs for high-skilled trades, and especially in areas where we can build on the entrepreneurial and innovative spirit of both of our nations. and we all know about the extraordinary work ethic that people in india have and the capacity to be able to do this and seize this opportunity. one of the marked contrasts of this moment is this juxtaposition to parts of the world where young people demanded a participation in this world they see around them, and rose up against leadership that had stultified over the course

of years, decades even, tunisia, egypt, syria. they all began without one flake of religious extremism involved in the revolutions that brought change. it was all about young people gathering and forcing the notion that they wanted something more to life. they wanted opportunity, education, respect, dignity, jobs, a future. so this possibility i've just defined between india and the united states, which fits very neatly into prime minister modi's vision that he expressed in a campaign which was ratified overwhelmingly by the people of his country is exactly the vision that we need to embrace now, and that's why this opportunity is actually so ripe. this area of cooperation is particularly exciting, i think, and i'm particularly confident about these opportunities, because only countries that

reward creativity the way the united states and india do could have possibly launched hollywood and bollywood. only countries that celebrate the entrepreneur the way we do could have launched silicon valley and bangalore as global epicenters for innovation. innovation and entrepreneurship are in both of our dna, and they not only make us natural partners; they give us natural advantages in a world that demands adaptability and resilience. the united states and india cannot afford to just sort of sit back and rest on these currently existing advantages. we have to build on them and we have to build on them by investing more in one another. now unlike some other nations, the united states cannot direct a private corporation to go invest in a particular country.

president obama can't order businesses to build factories in kolkata or chennai. it just doesn't happen. but we do know this from several hundred years of experience, if india's government delivers on its plans to support greater space for private initiative, if it creates greater openness for capital flows, if it limits subsidies that stifle competition, if it provides strong intellectual property rights, believe me, even more american companies will come to india. they may even race to india. and with a clear and ambitious agenda, we can absolutely help create those conditions. so as we work with our trading partners around the world to advance trade and investment liberalization, india has a decision to make about where it fits in the global trading system. india's willingness to support a

rules-based trading order and fulfill its obligations will help to welcome greater investment from the united states and from elsewhere around the world. the greater transparency and accountability that prime minister modi put in place during his time as chief minister tells us he has already provided a model of how raising standards can actually increase economic growth. now i believe the united states and india should continue to reach for the ambitious target that vice president biden laid out last summer in india, to push from 100 billion to 500 billion a year in trade. and whatever impediments we may face along the way, we need to always be mindful of the opportunities and the bigger picture around this. so it's in our -- excuse me.

it is completely in our mutual interest to address those obstacles that kind of raise their head here and there as you go along the way and to remember that a lot bigger opportunities will come from more robust ties, so we need to keep our eye on the prize out there and not get dragged down by one small or lesser particular aspect of a restraint. the bigger picture has to guide us and the end game has to guide us. if you have any doubts, just look at the opportunities that ford is creating right now in india. they're doubling production from plants in gujarat and chennai. they're investing 1 billion to make india a global hub for

exports. take a look at the jobs that tata is creating for americans by expanding auto design and sales in the united states, adding to its 24,000 employees already in this country. already, indian investment creates close to 100,000 jobs right here at home. and we also convinced, we are convinced that just as the united states and india can do more to create shared prosperity, so can india and its neighbors. simply from the size of south asia's market, 1.6 billion consumers, and from india's geography, sitting at the center of this dynamic asian continent, the opportunities are leaping out at us. they're just enormous. and just to underscore how untapped this potential is,

consider this. south asia is the least integrated economic region in the world. fastest growing region in the world, southeast asia. by strengthening trade links with bangladesh, by building on the political opening in burma, by increasing trade with the asia pacific and southeast asia, india can be at the heart of a more connected, prosperous region. so we are deeply committed to helping india grab ahold of these opportunities. that's why the united states is supporting an indo-pacific economic corridor to connect south asia to southeast asia. that's why we're focused on investing in regional infrastructures and in the creation of a regional energy market. and that's why we're supporting new trade routes linking central and south asia with the new silk

road initiative. i mean this is, the possibilities here are gigantic. now clearly, prime minister modi understands the opportunities that regional connectivity provides for india and for a more stable, prosperous region. and by inviting leaders from around the region to his swearing-in, and by bringing them together to speak about connecting their economies as one of his first orders of business, he is eager for india to play a leading role. and guess what? so are we. nowhere is that leadership more critical than in improving cross-border trade and relations between india and pakistan. prime minister modi took the important first step of inviting nawaz sharif to his inauguration. both men are business-minded leaders who want to create opportunity for their people. i talked to nawaz sharif after his visit there. he was very encouraged, thought it was positive, possibilities

he understood. so improved trade is a win-win for both countries and both peoples. and i know that there are plans for the commerce secretaries and foreign secretaries to meet in the coming weeks in order to build on that. i commit to you that the united states will do everything we can to encourage india and pakistan to work together and improve the prospects for both prosperity and stability in the region. now india has already shown a deep commitment to regional stability with the generous investments in afghanistan. at this critical moment of transition and in the coming months, support from all across the international community will be vitally important. in the coming days, i will continue to work closely with president karzai, with the candidates, with the united nations in order to provide afghanistan with support during the transition. and we look forward to working also with india on this, and we look forward to india engaging

with its neighbors so that afghanistan's connections to the region and the world are defined by the opportunity that they can create together. far beyond afghanistan, india is assuming greater responsibilities for regional and global security. as india plays an increasingly global role, its interests are served by forging strong partnerships on a broad range of issues. among south asian nations and within international organizations, india should be a global leader. that's why president obama voiced his clear support for a reformed u.n. security council that includes india as a permanent member. for several years, india has been a major partner in the fight against piracy in the strait of malacca and off the horn of africa.

even as we speak, india and the united states are participating in rimpac and malabar joint naval exercises. secretary hagel will explore broadening our deepening, the deepening possibilities of our relationship with india when he travels there in early august. counterterrorism is also a challenge to both of our nations. ..