another panel follow thg one? we will keep the record of this panel open until noon tomorrow and i will resays for a third panel. >> this third panel of the senate committee foreign relations is called to order. i indicated that the witnesses should take their places. these are not witnesses, they're nominees: what we'll do is do a brief introduction of each of the three. and then i iv ask them to make opening statement ins the order that i introduce you. and following that, i'll have questions for each of you. normally, we would have other committee members here.

but, normally, we don't do three pams. so you may only have to face my weathering cross-examination this afternoon. but, again, welcome to all of these -- these are all quite important positions. so, to begin with introductions, michelle se surks son has served as ambassador since 2012. she served as chief admission in baghdad, iraq and u.s. ambassador to the uae. she holds the rank of career minister and foreign service. her early assignments include services principle deputy assistant secretary of state for south asian affairs and positions in pakistan, india, cameroon, banine, togo and haiti in the 32 years since 194 the.

she's the mother of two grown daughters. they have served a huge service of their professional career. proudly rep sent the united states as they do their business and raise their families abroad or are ambassadors in a different way. a head of business development for investment management, he also serves as a member of the united states holocaust memorial council. his business background, he served with international discount telecommunication. '02-'06, he was director of strategic planning. from 1999-2001, previously vice

president of marketing and strategic in monteray. he began his career after his bachelor's and master's degree in georgetown serving for proctor and gamble. welcome. it's good to have you here. finally, charles adam social security the managing parter in of the geneva office international law firm. he has worked in geneva for over 20 years serving as managing partner for two law firms and his practice focuses heavily on international arbitrations in europe and around the wourld.

so mr. vice president adam,welcome to you, as well. i'd like to ask you each now to make your opening statements. >> i achl grateful to the president for their fait and comforts in my ability to represent the american people at the united nations. i know my daughters are watching this hearing out in arizona and would like to give them a heartfelt shout out.

my two girls truly are my pride and joy. mr. chairman, if confirmed, i look forward to a time of unpres dentded challenges. president obama has stress that had the global nature of the threat facing the world today cannot be adequately addressed by one nation alone. for that reason, america depends upon a responsible international system. throughout my career, i've worked with our international partners on issues as varied nonproliferation, counter terrorism, climate change and post-conflict transition.

representing our nation in challenging posts from haiti to pakistan and iraq, id have seen the united nations i have seen that in the united nations to have the ability to amplify u.s. erts and achieve a number of our foreign policy goals, inc. colluding to prevent and end armed conflicts, ensure accountability and build the conditions for a lasting piece. on the ground, i've worked alongside u.s. colleagues to deliver life-saving humanitarian asips tans wrapped by conflict and natural disaster. i've coordinated closely with un personnel.

i witnessesed the blue line between israel and lebanon. i have vigorously promoted u.s. interests by urging our partners overseas to adhere to u.n. security council resolutions designed to deter the proliferation efforts of iran and north korea, al-qaida-linked terrorism and other grave threats to peace. of course, there can be no sustainable peace without law. while i believe no country can lead as effectively as the united states, it is not our nation's job to solve every crisis around the world. the u.n. is an important forum for sharing that burden internationally. if confirmed, i will expand the number of capable and willing partners.

and will seek to ig nielt them in a common cause to ensure that its important work is performed efficiently and effectively. some of these challenges are internal to the u.n. system and some reflect the competing priorities of its member states. if confirmed, i will actively pursue our shared priority of ensuring that american taxpayer resources are used effectively to advance u.s. goals and objectives. i pledge to work to ensure un fiscal discipline, transparency, ethics, oversight and reform. i will also continue this administration's firm commitment to fight any unfair bias against israel at the u.n. mr. chairman, i've worked

closely with this committee throughout my career. and i greatly respect the active role of the committee in shaping american foreign policy. i appreciate your considerationover my nomination. i would be happy to answer any questions you may have for me. >> i look forward to working with the countries that deepen the bonds. with the chairman's permission, i'd like to acknowledge my family who are here with me today.

and my children, asher nava, et id and shaya. if i'm confirmed, my wife and our four children will be joining me in san jose. it is only through their love and support that i'm here today. >> costa rica is an important ally to the united states.

it is the most stable democracy in central america. its strong commitment has been considered among the best in the region. it is no surprise that these positive atributes have attracted significant numbers of u.s. citizens. and, today, approximately 100,000 call costa rica home and more than one million visit annually. if confirmed, their civility and well being will be my top priority. despite its successes, costa rica con fronts many challenges, including security challenges as international drug travelicing organizations and organized crime increasingly penetrate central america.

the region will not prosper without trade and investment. costa rica is not a soursz of the unaccompanied young people who have been streaming north to risk poverty, violence and hopelehop hopeless rns. and, in fact, is itself, a destination. costa rica can plaid a constructive role to create distance that are conducive to reducing poverty and violence. the president is committed to promoeting regional integration and prosperity. if i am confirmed, i will support him in those efforts.

it would also serve me in advocating for entrepreneurship and private public partnerships and ensure that u.s. companies and investors encounter fair and level playing field for doing business in costa rica. i will also work closely to advance the many other policy object ifrs and priorities the united states and costa rica share. costa rica will continue to be a strong partner with the united states and promote renewable energy use. i believe it has the opportunity to become a regional hub of innovation for good gover nans. benefitting the citizens of both of our asianss.

i welcome your questions. >> thank you, mr. heney. >> thank you, mr. chairman. it is a privilege to appear before you today as the president's nominee to be ambassador to the republic of finland and it's a tremendous honor to have been asked to serve in this post, like my colleagues, i thank president obama and senator kerry. if confirmed, look very much forward to working with you to further u.s. interest in england. i hope that they're watching on the internet back at home in geneva. although, it's way passed maya's bedtime by now. i hope also watching is my son,

matthew, who's 3 is who lives and works in los angeles of whom i'm very proud and has been leading up to my apeernsz here before you today. i do have here a group of deer friends and law partners whose support i very much appreciate, also. as you mentioned, mr. chairman, my late father dedicated the entirety of his professional career to representing the united states as a foreign service officer devotedly supported throughout by my late mother, florence snyder adams. they and what came over time to be a family of six kids spent

many years all over the world. and i've thus had the opportunity to witness it first hands through the eyes of the service brat that i was. after service in the peace corps in kenya in 1968-1970 and after law school at mr. jefferson's yooumpbt university in charlottesville, i chose to enter the private sector. and i practiced at high levels

for now over 40 years. i've always had very close to the heart that i may some day be afforded the opportunity and privilege to serve my country as an ambassador of the united states. and should i be honored by the confirmation of this nomination, that long-held also pir ration will have been fulfilled. i'm very excited that the united states has asked me to be an ambassador to finland. finland served as a key

interbinocular east and west. finland has been a member of the european union since 19895 and has developed an international-led economy. engages closely in the u.s. and leads in promoting human rights around the globe. finland's participation and multilateral is a core component of its foreign policy.

first, on our shared security, finland, although not a member of nato, finland is a partner of peace and maintains very high levels of cooperation with us. finland has played a critical role in addressing the crisis of syria through its participation to transport syrian chemical weapons. and has provided $121.2 million in humanitarian assistance to the people. sharing the vision of a strong, robust transant latic economy. and will increase ek notchic

cooperation between finland and the united states through expedited expanded by lateral trade. i am very grateful for the opportunity to have trusted you and at your disposal to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you very much, mr. adams. very wonderful oral presentations. actually, it's a proud u.s. accomplishment. president roosevelt knew their

needed to be a successor and created at the end. the war delated and obviously, the u.s.'s participation, leadership, financial support has been critical to the organization. and i think we can be proud of many of the accomplishments. the relative impotence of the security council in dealing with the civil war in syria. much of that aid has been to syrian refugees outside of syria. the government has not been cooperating significantly, but, often, in the u.n. security council, except for one and two occasions, russia, usually with the agreement of china, has blocked resolutions to take a

more vigorous posture. thank you, senator. >> indeed, after three years of fighting, there are more than 10.8 million people in need of assistance and 6.4 million displaced due to the asaad regime and its actions against the syrian people. u.s. leadership has been critical at the united nations in addressing these pressing

humanitarian assistance needs. as you noted, the second humanitarian assistance human security council resolution was just passed this month, july, july 14th. we saw the first convoy of nine trucks cross into syria. of course, there is also pressure on the countries outside of syria, syria's neighbor, lebanon, i understand you recently traveled out there: jordan, turkey, of course. u.s. leadership at the u.n. has been critical in focusing an overall strategy to continue to

push as much humanitarian assistance into syria through -- as possible through all available channels. there's a dual strategy that we're preparing with the u.n. funding organization with a presence is damascus, yes, including the u.n. but funding u.n. agencies to conduct this cross border humanitarian assistance delivery sboos the areas where the most vulnerable populations are needed. this is very challenging on the ground. the asaad regime's minimal steps to cross border access. those eight agencies out there are having a challenging time.

of course, there have been outflows of syrian refugees into lebanon. into turkey, into jordan. and to provide not just humanitarian assistance, but development aid in those neighboring countries. so, again, u.s. leadership has been critical addressing those needs on the ground and the humanitarian assistance as well as the kecchemical weapons un security council resolution.

i'm so glad you mention ds your service in lebanon talking to a population of about four million that's dealing with a million refugees that arrived 234 a space of three years.responded the challenge -- i believe the challenges that this humanitarian crisis will continue to present will be a major part of your daily headache and responsibility there. >> its has to my way of thinking disposed some security features. what are your thoughts of proposals on the table to change the way that the membership is

chosen? >> yes, thank you, senate xx. open to principle in a modest expansion of the permanent and nonpermanent memberships. i would underscore the ability to commensurate charters of peace and security around the world. we would remain opposed to the veto. >> since you mentioned that very important mission, there's been

some controversy about the status of u.s. contributions to that particular mission in general. talk a little bit about that and whether you see the need for peace keeping operations and security challenges that are out there now. >> the u.s., indeed, is the major contributor to peace keeping operations with our assessment at 28.4%. u.n. peace keeping operations in many of the hot spots around the world promoet u.s. security by helping preserve or stabilize, restore international peace and security in colluding in places of direct international interest. here, i'm thinking of molly, for example, where we saw al-qaida-linked terrorists threaten not only molly, but the

region. yes, we do contribute over a quarter of u.n. peace keeping operations costs. other member states, however, share that burden with the remaining 70 plus per cent. and as well as contributing there. coming from 122 countries around the world into these hot spots around the world over 16 multidimensional u.n. peace keeping operations. how about financial reform? i spent a day when ambassador rice was the u.s. ambassador.

went to a security council meeting and said is there something you want me to say that would be helpful to you? very high on her very short list was to continue to press the case for management and budgetary reforms. you alluded to that in your testimony as a priority. would you talk a little bit more about that? thank you, senator. making sure that u.s. taxpayer dollars going into the regular budget assessment or peace keeping budget assessmented, that those u.s. taxpayer dool lars are being used wildsly.

u.s. leadership achieved a one-year freeze in professional staff salaries. this is ground breaking up at the u.n. u.s. growth continues with the u.s. co-chairing 2 geneva group that looks at these management and budgetary issues. and we advocated additional measures to reduce staff compensation growth across the uchlt nvmt compensation system. we also focused on the ballooning u.n. international expenditures.

we're working closely with the entipty that focuses on waste, fraud and abuse. they've been strongly supporting efforts to further strepgten oios's audit and investigation functions. >> could you talk a little bit -- i'm very happy you mention mention mentioned one of the areas we find perplexing. i remember when i was in israel of april, 2009, i believe it was a unesco meeting in geneva that

one of the invited keynote speakers was of iran and to have a holocaust denier, you know, speaking to international organization of that kind and in the sad coincidence of timing it was in israel and it just seems so odds. trying to find a path to cease fire in gaza where, in the calm of a ceasefire, the issues and grievances can be put on the table so that it's a peaceful israel and palestine living side-by-side.

>> yes, thank you, senator. indeed, there is all too often an unfair, biassed targeting of israel. and if confirmed, i would do my utmost to fight this unfair targeting unbiassed israel. there have been a number of positive agenda actions, including israel, there the number of key consul tative gruchs, recently. for example, the western european and others grouping out in geneva. these consul tative groupings were really a lot of work

behind-the-scenes i believe we can definitely move forward in addressing some of our mutual concerns. of course, senator, we saw yesterday, just after midnight, monday, the u.n. skiert council calling for immediate and unconditional cease fire. the immediate goal for all of us is to stop the violence to look for a ses cessational ending of the vie lance.

the u.n. is out there with u.s. support providing assistance to civilian population. but the bottom line, and this is the political good offices, of course, of the u.n. and u.s. and many others is to work towards a cease fire and we condemn hamas's attacks against israel. supportize real's right to defend itself. at the same time, are very concerned. the bottom line is all of this working together to stop the violence to promote a cease fire agreement. >> well, you're coming to the position at a challenging time.

and there's so many other issues i could ask you about. but in september, we have both the visits of the heads of state to the united nations as well as the u.s. if your honor to be in the lead position in the security council. i appreciate your service and con dprat ewe late you. we've really been grappling with this issue. enjoying low-levels of impunity

where roughly nine of ten cases are never everyone prosecuted. you alluded to some of this in your testimony. how can costa rica serve as a model? >> as you said, i think costa rica has the opportunity to serve as a model for the rest of the region as a home grown success story. its neighbors unfortunately lack today.

it's not an island, it's part of the iz mus. it's how we can best face these challenges. oil think just by following the current path that it's on can set a good example. when you mentioned judiciary and the police, we have worked with both. we have a very strong partnership. i think costa rica will maintain that and it's for the rest of the region, as well. it's very important that with always remember that you can't be more willing than your partner and your can't blame your partner to be more able than they are. i think costa rica, we have a very unique opportunity for a very willing and capable party at the same time.

i love in hon durs 30 years ago, which is now sadly the murder capital of the world. it wasn't that way when i live there. it seemed to me that there was some significant success in u.s. efforts to fight drugd trade in mexico and columbia. there could be pressure for them to reroute, as well. that is something that will require on going significant security work. it's good to know that the partnership is strong and that the civil institutions begin with a strengts.

let me switch to a scan of yours. there have been so much concerns that americans have done some downsizing. there may be other concerns. so we saw some other firms like intel and city bank reduce some of their presence. what can you do with the experience you bring to the table to promote u.s. foreign direction there and find out opportunities for american businesses, as well. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i think the best example we have to making costa rica as attractive as possible for the

u.s. and other foreign investment is the fact that his first trip outside of the region, as president, was an investment promotion to appear to united states. where he went to silicon valley and then eventually d.c. there's some challenges arnold bureaucracy or infrastructure that he needs to work on both physical as well as irn vestment. overall, the country was very willing to work with u.s. corporations in country. so while sbel did, for example, shot one of its plants down, at the same time, it announced that it's opening up a megalab within the country.

costa rica has the human capital. i think my private sector background working with sbre prepreneuros as well as the broad international business. i would like to help costa rica limiting additional investment from the u.s. firms! what is your sense of how costa rica has taken add voon tang of kafta. as far as costa rica goes, it's the most successful. today, it counts for about 40% of all kafta trade.

we are looking at an additional inclusion. not just the first tier or the export sector. we're thinking about how you really be the engine for on going continued economic development within costa rica. >> the country has not blossomed and i think that is one of the tools we have to help address some of these core issue that is

are driving some of what we've seen, as of late, within central america. and the prt's goal would suggest something we should share? >> correct. but it's under 5 million people. it is a vast difference on investment and capability. let me move to mr. adams now. talk about the very delicate issue of russia, finland relationship.

finland's economy is very connected to russia and seem to be a very solid partner. talk a little bit about that relationship and the current status of it, especially in light of the activities involving russia and its neighboring ukraine. the long historical relationship of finland and russia. as you know, finland, from one time, was part of russia. as an autonomowe toutonomous gr of the star. from 1917 forward, it's a

complex and delicate one. naturally, with 1300 kilometers of border, this is the second longest border of russia with its neighbors to the west after the ukraine: the economic ties have been very strong. russia is finland's single largest export market. it's its second largest supplier after sweden. in the most recent statistics. on the other hand, finland has been a staunch supporter of the

eu and has stated its intention of implementing and enforcing to the fullest degree. this notwithstanding the fact that all the members of the eu, could be said to have the most to lose. but got withstanding that finland is very much behind the full set of sanctions recently announced. what also, i think is important to take note of is the fact that finland is in a unique position because of its proximity and historical connection to russia

to state the position of the eu. emphasized the crisis to get passed the matter of sanctions in the interest of russia and in the interests of finland, as well, in order that the malter of the sanctions could be addressed. if confirmed, i will continue to encourage finland in taking a strong stand in alliance with its partners within the eu and also within the implementation

of the united states. >> your role could be as important in the 21st century as it was in the 20th. you point o for cultural reasons they have a unique ability to do that. you know, i would encourage you in that regard. are there any issues with respect to the negotiation of the ttip that will cause controversy in finland or finland and the united states are currently not likely to see eye to eye? >> actually, mr. chairman, finland is a particularly strong proponent of ttip. and has taken positions within the councils of the eu which are much more aligned with those of the united states with respect to the issues currently under discussion than some of the countries to the south particularly when it comes to

issues pertaining to agriculture and to geographic indicators. finland has been looking forward to a successful conclusion of the round of negotiations on ttip because finland as does the united states views this accord or the potentiality of this accord to increased trade, increased prosperity, increased job creation both within the eu and within the united states. >> one of the areas where the united states and finland would seem to have a lot in common in the ability to learn from one another is the great innovation culture that finland has been known for. i doubt -- i suspect it's a causal relationship not even, more than even a correlation that they are also known for educational success. my wife is secretary of education in virginia and recently met with the minister of education from finland on a

trip to the united states. talk a little bit about that sort of innovation and education success culture in finland and how you might as ambassador, you know, share best practices back and forth between the united states and finland. >> i would be happy to do that, mr. chairman. you correctly say that innovation has been a hallmark of modern day finland and the source of its quite remarkable success for a country of 5.3 million people. finland punches far above its weight in matters of innovation, in matters of technological development. the united states has recognized this. the united states has looked for ways to enhance its cooperation with finland in areas of innovation. point of fact, the united states embassy in helsinki in february

of last year inaugurated its own innovation center as a part of the embassy complex in the presence of the president and members of his cabinet. the purpose of the innovation center being to function as a focal point and as a forum for interchange between the united states and finland in precisely this area. another way in which i think these shared exchanges can be enhanced is through the international visitor leadership program of which finland has been a very active participant. in fact the president himself is an alumnus of an international visitor leadership program visit to the united states as are several of the members of his cabinet. and many of these exchanges have focused on the area of education whereas you say finland and the

united states each will greatly benefit from a continuation of these exchanges to further the aspects of education. >> you alluded a little bit to this in your testimony but just talk about the current status of u.s./finnish defense cooperation which would have a sensitivity because of finland's geography in relation to rush. seems the partnership is a good one and i would like you to elaborate on that. >> it's been an excellent one. as i mentioned finland is not a member of nato, it's a member and full participant in nato's partnership for peace program. currently finland has 95 troops in afghanistan. there are 21 in kosovo in the context of the nato peace keeping program in that country.

finland has also been a participant over the years in various u.n. peace keeping missions. the u.s. and finland have emphasized the point of the int interoperability without nato and finland has proven to be a very strong customer of the united states in military procurements. so that not with standing the sensitive aspects of the issue of the defense relationship and the military, security relationship between finland and the united states, given the geographical proximity of finland's neighbor to the east, this is an area which if confirmed as ambassador i would look forward to continuing to

consolidate and enhance. >> thank you. a few concluding remarks that i have. the testimony and questions have been thorough, and impressive. one of the wonderful things about being on the foreign relations committee is the opportunity to travel, especially to the near east, south and central asia where my committee, subcommittee chairmanship but also to latin america because of my personal interest. when i do travel i can interact with a lot of wonderful foreign service professionals. this post will be a great honor to you because it's an honor to represent the country. it's an honor to be nominated by fortunate. it's also an honor to lead wonderful people and you'll each have an opportunity to do that in your capacity. i try to make it a habit when i travel to have a round table meeting with young foreign service officers who are in their first or second tour, working at the consular desk and talk to them about what they are doing and i'm just so impressed.

sometimes the experiences are a little grave. i was with a number of young foreign service officers who shoved me around the memorial and embassy compound in beirut. americans in our collective memory remember well the bombing of the marine barracks, but u.s. embassy was bombed and many were killed and u.s. embassy annex was bombed and many were kill and others who served in ambassadorial posts lost their lives as well. and the commitment that people have who serve in very dangerous parts of the world is something that's really notable. sometimes it's more light hearted. i was in egypt and met with young foreign service officers and a woman on her first tour who was i think a virginia resident was talking about leaving our friday meeting for her friday skype date. her husband is in the foreign service too. they dress up, get a glass of wine in front of each other and

talk through skype across the miles. the service provided by our men and women is superb. the american public now thank god reflectively and sincerely offer thanks to men and women in the military who serve all over the country but we have an awful lot of public servants who might be in the foreign service or the dea or department of commerce or peace corps, all over the world. that service sim oppressive. i have a feeling that one of the honors that will be the most powerful in your expense should you be confirmed and i'm confident you will be, will be the opportunity to lead so many wonderful public servants. that's something that would be a very exciting aspect of the job i'm sure. so thank you for the testimony today and you're willingness to serve. congratulations on your nomination. i will announce that we will keep the record of this hearing open until noon tomorrow in case there are any members of the committee that have questions

who were not able to attend today that they would like to submit for the record. i would urge you to respond promptly to the questions if they should be submitted. and with that this hearing is adjourned. author silvia morris is our guest. >> she was so beautiful and so smart and witty she was irresistible to men. i gave her an 80th birthday party. richard cohen was at this party. they sat together after dinner having coffee. at one point she began to stroke his beard. afterwards he said, heavens, i never met an 80-year-old that wanted to leap into bed before. she had this vampish quality all

her life. >> the life and career of claire luce booth and her final years sunday night at 8:00 eastern and pacific on c-span's q and a. the house small business committee heard testimony earlier today from epa deputy administrator bob perciasepe on new epa rules and the possible consequences for american small businesses. this is an hour and a half.

good afternoon, everyone. we'll bring the hearing to order. iptd to thank everyone for being here. the mission of the epa is from text human health and the environment. lately the epa has ventured well beyond its mission. in recent rulemakings its recent rule makes are an unprecedented power grab that's infringing on the rights of individuals and small business owners. the results on our economy is potentially deva staegt. the epa needs to re-evaluate their decision. these rules have direct consequences for small business and the american public deserves to have a complete picture of the costs and benefits of all of these rules. unfortunately the epa seems focused on telling one side of the story and ignoring the other. what the epa is not revealing is how its rules will affect small businesses. the epa is required to tell the story by the regulatory flexibility act. the rfa requires epa to go through the common sense process of assessing how its rules will

affect small entities and whether there are less burdensome ways to meet their objectives. instead of complying with the law and getting input from small businesses the epa has ducked these rulemaking requirements. unfortunately small businesses won't be able to duck the power plant regulations or waters of the united states rule once they are finalized. they are being required to comply with the rules, pay the costs or face the consequence. all small businesses want clean water and clean air but they want rules that are rational. they want to know what they are required to do. hat the costs are expected to be and how their operations will be affected. last but not least small businesses want to be treated fairly in the rulemaking process. i hope this hearing will be a wake up call for the epa. avoiding their obligations under the rfa is simply not acceptable. the committee has been getting the epa to testify on this topic

and i want to thank deputy administrator perciasepe for joining us today and i look forward to discussing this issue and i, again, want to thank you for being here. i now yield to ranking member velazquez for opening statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman. a clean environment and economic growth go hand-in-hand. between 1970 and 2011 air pollution dropped 68%, while private-sector jobs increased by 88% and gdp grew by more than 2,200%. this is not coincidence as studies continually show environment stewardship is not only good for our families but also for our businesses. today the epa play as vital role, protecting the public health and safety by implementing a vast array of environmental laws, which in turn support our economy.

through its implementation of the clean air act, we have seen significant improvements in our nation's air quality. in a given year enforcement of the clean air act has saved 160,000 lives, prevented 1.7 million asthma attacks and stopped 13,000 heart attacks. it is estimated that 13 million missed work days are prevented thanks to the cleaner air we enjoy boosting economic productivity. we have seen similar benefits from the epa's enforcement of water regulations. since the enactment of the clean water act billions of pounds of pollution have been kept out of our waterways, doubling the number of safe areas for swimming and fishing. as a result americans are healthier, our waterways are remediated and industries like tourism, fishing and recreation,

which are dominated by small businesses are seeing greater opportunities. while it is fair to say that these outcomes are positive and epa is justifiable the agency must be mindful of how new rules 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