>> and, faith and family, we are sending a message to the world that president obama speaks for a very tiny minority. he may be president of the united states, but he does not speak for us on the issue of isel. [cheers and applause] timothy tutu says to pray for those who are in authority, and let me tell you why. when you come into congress and when you're in government here in washington, d.c., things happen so fast it's almost like you've jumped in a blender and somebody hit purée. that's what it's like around here. so we need to ask you for prayer and to uphold us in prayer.

we're at a critical time and a critical hour in our nation's history, and our timehas gone by so quickly, there's so much more that i'd like to talk to you about, but the time has elapsed. and i wonder if you might just indulge me, and in the next couple of seconds that we have together, if we would do what we talk about, and that is pray. join me in prayer onehalf of our nation. father god, i thank you that you are here in our midst at this wonderful conference. thank you for those who sacrifice so much to be here this morning. lord, we thank you for the encouragement that you give us and these issues of marriage and of life, father. we see so much encouragement, and yet we see, father, that our nation hangs precariously in the balance financially, morally and also in our relationship with the rest of the world, with o position toward israel. father, lift all of these things up to you. we do pray for our president. we pray for the supreme court.

we pray for the members of congress. we pray for those who are in authority. because this is not a political scorecard, this is about the very life and future of our nation. so, father, we lift it up to you because we want our people to be blessed and to prosper. we want all men to come to know you all across the world. and so, father, we pray, again, for your spirit to come down, to come into this nation. again, demonstrate to each one of us this eternal love that you have for us. you say that you want for us prosperity, you want us to prosper, and you say in jeremiah that you have for us a future and a hope. lo, we ask for that future and that hope, and we confess our own sins, father. we confess them to you. we turn away from them now, father. we pray for our nation. lord, we know there are things that we haveone in our nation that have not been pleasing in your sight.

lord, we ask your forgiveness for that. we ask that once again you would turn your face toward us and that you wou bless us and empower us to be a blessing to the world. so we thank you, lord, we commit this conference to you in your holy son's name, amen. have a great conrence! thanks for letting me come, bye-bye! [cheers and applause] >> thanks. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you. ralph, thank you very much. ralph is a pretty tough guy. 8 minutes, he said. [laughter] >> i said, look, ralph, with my accent, you know, i ought to get a couple of extra minutes. [laughter] >> to which he said, hey, look, i'm letting you do it without an interpreter. [laughter] >> you ought to be grateful. [laughter] >> i am -- i'm tickled to be here because i admire what you

do. and it is so important to the goal that we all have. the goal of electing a republican president to presidency next year. [applause] >> i think a couple of you are old enough to remember the ed sullivan, the ed sullivan show on sunday night. the most watched show on television. in the 1950s who watched ed sullivan and he had conrad hilton on the show. conrad hilton, the man created a new industry, the luxury hotel chain. i mean, a business icon, the bill gates of his day. hilton comes out and ed sullivan turns to him as he would do, and he said mr. hilton if you could only tell the american people one thing, what would you tell them? conrad hilton never hesitated, never flinched.

he said put the shower curtain inside the tub. [laughter] >> now, there -- there's a man that knew what mattered to him. [laughter] >> and we got to be focused starting today through november of 2012 on what matters to us. and what matters to us is making sure that our children and grandchildren inherit the same country that we inherited. [applause] >> those are stakes of this election. those are the stakes of this election. the today you're going to hear from a lot of people who are going to run for president in 2012. they are going to offer themselves to be our party's nominee. and a lot of the great people i've had to honor and serve with a lot of them -- one of them is going to win our nomination, i suppose. and i'm going to tell you

something. whoever wins our nomination, i'm not going to agree with him or her on everything. that's one thing i know for sure. you're not going to agree with them on every single thing either. okay? now, i want to talk about what that means to us as a movement and a party to achieve our goal of electing a new republican president. you know, ralph talked about the fact that i was political director of the white house of ronald reagan. that's a heady stuff for a boy from yazoo city, mississippi. and i will tell -- and i'm reminded of reagan twice in my adult lifetime republican candidates for president have received about 60% of the vote in the presidential election because if we get our act

together, most americans agree with us on the issues. but i'm going to tell you what, we never had an occasion where 60% of the people agreed on everything. that 60% of the people agree with ronald reagan on everything. in fact, one of the great things i learned from ronald reagan is, if you have the right kind of character and if you will be for what you're for, but understand and tolerate the idea that not everybody is going to agree with you on everything, that there are millions of people who will vote for you that don't agree y'all on this and don't agree y'all on that. [applause] >> that's right. reagan used to say -- remember, reagan used to say, remember a fellow who agrees with you 80% of your friend and ally. he's not some 20% traitor. now, we're going to nominate somebody for president that doesn't agree with you on everything and you're not going to agree with them on everything but i'm going to tell you what,

they're going to agree with you a lot more than you agree with barack obama. [laughter] [applause] >> yeah, i'm from mississippi. and one of our great mississippians, fred smith, fred smith is the founder and ceo of fedex. fred has a great expression. fred said the main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing. [laughter] >> the main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing. and in political campaigns, in great crusades in the effort to get our country back on the right track, we got to stay focused on the main thing. the main thing is winning the election. >> yeah. >> we can't change the country like we want it unless we win the election. okay?

remember, purity in politics, purity is the enemy of victory. okay? we can't start out with the ideas, the faith and freedom coalition that our candidates got to agree with me on every single thing. we cannot expect our candidate to be pure. winning is about unity. winning is about us sticking together to achieve the main thing. [applause] >> now, we're fixing -- in a few months we're going to be involved in the great process of picking our party's nominee. and it's going to be a scrap. and everybody is going to fight hard and people are going to -- there's going to be some you like better than others and ultimately there's going to be somebody -- some him or her that you're actually going to vote for. and knowing who you are, you'll work for them. and you'll give them money.

and you'll get out there and be part of the team. odds are, whoever you choose, is not going to win a nomination. i don't say that in a pejorative way. there's a lot of them and there's really good people there's not a 50% a chance that any of these people will actually be the one compared to all the others. you got to get in your head right now, for our country's future, for our grandchildren -- you got to get your head right now -- i'm going to fight for my person. but when it's over, i am going to support the person that's going to beat barack obama. [applause] >> i've watched 1968 when george wallace ran for president and a whole bunch of states in the

south didn't vote republican because in a third-party race we split our vote. i've watched ross perot run for president and get 19% of the vote. i watched a phony, phony tea party candidate run in new york in the last few days, got 9% of the vote. i'm going to tell you something, barack obama is worn out two sets of knee pads down on his knees praying that conservatives will split up and that we'll have some third-party candidate. and my hat is off to the tea party people who have said, no, we're going to run as republicans because we understand that's the way to get there. and we need to tell -- [applause] >> and we need them -- we need them or we need you, if you are a tea party person, to understand it's your party. and you are not only welcome in our party, we want you in our

party. we want you to work, work for the candidates that you're for. and if they win a nomination, i'm going to support them. at the same time, we need to be prepared for what we know today is a fact. and you need to start teaching this. and that is conservatives, religious people, small government people -- we are not going to have purity. we're not going to have a perfect candidate. there's only been one perfect person that ever walked on this earth. [laughter] >> and there aren't going to be another one in this election and i'm just going to tell you that right now. [applause] >> let's come back here in the next odd-numbered year 2013 having won the election. not for the sake of politics,

but because the stakes are so high for our country. they have never been higher for our country. and i urge you -- you are the leaders in your communities to be the advocates. advocate who you want. advocate your candidate. but once we have a nominee, make sure people compare our nominee, our direction, our beliefs, our principles, our faiths to barack obama, nothing will be more unifying for us if our heads are right about this. we need ya. we appreciate ya. excuse me for being the one who got to do the dutch apple talk today. [laughter] >> but i know you don't want to look and stand up in the mirror on the first wednesday in november of 2012 and said, barack obama is re-elected because of what i didn't do.

i can't think of a worse experience than to have to look at that face in the mirror if that were to happen. thank y [applause] thank you. ralph, -- [speaking mandarin] [laughter] oh, did he say speaking only in english? forgot about that. thank you for forming this faith and freedom coalition because nothing long survives without advocates, and that includes values. thank you for caring enough to work for the values that are brought all of us together, so to this corchesz and faith and freedom, i want to talk for just a moment about life and liberty. let me begin by telling you about the life of our daughter,

gracey may, who is here with us splice. she's 12 years old. in 1999, gracey was abandoned among the mushrooms, the carrots, and the bamboo shoots a vegetable market in china. in fac i sometimes call her my little bean curd. [laughter] our path towards gracey began when we good wife, the greatest human being i've ever known, mary kay, volunteered in a of fan nag 20 years ago. when we returned to the united states, we decided to adopt, something i never thought i'd find myself doing. twelve years ago while attending a christmas tree benefit with the proceeds going to kids around the world who were to be adopted, mary kay bought a tree, and when the vender asked he what name she wanted on it, mary kay without hesitation said,

gracey may huntsman. after a girl we did not know yet and was not sure we'd ever see. mary kay told the vendor that name at 8:15 p.m.. en we returned home, there was a message received at 8:15 p.m. from the adoption agency notifying us that they had found a child for our family, you guessed it, grayy may. she loves to tell that story, and when asked who found her, she simply replies, jesus. [applause] now, why do i mention this? because although you would not know it in this town, there is something more essential than

politics, and that's fe, especially a child's life. i can't imagine how much poorer the world would be without gracey and her younger sister, osha, who is adopted from india. we give thanks to those two mothers, not just on mother's day, but every day of our lives for valuing their daughter's lives enough so they could become our daughters. as governor of utah, i supported and signed every pro-life bill that came to my desk. i signed the bill that made second trimester abortions illegal and increased the penalty for doing so. i signed the bill to allow women to know about the pain that abortion causes an unborn child. i signed the bill requires parental permission for an abortion. i signed the bill that would trigger bans on abortions in utah if row vs. wade were

overturned. you see, i do not believe the republican party should focus not just only on the economic life to the neglect of our human life. that is a trade we should not make. if republicans ignore life, the deficit we will face is one that is much more destructive. it will be a deficit of the heart and soul. from life, i'll move to liberty. i stepped off the plane from china living in that country for two years. coming home after living 10,000 miles away gives you a certain perspective on how the 21st century is likely to play out. i've lived over seas four tis, don't worry, i have a u.s. birth certificate. [laughter] every time i live in a foreign place, i learn somethg about

america and how her values inspire others. let me share this with you. in an apartment that was barely a step up from homelessness, i recently met a petite impoverished woman. i would meet with disdense. this was the most powerful thing i could do as a united states ambassador. sometimes i went to see them, sometimes they would come to the embassy. we did this quietly. it was a real peril for them and also closed official doors to me. she became an activist trying to protect her family's home from the wrecking ball. from this cause, which she lost. she went on to commit her life to justice and basic human rights. she has been repeatedly detained and tortured so much so i found her with her legs broken and her

entire body demobilized trapped in a one-room apartmentardly large enough to hold her wheelchair. on that cold day a few months ago, her water, heat, and power were all shut off. the only thing that worked every now and again was her internet connection on an old laptop, so here the battle. one physically broken woman with a passion and a belief in her cause up against a government with the most forbidble security apparatus in the world determined to keep her silent just weeks ago, she was rounded up again and charged with creating a public disturbance. no one knows where she now is, but i do know this. she drew strength from our nation's values, openness, freedom of speech, assembly of

religion and press, a woman in a darkroom half a world away could see this country's light. that is the power, ladies and gentlemen, this country still represents. dissense around the world know and count on it. [applause] from t lack of lib tearty in china, let me turn to home. you well know what the encroachments are. the new health care law, growth of government, resulting mass of regulation and debt, the list goes on and on and on. there's a new book out called "the notes" which is ronald reagan's private collection of quotations that he gathered over the years. what he elected gives you a meaningful insight into his thinking. one the quotes that reagan wrote down in his own hand was by a

19th century french political economist and legislator who said and addressed to the french assembly, heavy government expenditures and liberty are incompatible. woe to the people who cannot limit the sphere of action from the state, freedom, private enterprise, wealth, happiness, independence, personal dignity all vanish. what that french political economist said 160 years ago is exactly what we are saying today. heavy government expenditures and liberty are absolutely incompatible. there is a proud intellectual and political tradition to the beliefs that you and i hold. this common theme has been brought into very sharp relief by the size of the federal government's budget deficit and debt. the federal government now borrows 42 cents of every dollar it spends.

in two years we've gone om $10 trillion to $14 trillion in debt, and what are we buying for this borrowed money? we are not buying a freer, more prosperous nation. we are not buying national investments for future generations. no, what we are buying is serfdom. what so many in the establishment do not get ove this fight in the extension of the debt ceiling is not just about debt. it is not just out spending cuts. it is not just about confidence in our bonds and our debt. it is about the size of government and the role of government in our society and our lives, the same applies to the states, by the way, and it's hard to imagine some states are doing even worse than the federal government, and some states are doing much better. as utah's governor, i cut taxes

across the board which amounted to the largest tack cut in my state's history, and what has been the result of this and other policies that we undertook? utah's economy expanded three and a half times faster than the united states as a whole and faster than 48 other states. the pew center named utah as the best managed state in the nation. foshes called utah the number one state in the country for business, the number one state for debt management, one of three states to maintain its aaa rating. progress is possible. i came today not to give a politica speech, but simply to introduce myself and my family. if the faith and freedom coalition were to understand one political thing about me and the state i served it would this: utah had some of the greatest people in the nation. in utah, people know the

difference between freedom and serfdo the surfing of high debt and the toll these take on our liberty, economy, and our lives, and that, ladies and gentlemen, i believe will be the essence of the eltion in 2012. since i've spoken of ronald reagan today already, let me close about one more thought about that great man. in this year marking the centennial of his birth, america finds itself at a cross roads bringing to mind the famous speech support k bair goldwater's presidential candidacy. the time of that speech was "a time for choosing". this too is a time for choosing. this is a moment when we will choose whether we are to become a declining power in the world eaten from within, or aation that regains its economic health

and maintains its long loved liberties. ladies and gentlemen, this is not just a time for choosing new leaders. this is the hour when we choose r future. thank you so very much for having me here. [applause] ♪ ♪ >> tomorrow mcclatchy newspaper correspondent kevin hall talks about jobs and what this means for the white house and congress. j. andrew curliss -- justin hyde talks about losing $14

billion of the money used on the auto bailout. and justin draeger has a look at the student loan application process. "washington journal" live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> now available, >> now available, c-span's congressional directory, a complete guide to the first session of the 112th congress. inside, new and returning house and senate members with contact information, including twitter addresses, district maps, and committee assignments. also information on the white house, supreme court justices, and governors. order online at -- c-span.org/shop. >> they had a regulatory affairs for the obama administration says that a recent small- business administration estimate of the cost of federal -- federal regulations is flawed. at testimony, cass sunstein also said that environmental for worker safety rules often been

at that the economy. the subcommittee also heard from several advocacy groups. this portion of the hearing is just over two hours. hearing. >> i will open with my statement. we can be in this hearing of this subcommittee to get an upda on how the administration is implementing president,'s executive order announced on january 18th untitled, quote, in proving regulation and regulatory review and of quote. to do so, we welcome back mr. sunstein that of the office of information and regulatory affairs or as we call that, oira. and the office of budget mr. sunstein testified before the committee at a first hearing on january 26, a week after president obama signed the order and publicly committed to striking the right balance

between regulation and economic growth. mr. sunstein agreed to come back in three months to discuss how his office has improved the regulatory review system to reduce burden on the american economy and industry. president obama's the executive order afrms agencies must of not only those regulatory actions whose benefits justify its cost. tayler to impose the least burden on society that take into account the cost of cumulative regulation that maximize net benefits, that specify performance objectives, and that evaluate alternativeso direct regulation. in addition, this new executive der calls on agencies to review significant regulations that are already in place. expanding upon this requirement, the president aounced in a wall street journal op-ed that this aion, quote, ordered a government-we review of the rules already on the books to

remove the outdated regulations that stifle job creation and make our economy less competitive. now this is incredibly important given that the federal register stance s an all-time high of over 81,000 pages. the 2010 alone several agencies added more than 3500 final rules to the book. i hope that mr. sunstein will share with us a number of examples demonstrating how this commitment put into action and how agencies will relieve small businesses of expensive and burdensome regulations to promote job growth. this morning's report of a 9.1% on an plan a rate was significantly less job creation in may and april and adds to the urncy of this task. after all,regulation totals 1.75 trillion a annual compliance costs according to

the small business administration. that's greater than the record federal budget deficit projected at 1.48 trillion for fy 2011, and greater than annual corporate pretax profits which total 1.46 trillion in 2008. in addition i hope mr. sstein can also give us a sense of how he is enforcing the other requirement of the get sick of order. he is the traffic cop. enormously expensive regution has spread through thereview process on his watch with little or no opportunity for the meaningful public comment. this leads me to believe that oira has either been left out of the process or hasn't been effective. may 18, 120 days after the executive order was issued, each agency was required to submit to oira a draft plan including an initial list of regulations that were identified in their

retrospective analysis as candidatesor reconsideration or review. agencies were supposed to consider all of the burdensome regulations identified by this stakeholrs. in the private sector before submitting their planned. in the hearing january 26 on the reed with mr. sunstein when he said that, quote, one idea we have had is that the public has a lot more information tha we do about what rules are actually doing on the ground, in of quote. as i said befor however, it is important that rhetoric is mast with measurable results. the epa alone has received approximately 1,500 comments on its rules and regulations. the chamber of commerce weighed in on a roughly 20 regulation proposed or finalized over the past two years at the environmental protection agency. ..

that ruined almost all of the programs under the clean air act and clean water act and undertake about 90 percent of the enforcement actions. after reviewing the plan it appears as though epa officials overwhelmingly disagree with or simply ignored the folks that actually implement regulation that have been identified as burdensome. not only ignoring stakeholders, but also opposed over 900 new regulations on the sta since the beginning of this administration. spoken repeatedly about the need

to create a new regulatory culture across the ticket to branch, and i think all of us agree. an unprecedented amount of authority has been delegated to the executive. new aspects of it all of american lives are being promulgated and this same plot system that produces the regulations are to depart today. hopefully we can take steps toward changing this culture and the court to the testimony of cass sunstein. with that i recognize the right gang member. >> thank-you very much, mr. chairman. in january of this year president obama ps it issued a directive for plans to improve the regulatory system. he urges to agencies to pand opportunities to participate in the regulatory process and to look for ways to make

regulations more efficient and effective. mr. chairman, you will be pleased to know that both sides of the i'll support the school. this subcommittee has a valuable role to play in the implementation of the order. i want to join you in all coming mr. cass sunstein back. the last hearing devolved into a criticism of individual regulations that individual members might disagree with, but i'd think it is worthwhile for this committee to continue to focus on t regulatory reform efforts of the administration and see if we can make real progress. i know we are takingway, once again, from your efforts to implement the program, but it is important for us to hear it babies since our first hearing in january from what i have heard is executive branch agencies have developed

preliminary gulatory review appliance that the administration has provided and posted on the white house website. my initial review reveals a range of efforts. agenes are streamlining and modernizing to save industry and government time and money. a more precise detailing in regulation to save money for industry, creating a broader opportunities for public participation in the design and implementation of regulation and are improving their review process. so i hope that we can hear about some of those things, but i also hear -- hope we can hear about what the in -- administration hopeto do next to streamline and take this input and modernize and eliminate unnecessary regulation. having said that, i will say the administration appears to be working hard to implement a

regulatory reform. afr hearing the distinguished chairman opening statement and also the sad unemployment news of this morning i wish the majority, rather than complaining in vague terms about the regulatory reform efforts and unemployment rate, would sit down with minority and together develop a job bill. we have talked about this since january. if we want to reduce unemployment, let's stop niggling about the edges and craft a plan. that would benefit the american public. if we start now, we might be able to decrease unemployment by the end of the year, and i yield back. >> thank you. the gentleman from texas is recognized for three minutes. >> cass sunstein, we wcome you back. we welcome the changes that are

coming from some of the agencies. i want to hear more about what the administration is doi and if they'reoing anything to slow the onslaught of regulation being implemented. we went to the white house earlier this week. the president said to us that he wanted to clear out the regulato underbrush. i took that as a positive sign. he said regulations should not be obscure and difficult for people to understand. what is hard to understand is how the administration wants to continue to be anti-employer and at the same time be pro-jobs. it does not work out. businesses across the country are plagued with uncertainty as to what to do, what regulations will be and what regulations will be handed down. ensure safety and promote the market, butou must know every day people come to washington to

tell congressman of their fears about the avalanche of regulations that will increase compliance cost. i hear from business owners talking about how regulation coming from hhs, a dense, and more. and i don't see how this will be a deliverable and it will help them through problems they're having. and i might add, those problems are delivered by the united states congress. while some may be necessary, i feel many don't understand the effects that it has on jobs and job creation when cost goes up it cuts into the bottom line and that means jobs will be lost. i'm afraid this review has, perhaps, been the reaction of political purposes, a president who does not understand how to create jobs. this is his attempt to appease

jobs. the higher-ups' at the white house will have little interest in continuing, particularly after special interest groups and outside groups castigate the white house for reviewing regulations and the first place. the regulations coming out that the medical loss ratio, accountable care organizations, the federal government has taken something that was working in practice and proving that it cannot work in theory. these pieces would ensure more consumer benefits, lower-cost power and encourage coordination per patient improvement and financial savings, but because of the way regulatns have been written, we still have great -- systems tt encourage fraud. planned solvency will be at risk. there is the ultimate. if your plan goes bankrupt you don't get much health care. accountable care, that is the unicorn that nobody believes

exists or wts to adopt because it is so difficult and onerous. i hope that you folks managed the budget and your counterparts at the the federal trade commission will understand this and, perhaps, allow doctors to practice medicine. yield the. >> the gentle lady from tennessee. >> take you, mr. chairman. and you for being with us again. everyone will agree that the number one issue facing our constituents is jobs, and the grtest obstacle we are hearing about jobs is regulatory overreach, uncertainty through the regulatory process. this is not surprising. when you look at epa alone, they finalized 928 regulations since the start of this administration with more than 6,000 pages of

regulations released last year. seeing you want to get rid of regulations and issuing more is counterproductive to jobs. it is killing the growth of jobs. figures this morning attest to that. i encourage my colleagues to remember, you do not do a jobs bill to create jobs. washington does not create jobs. it is the private sector. it is our responsibility to create the environment for java code to take place. i have to tell you, all of the regulations coming out of this town are not helping employers, whether it is health care, painting, regulation from the ftc, the fcc, the epa, this must stop. we look forward to working with you to get these regulations of

the books and not add more. i yield. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i also want to welcome mr.ass sunstein back. i have questions about agencies and challenges as well as a bigger picture approach to see how we can get this executive order because one of the concerns i have as we have gotten over to a half years into this administration today's numbers show a dramatic decline from the numbers the test cannot in any. frankly, when i talk to employers of only throughout southeast louisiana, but industry groups and represent employers all across the count one of the first things they

tell you about the limitations is there inability to create jobs and the biggest impediment is nothing to do with ptecting people or environment, but agenda is driven by bureaucrats in washington. that is not howegulation ought to work. we pushed regulations her to help create jobs that is a lingering in the senate, but you have the ability to go out and reform this process. i hope it is more than window drsing and look forward to our conversation. >> they cute. the ranking member of the full committee is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. the subcommittee is returning to the subject of the executive order on regulatory reform issued in january by president obama and the implementation overseen by the office of affirmation and regulatory affairs. we are fortunate to have the

administrator, cass sunstein, with us. he will be able to tell us about the regulatory review activity that has occurred since our last hearing. the stated focus of this hearing is to learn more about the agency plans for regulatory reform which the whi house released for public review and comment. if we are going to have an honest review, we must consider all relative facts. we should examine cost and do so wherever possible. we also must give equ consideration to benefit. yesterday we were supposed to mark up a bill called the trade act which calls for analysis of the cumulative impact of epa regulation which was postponed. it illustrates what is wrong with how we approach regulatory reform and this committee with

this majority. it focuses nearlyxclusively on the economic cost and amend its analysis of the impact of regulation on jobs, electricity costs, manufacturing and trade which is a appropriate, but it ignores the dangers of unchecked pollution on health, environment, and global climate change. one-sided approach is the antithesis of what we should be doing. this approach, i think, was so clearly illustrated by the opening comments of my republican colleagues. the greatest obstacle to jobs is regulation. i cannot believe that. no economist with suggest that the recession is not a major reason for having a problem with jobs. the regular editions overreach, that's not new. i have heard by colleagues say that the president wants to a

slow job growth which is absurd. no president wants a bad economy. this presidentnherited a terrible economy, in great part because of bad judgment and policies of the bush administration. we must look at both sides of the regulation. we must maximize the benefit while minimizing the cost. a good case in point is the clean air act which, along with health care, has become a republican whipping boy. we consider a proposal after proposal to weaken the clean air act on the theory that it is a job killer. well, we should not have to pick between jobs and clean air. that is a false choice. when that act was written in 1990 we heard horror stories about how the lawould impose a ruinous costs on indtry leading to widespread

unemployment which to not turn out to be true. we asked for a balanced analysis of the cost and benefit. results show that the law has been a stunning success. epa found that implenting the clean air act creates american jobs and bolsters the global competitiveness of american industry, even as it lowers health care costs and protect american families from birth defects, elvis, and premature death. health benefits. in one year it preveed eight teen respiratory paralysis t 18,000 asthma attacks, chronic bronchitis, 205,000 prematur deaths. the benefits are projected to reach $2 trillion by 2020. is that something we should

ignore? the implementation also creates american jobs. the environmental technology and energy -- industry creates $300 billion in annual revenue and creates over one and a half million jobs. i see the value over and over again. following the collapse of the financial markets, the economy after the deepest recession since the great depression. millions have lost there job. because -- the cause of the financial crisis w not regulation but the absence of regulation. the deep water horizon oil spill created widespread dislocation caused by too little oversight and regulation. we can identify and this is a regulations. they should be identified and regulated. we should remember that sound regulation is vital to protect our nation's economy and

well-being. >> thank you. with that, we welcome mr. cass sunstein, administrator of the office of of regulatory affairs. before we start that may make some comments considering your testimony. you are where we are holding an investigative committee and have the practice of taking testimony under oath. if you have any objection to testify under oath the chair advises you that under the rules of house and committee you are entitled to be advised by counsel if you so desire during your testimony. if you would please rise and raise your right hand the was were you when. to use where to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god? you are now under of and subject to penalties set forth. you may now give a fiveinute summary of your read statement.

i think he need to put the mike on. >> thank you so much. thanks to you and members of the committee, not only for your strong commitment to the reduction of unjustified regulatory burden but also for your generosity and kindness to me and my staff of over the last months as which door to work on these issues. my focus on these opening remarks will be on the process of retrospective review of regulation, the look back, as we call it. i will devote a few words to the effort to the control regulatory burdens going forward. in the january 18th executive order the president referred specifically to two topics that have come up, economic growth and job creation, central factorin the process.

for the process going forward and with respect to new rules, i would like to underline the four elements of the ticket if order. first, it requires agencies to consider cost and benefit to ensure benefits justify cost and to select the least burdensome of alternative. central going forward and will be followed to the extent permitted by law. it the a executive order requiresnprecedented levels of public participation. it asks agencies to engage with state, local, and tribal officials. there was a reference to cost imposed. affected stakeholders and experts in relevant disciplines. i would like to underline the requirement that agencies act in advance of proposed rulemaking to seek the views of those who

are likely to be affected. the executive order directs agencies to harmonize, simplify, and coordinate rules with a specific goal of cost reduction. the executive orderirects agencies to consider flexible approaches that reduces burden and maintains freedom of choice for the public. those are directions for all of the store and forward. but many of your opening remarks focused on is the look back process. last week in compliance with the executive order 30 departments released preliminary plans to the subcommittee and public in an unprecedented process. to some outlined in these hundreds of pages have already eliminated hundreds of millions of dollars in annual regulatory cost, including those imposed on

employers. over $1 billion in savings can be expected in the near future. not to their aspirations, but concrete products that have either been delivered or will be delivered in the near future. over the coming years reforms have the potential to eliminate billions of dollars in regulatory burden. in many initiatives representative a fundamental rethinking of how things have been done. we have heard that red tape and paperwork and reporting burdens exerts a toll on the economy, including small business. there is an effort throughout the plan to reduce that burden. there is also aired effort to rethink rules of outdated technology that may promote innovation. many of the reforms have already

saved significant money. epa has recently exempted note and dairy industries from its oral special rule. the punchline of material is of of the next decade the note and dairy industries will cry, not at all, over spilt milk and save over $1 billion. the few additional illustrations, burden on employers. a very alert. personally very alert. last week occupational seven -- occupational safety and health adnistration will remove over 19 million hou of paperwork burden which will save over $40 million in annual cost and may be a lowball estimate. in recent discussions that burden saving measure was highlighted as an extraordinary step forward.

osha plans to a proposed rule that would result in half a billion annual savings for employers. not 40 million, over half a billion. to eliminate unjustified economic burden on railroad the department of transportation is reconsidering a rule that requires railroads to require equipment to create certain equipment that is expensive which would save potentially over a billion dollars over 20 years. these are st illustrations. there was a reference to a cultural change. the art tends tcreate that. while a great deal has been done , an unprecedented effort and a substantial savings have been achieved, the agency plans are preliminary.

they are being offered at all levels emphatilly including the business community for view and perspective. suggestions are eagerly welcome. we need your help in order to make these plans as good as possible and do as much as possible to promote economic growth. agencies will be assessing comments before plans are finalized, and we have a number of weeks and months to do that. to change the regulatory culture we need a constant exploration, not a one shot endeavor of what is working and what is not. we need close reference to evidence and data and a very close reference to view of stakeholders above what is happening on the ground. we are trying to promote public

health and economic growth and job creation. >> the committee, before i start, is different than some other committees. we ask questions that are asking for yes or no answers. we are trying to seek information. we would appreciate a direct answer. it you or th administrator and are complying with the executive orders and dealing with regulatory refor that is correct. >> that would be a yes. >> you have a role in ensuring this very important to president executive order. is that correct? >> yes. >> you are the men. now, when you have a rule and it

has economically significant impact in the economy, wouldn't that particular rule require more attention? >> absolutely. >> because there are huge implications of the impact in the economy with this regulatory framework and this risk analysis that should be done in supportingocuments. officials have repeatedly claimed that during the obama administration regulatory reviews have been shorted and i'll think that, is that a fair claim? no. >> abcaeight. while the impact is much larger, your staff, i'd think, has remained -- your staff has remained small.

i have a graph. it looks like it is wiggling quite a bit. i am trying tohow you to charts. the first shows that your room -- reviewing more large complex regulation. the second shows that the agency spends less time on the review. this would be in contrary to we just talked about and you agree to. isn't it true that your office's reviews are shorter in duration? >> do we have a printed chart? >> we do. will the staff give him a chart that is not -- >> moving. isn't it true there shorter in duration than those under previous administrations? >> i would want to attack those numbers. whether we are as fast, i would

want to check. >> why are soany regulations issued after schorr reviews to public comments that they violate the executive order principles? >> i don't agree with the premise of the question. we have about the same number of rules as the first two years of the bush administration. 2007-a the bush administration imposed higher cost than 2000's 9-10. >> i have here a steady that i will insert into the record. it praised the economic analysis and reviewed showing the quality of analysis declined when nephews were shortened. are you familiar? >> i am. >> to you agree? >> not really. the important thing is not based on the calendar but the degree

of attention and care. the same study shows no premonion and quality. we are eager to increase quality and make it better. >> the executive order i cited earlier requiring agencies to identify and a clear and simple matter of the substantive changes between the draft submitted for review and the actions subsequently announced as well as those changes in the regulatory actions that are made at the suggestion or recommendation. despite claiming to be the most transparent administration in history we'll understand the position is that this requirement only applies to the formal regulatory review process. is that correct? >> i believe that is correct.

we're following the bush administration and its predecessor. there has been continuity across republican and democratic admistration. i'm not sure what you mean by informal, but it sounded right. >> most the rules are submitted on an informal basis before the draft rule is officially submitted. with respect to significant rules would you be willing to provide changes suggested during the informal review process? >> it is very rare that a rule is submitted and formally. that is not normal practice. it is extremely unusual. all i would say that happens sometimes is there are interagency discussions of rules we don't have the authority to make changes in those

discussions. sometimes the agency describes that the discussions are informative. so in other words informal review is extremely rare. what is not is interagency discussion, and there are no changes made because there are no rule checks. >> you're saying is rare, but was it done? >> in a formal review, no. discussion, but not -- typically not in formal. >> you're saying is rare, but it occurred. >> i would want to go back and see. my own involvement is standard and touring a formal review. i would want to go back and see. >> obviously we probably don't agree on that point. >> there is informal review which is very rare where someone sends a rule and says what to

you tank. in health care context -- >> ifou would follow up because you're saying you're not sure that you can remember. just follow up. with that, my questions are complete. >> it sounds like the definition of an informal review is determined to it, in your mind, as somebody actually send text over and it was reviewed and sent back bursas general discussions about potential rules and policies. >> exactly. >> i would like to ask you about the cost of regulation. we keep hearing that the annual cost of deregulation is more than one and three-quarters trillion dollars. as i understand it the basis for that figure is a september 2010

study the state's the annual cost of drug regulation totaled approximately one and three-quarters trillion dollars. a 0nd breached a different conclusion finding regulatory costs ranged from 62 billion to 73 billion. i am wondering how all they calculate an estimate of total regulatory cost. >> the cure. what we do is to aggregate the cost of all of the rules in one year and then over a 10-year timeframe we can multiplied the number of rules issued by the cost that we generate and then yocan have a 10-year as a result. the study to which you refer, the extraordinary figure is deeply flawed as is a report by

the congressional research service. it has become a bit of an urban legend. we share the concern. one implication of that analysis the united states would be richer if it adopted regulations more like those of sweden or canada even though both the world date and oecd rate those countries as having more restrictive business environment. >> who said that? >> screen and grain. a respect those offers. >> regulations more like sweden and other countries? that is -- >> an indicion of their analysis that we would do better if we had regulations. >> and the administration does not agree. >> we do not except. >> one of the reasons why, what the crs review showed and what others haveemonstrated is the

estimate was so high in the study is the offer only utilizes the highest cost estimates and tribulations. now, additionally what i have heard is that the authors of the study did not calculate the monetary benefits of regulation where there are benefits. omb found in 2008 annual benefits range from 1,503,000,000,000 tax 806 billion. >> yes. >> can you please tell us how regulation could benefit americans and save money? >> there are various ways. i refer to them know cub rule. that can save money. a lot of concern about rising gasoline price. if you have more fuel efficient fleets consumers can save money.

clarifying savings. a rule that promotes fuel economy can save consumers a lot of money. if you have all of the saves lives, that saves money in the sense that healthier packed living people are good for the economy and the value people health and longevity. in those three different ways we can have significant benefits from regulation. >> it seems to me, i don't want to be implying that more regulation would save moreon or fewer regulation would cost or save more money. in truth here have to look at it on a continuum sometimes it's not cost-effective and they should be fixed or repealed, but sometimes that protect public health and can save money. you have to work and regulation

by regulatio which is what the administration is trying to do. >> exactly. >> i yield. >> thank-you. familiar with the paper from 3,000 -- 2003. >> vaguely. >> page 14 and this is quoting. older people are treated worse for one reason, they are older. this is not an injustice. the question, some people describe this as the senior discount. your office, oversees regulation, you will be doingn analysis of the upcoming health and human services rule for the

independent payment advisory board in light of this philosophy. i am older than the author. i am starting to blink i'm not sure of the end of what pat again and wrote. not a legitimate part of what you do as a government official part of the team. not focusing on sentences and yon cass sunstein for years ago. it points out an important philosophical approach. and many of us are concerned right now. this is the only plan promoted by the demonstration and they're for the democratic party for dealing with the cost increases in the medicare program over

time. the difficulty that a lot of -- the difficulties that i have with an independent been an advisory board is, for the first time some central planner, maybe a benevolent planner, but one who is pushing data points around on the spreadsheet in far off washington d.c. wille able to tell me where to get my care and when to deny care, but most importantly, when i've had enough. if that's based upon the fact that i am old, that is a troubling relationship. i appreciate your answer, and we will take that at is how you can incorporate that into our evaluation of the independent payment advisory board that the president has popularized as his approach. our last hearing earlier this year, and i appreciate you coming back.

, shifting gears, another example of a mandate that is inconsistent with the executive orders for regulatory efficiency. the epa proposed federal complementation plan for greenhouse gases that would affect the state of texas. probably exclusively the state of texas, but a federal plan implemented because taxes to not meet the requirements under state implementation plan. so the epa said it was necessary to step in. wall street jrnal. the war on taxes from earlier this year right before you came and testified, this was the result of an error of 18 years. eighteen yrs the plan did not address all plans subjected to

regulation. so somehow regulators inexas 18 years ago were not able to -- 18 years in the future, and as a consequence the epa will come in and regulate at the federal level of the power, production, electricity in the state of texas. this seems incomprehensible. ..

>> it was an active debate within the court, and when the court said that, it wasn't as if i hope the epa didn't think it was a mistake for 18 years, but had to do something to allow permits to be given out in texas for people to build, and so it was responding, my understanding is a difficult situation caused by the supreme court decision and the permitting practice. >> may be a difficult situation if i may that they made impossible because they came back and said youan't do a state implementation plan. we'll take that over at at federal level. texas was the only state singled out for that. and the "wall street journal" article called it political revenge in anffort to intimidate other states from joining texas in lawsuits. >> i'll tell you something that nicely connected the enterprise

we're in with your question is that we're looking back at regulatory practices and epa has one rule i hope will benefit taxes that will eliminate redundant regulatory requirement that costs a lot of money. >> the gentleman's time expired. >> it's fair game to raise that question. >> mr. chairman, i would like to submit this for the record. >> by unanimous consent, so ordered. >> i'd like to review it before its submitted for the record. >> thanks. >> well, we're waiting for her to review it, we'll take- >> just take the next questions. >> yeah, we'll start. mr. waxman is recognized for 5 minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i believe in government because they can help set the rules in place to make the society of ours and the economy more

productive, more competitive, provide for more jobs and also protect the public health and safety and that's what regulations are all about and we hear negative antigovernment and antirelation statements that you'd wonder what they think would operate in its place except for wtever industry wanted that may or may not be the best for the economy and for our public, but i want to focus on what i think you're hear about to talk about and that's efforts to ensure that executive branch agencies deploy a regulatory process that produces common sense balanced regulations. that should be our goal, and i'm pleased that we're going to look at this topic. in january, president obama directed executive branch agencies to undertake a thorough look back at regulations within their jurisdictions and to examine ways to make those rules more efficient, more effective,

and more reflective of public input at large. at this point, you've received lookback action plans from 30 didn'ts and agencies;s that right? >> that is correct. >> can you tell us the ideas emerging from these department and agency plans? >> happy to do that. there's been a lot of discussion in the last decade for participation from the department of health and human services which are conditions imposed on hospitals and doctors and a lot of these vice president been rescrutinized in light of what's happened on the ground and possible redundancy and changes in medical practice and hospitals over time. hospitals are often concerned that the federal government is too hard on them, hammering them a little bit with respect to regulatory requirements, and hhs has a very detailed discussion of steps that they are taking to reconsider those requirements. we have in the context of has

discard communication from the -- hazard from the department of labor and ocean in particular, there's been suggestion from employers in particular that they need to harmonized across international lines and things are simpler and less burdensome for them. they proposed the rule and the plan says they're going to finalize it in a hurry. there's been a great deal of discussion about med -- medical devices and innovations in the united states which often these small companies are frying to bring medical devices to market have an adequate pcess within the fda or if it'soo time consuming and difficult. the epa announced a number of inittives to speeds up that process. that should save a lot money. one thing with a potentially large payoff involves exports. we know often small american

companies have the best opportunity to grow if they are able to eort. one thing we've heard a great deal from in the last year and a half from signal business in particular -- small business in particular is that it's too cumbersome and difficult to navigate the system and there's too many restrictions, and we've taken away some of the restrictions, and we'll take away more. that should promote economic growth not in the long term. >> we hear from members who are frustrated, hearing from their frustrated constituents that a lot of the regulations don't make sense to them. the purpose of the innovations are to see if they are right, and if they are right, bring em up to date and make sur they are basic common sense and tried to accomplish the economic goals as well as the protection of the public with is another side of it. what happens next in this review

process? by the end of the summer, do you expected the agencies to have final regulatory lookback plans in place? >> late august. >> and what will happen then? >> my expectation is that we'll have in late august three tracks. one track will be things that are completed and as i say, we expect a billion dollars in savings be able to be achieved in the very short term. other things that are on fast tracks in the sense that the rule making apparatus has already got moving. maybe there's a proposed rule out there, maybe we can propose is relatively quickly, and that's the second track which is a potentially rapid for the rules, and then there's a third track where the rule making apparatus has to be inaugust rapted, and my hope is we can prioritize with the aid and views of the people on this committee and your constituents and the fact of stakeholders and

prioritize thing to complete in the relatively short term even though the work is being inaugurated these days and through the summer. >> realm, it appears to me that the president's regulatory review process hold a promise for eating a more effective, efficient, and responsive federal government. i appld it. it seems to me something that both sides of the aisle will want to see government succeed should welcome so. i certainly encourage your efforts and you in nor efforts and we should be willing in congress to do whatever we need to do to helput. >> thanks so much, thank you. >> i thank the gentleman. we have a vote -- we have just under 10 minutes, and after this, we'll break. we have a second panel, and so i encourage all members to come back. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. sunstein you testified before the committee, i asked you about a rule you imposed

with the deepwater moratorium on drilling and that didn't fall under the purview of the types of rules you would review under the executive order. when the rule came out, the signing tisk experts the president appointed disagreed with it. they saidt would reduce safety in the gulf and the best rigs leaving the country. they were true unfortunately. we lost over 13,000 jobs, about a dozen rigs to foreign countries. the scientific efforts were correct unfortunately because those terrible consequences happened and so we lost those jobs. safety was surely not improved, and yet under the rule you're taking the position that that type of rule would not fall under your purew. i ask that the rule, make not properly drawn, if an actual rule that's gone through the process that cost our country

13,000 jobs and according to the scientific experts the president appointed reduces safety and doesn't fall under your purview. is that something to relook at? >> that's a great question. anything with an adverse job effect, we're focused on. our do main is the domain of regulatory actions defined under executive order 1 # 866, and for technical reasons of moratorium doesn't count as regulatory actions. >> right, but should the executive order be updated, amended, revised to take into account those types of rule as well. i'm talking about a rule that cost 13,000 jobs and did not fall in your purview. >> a legimate questn. anything that cost jobs in that domain or any other domain is part of the lookback process.

>> i know the fcc is one of the entities who said they don't fall under the purview, they'd like to be included, and i think there's some other independent agencies that said they would voluntarily like to be involved in this. have you gotten any requests from the fcc or any of these other independent agencies? >> we have gotten a plan actually from the nlrb. that's significant. it's a short blain -- >> i heard it's a one-page plan. >> sure it is. >> of all the independent encies, you have one page to review? >> we very much hope for more. >> this is it? >> we very much hope for more. >> you have not had anything else? >> you're right. the independent agencies have not delivered plans, but we are hopefulnd encouraging them to engage in a lookback process. >> yeah, and i know we had our meeting with the president on wednesday. i think you were there.

one of the questions asked to the president was specifically relating to the epa, and we've had this convertion with the epa on many of the proposed rules and regulations that he no impact on improving safety. it's much more alignedded with the political agenda and ideology rather than safety, and, in fact, the epa has almost bragged that they don't have to comply with the rule. we brought this to the president's attention. has anything changed in that regard? >> the epa is very clearly complying with the executive order, and you've seen both a plan for the epa which is detailed. it has 31 suggestions for reforms, and the epa will be considering what comes in in the next period to add to that 31, and the epa's recent rules have been detailed in their compliance with the executive order including their analysis of what you point to, job impacts. >> can you give our committee

any examples of where you said no to the epa in any of their rules and regulationings or the department of interior for that matter? >> the way we work with epa and interior is collaborative rather than anything else, and you can see that -- >> have y'all collaborated in a way where some of their proposals were rolled back? >> you can see a number of their rules when they were finalized were far more modest than when they were proposed. >> can you send examples to our committee of cases both the previous proposal and then the rolled back proposal that i guess ultimately made its way into -- i don't know if it made it all the way to regulation or just further in the process. >> we can show examples, and i know the national association of manufacturers particularly applauded theoncern >> the gentlemen's time expired, and we just -- >> i appreciate that.

>> complete the answer and th we'll call it recess. >> the epa's action with respect to the boiler mack rule includg a recent stay and also a scale back in response. >> appreciate it you get us that information, and thanks, i yield back. >> we don't have any jection to the article being entered. >> okay. the article will be made part of the record and we'll reconvene right after the vote. thank you. [inaudible conversations] >> the subcommittee of oversight committee will reconvene, and we'll recognize the next series of questions, a gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. murphy is

recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, and i appreciate you being here today. i'm reflecting back on a quote from ronald reagan that says it's not my intention to do away with government, raptor than to make it work with us, not over us, stand by our side, not ride our back. government must and can provide opportunity, not smother it, foster opportunity and not stifle it. he said that in 1981, and i think we can agree. nobody said we don't like regulations. they do provide a role in health and safety, but there's am by giewty added on. when the administration came out with the executive order in january of this year, it said that regulations should be evaluated that are difficult and are those measures that you use when you review regulations? >> our principle focus as the previous sentence of the executive order emphasizes is cost and benefits and quantified

so our focus is how much does this cost? what is the benefits? that's the principle focus. .. yet what you just said is you don't have the authority to overturn laws. i missing the department of energy is one of those areas you

can have oversight over? do you intend to have discussion if they decide to ignore the law based upon a new standard that's not even in the law? >> i should say fidelity to lock is ever first foundations and that's the requirement of everything we do we oversee the doe rulemakings, so if there is rulemaking authority in the demand we would as a matter of course engage with them and if there isn't something as an honor of course we would engage with them on, we would be happy to engage with them. >> i think it's extremely valuable if you can report to the committee on that issue because law is quite clear but that a part of energy is doing that is supporting that look at the new standards is also quite clear and we need to have your response. will you submit it? another issue has to do with impact of the health care bill of small-business is.

according to the administration estimates its regulations are going to force employers as much as 80% of small businesses coverage the next two years and that is a big concern. are you aware of that assessment of impact? >> that particular number was not aware of but i know of the general concern. >> when you get cost-benefit analysis and we are seeing numbers grow in terms of the cost of the health care bill and we see estimates that are not 9 million people will lose their benefits of 30, 40, 80 million even of those exceeding with the estimates to provide health care and equal or double that amount may lose health care and so along those lines have you been pushed in any way to move rules through quicker despite information like that? >> no can you believe finalizing any of the rules based upon how the agencies have handled or

incorporated public comment and response from the business community? >> the basic answer is yes and we often engage for lengthy periods with agencies because of those public comments and i spend a lot of personal time on the website netz regulation.gov study in those comments. the only qualification is as you suggest fidelity to the wall is our first obligation and if the law requires action or action by a certain we have to respect that. >> when republicans at the white house this week the president was asked questions by the epa regulation looking at cost benefit analysis how would we look at that in terms of the impact on jobs as well and that was the standard for all we had to adhere to and of the congress wanted to do something otherwise we should change those law and certainly i agree with him once level of the land is there but the question also becomes of how you act.

you're in a position of considerable authority and so on these areas of delay or pushback have you ever done so to any agency can you give an ex symbol of how you have pushback and how you need to delay putting on this regulation until we analyze it or until you come up with a cost-benefit analysis? >> 100 laurels have been in with drawn from the review and the reason for the withdrawal is sufficient engagement with issues of cost and economic impact so you can see that. you can also see often the final rule comes out a lot different from the proposed rule often it's a lot less expensive and less burdensome and sometimes proposed rules to start finalized because there aren't significant concerns from the standpoint you have raised and the agency review that involves not just the opposite

information regulatory affairs the department of commerce, the ek economic advisors plays a role. >> how about pushback, healthcare rules? have you done any of that? >> our first obligation with respect to the health care will is to obey the law. >> what have you pushed back? >> i wouldn't want to phrase it pushback. we worked with the agencies to make sure the costs are as low as possible and make sure the burdens are reduced. you may have noticed with respect to the grandfathering rules there was an amendment to the rule that responded very concretely to the concerns from affected sticklers about excessive burdens and there has been a lot that has been done and we and others have been participating in that in trying to make sure that the implementation -- >> i'm not sure i'm getting an answer. has it happened? >> let me reword it this way because employers routinely change but keep the same

benefits to cut health care costs without any change in coverage. in the interim final rule or the grandfathering plans issued in january, excuse me, june of last year employer plans lost the grandfather status for changing the carriers regardless with their benefits remain the same city you believe health and human services should have instead proposed a rule open to comments of stakeholders who could have advised the own decision before the problem began? >> what i say about that is the interim final rules receive comment and the hhs should be and is, has been highly responsive to those comments in the particular case you give so responsive as to amend in a hurry the rule to respond to some of the most concerns and we all discussed that. it's also the case there were q&a la guidance clarifications that were very responsive to

concerns raised buy exactly the people to whom you refer and that's good governance. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> i see no one on the democrat side. we will go to the chairman emeritus joe barton from texas for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> congressman burgess was speaking to us some rules in texas, and i'm going to follow that but in a little bit different way. are you familiar with the 2.5 rall that the epa is, getting to replace the care standards that were ruled not in compliance with the clean air act several years ago? >> yes ibm. >> are you aware that i think

just this week or maybe last week the epa disallowed texas state implementation plan and put down some requirements that if implemented are probably going to shutdown 25% of texas electricity generation capacity? >> and the clean air transport draft? >> it's but just came out. >> that oral is under review now, and so my understanding is that nothing has been done along the lines used just described. >> i want to give you an opportunity to demonstrate real accountability.

my understanding is the office of that you hold is the president's direct link to reviewing all the various regulations except those that are specifically exempted by the order in other words, you're the president's man who makes sure that all these myriad agency regulations do pass some minimum test for cost-benefit and things like that. and you're supposed to review every significant order etc., etc.. i want to read you what the epa said about this interstate transfer decision they just handed down. it says all this proposed action is not a significant regulatory action under the term of the exit of order 12866 therefore

not subject to review under executive order will 866 and 136553. it's going to shut down 25% of the power generation and texas that's not significant? do you consider it significant? >> under our executive order it has $100 million of annual cost or significant impact on a sector area that counts as a significant so if you like i will definitely look into that. >> i want you to do more than definitely look into it. i want you to do something about it. if your agency to disagrees with the regulatory decision can you stop it? >> if there's a regulatory action we have the authority to stop it to the extent consistent

with law. we have seen 100 withdrawals of rules and that speaks for itself. >> i'm going to read you something. this is generated by the state of texas so that's the source. it says the only way to achieve the epa's be have contemplated the emission reduction mandate by 2012 compliance which is next year will in fact be to cease operating of the affected units from the year leading to the loss of jobs, shutdown of mines and serious risk to electric reliability. now keep in mind, texas is in compliance in terms of the standards.

keep in mind the regions affected by texas, st. louis and i think baton rouge have just been declared in compliance and get the epa has come out in the last week and stipulated by next year texas has to achieve an additional 34% reduction in the answer to emissions. we achieved a 33% reduction the last ten years and the next six months we have to achieve 34% more or shut down the plant's. i think that is pretty significant >> i think you said one of my favorite words of english language and that is proposed. this is a proposed rule, correct? notte final? >> from the standpoint of those concerns that's excellent news and has happened the last two years something's been proposed

not deemed significant and further assessment and public concern it has been deemed significant at the final stage and there has been oira and saltzman commesso -- we will definitely take a look at that. >> my time is expired but i'm going to work with chairman stearns and ranking member degette and chairman upton and ranking member waxman. we are going to follow-up on this, and we are going to expect -- we are going to work cooperatively with you and your staff. but if you have any authority now is the time to exercise it. >> thank you, gentlemen. mr. solomon is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman for holding this hearing and mr. sunstein for being here. what is the process for determining whether a regulation is subject to executive order?

>> the basic idea is it is significant meaning does it have $100 million annual cost on the economy or benefit by the way and $100 million in in pact dennett can be deemed significant also if it affects a factor or an area so there can be something that falls short of the $100 million threshold but nonetheless an economic effect or generates novel issues of policy or law. so the net is wide but it doesn't include routine or mechanical kind of daily monday in things. >> i have right here a proposal to a disapproval of oklahoma's implementation plan for the regional i and i talked to you a little before about that. epa proposes to disapproved the plan and they did what they were told to and the achieved the goals that were supposed to be achieved coming yet at a much

less cost, yet the federal government stepped in and sit know we are going to implement our federal implementation plan which has a much more aggressive time line and will cost ratepayers almost $2 million what i'd like to know did oira review this proposal? >> federal implementation plan we would review the decision to go forward with that. a disapproval of the state implementation plan isn't a rule. so that we would not review. >> i've introduced a bill recently called the treen act and i talked to a little about that. requires a cumulative analysis of the regulations that intact america's manufacturing energy prices to understand how they will impact the competitiveness and job creation. will you and the administration supports this? >> three words used, the a

cumulative cost competitiveness and job creation that are very much our focus prominent in the executive order and this is something daily we are attending to. with respect to legislation, my own plane is a narrow one of the implementation and i defer to others on that issue. >> i talked to the white house and the president about this and the scene supportive but i don't know if they are telling me that to placate me, it could be, but mr. sunstein you are an intelligent man there's no doubt about it and in the administration you are highly regarded what you say carries a lot of depth and wait and will you tell the president you think that he should sign that bill? >> i tend not to tell the president -- >> i think he would listen to you so. he doesn't know all this stuff like you. if you come in and a guy like you is going to say okay i think we will do it he might have done that when we were the colleagues at the university chicago.

>> he's good at some things and you're good at other things and i think you could be a big impact on him on this and i hope you can because i've never -- i go around my district oklahoma, around the country, i never heard people talk about the epa like they are now. people are tuned in this is costing and everything that is thomas passed down to consumers. it's not on the businesses, they just pass it through so we have to keep that in mind and it does affect competitiveness in jobs and the economy. mr. sunstein, you talked -- you said good things today and i hope he will support this because i think it's something we should do and i don't think it's too much to ask to do cost-benefit analysis of the global competitiveness and jobs. >> appreciate it. >> the gentle lady from tennessee is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. try. mr. sunstein, i think you can tell that we are all hearing from our constituents and they are frustrated with what is coming from this administration.

i started in january dillinger listening sessions to our employers and our districts. they were jobs related listening sessions. i mentioned that to you the last time we talked and they are incredibly frustrated with as one of my constituents said you know, we used to get an update on i will, periodic one page update. now the regulation comes in and reams of paperwork, and it's such a heavy burden that the jobs numbers today should not surprise you all because what you're doing isn't working. so this should be instructive to you, and i hope we can work with you on this and i know that you all are saying we've got a draft proposals that are out there we need input, and what the input is coming back to do is you are on the wrong track.

so if you are on the wrong track, sir, please advise the administration to change what they are doing. now, i know that the executive order is the 16563 that we are discussing. independent regulatory agencies are not to be subject to the review. but these agencies are coming in by using your words, encouraged to do so on a voluntary basis and to perform the retrospective analysis of existing rules and you hoped they would do that is that correct? >> that's correct. >> i have a june 1st letter to the editor in "the wall street journal" where commissioner from the cpsc notes that under the obama administration the cpsc, and i'm quoting her, has ignored the recent direction to look for in the eliminate burdensome regulations. we are just too busy putting out

new regulations, and of quote. i've got to tell you that is the kind of thing that we are hearing from our employers is frustrating to them. so let me ask you this. among the 30 preliminary draft plans that are supplied by the agency by oira may 18th and released on the white house website, did any of them come from the fcc, the ftc, cpsc, ferc or the nrc? >> nope. >> what will be your next step to address it? >> i'm hopeful, and i said in writing and i will say right now that we would very much like the independent agencies to engage in this look back process. >> i've got to tell you the american people are hopeful for jobs and you'll troubled. they are getting tired of this

and they are expecting us to take some action. and what you are doing with sending out all these regulations is wrong if it's going to have a $100 million in pact we are going to pull it in here and hold dewaal accountable and the american people are going to hold you accountable for this. you've got to find a way to get these agencies to get some of this regulation of the book. let me ask you about one and a half minutes left the accountable care organizations. health care in the tennessee is a very important industrial sector for us. the proposed rule on the accountable care organization is incomprehensible. huge it's incomprehensible. there is a group representing some of these organizations such as the mayo clinic for the administration saying that more than 90% of its members would not participate because the rules, not the rule has written are so onerous that would be

nearly impossible for them to succeed. i'm hearing the same thing from my constituent companies, in addition the regulations were stated to be overly prescriptive, operationally burdensome and the incentives are too difficult to achieve to make this voluntary program attractive. one of the major problem seems to be the medical groups have little experience in managing insurance risks in the administration blueprint rapidly exposing them to potential financial losses. what has oira world and in reviewing the rule today for the account of your organization? >> the quote fugate is reminiscent to the meaningful use rule which the hhs proposed a while back. >> and there are problems with that, too aren't there? >> we are hearing about those

problems with the meaningful use role. >> and can potentially of -- >> are we going to speed the process of? >> i would like nothing -- >> how we help to speed that process up? >> there are two things. first, this very hearing in your interest in making sure what is on the plans are not implemented already or are not on each fast-track that they are implemented in a hurry. your ideas what should be on the plan that aren't on the plan are very welcome with respect to that the rule is you raise i said is a little pitiful. >> should we retrieve the rulemaking authority and address it still charlie? >> i would say the act has a mechanism and the word proposed not just because i recently married but also because the fundamentally constructive nature of proposed rules or

interim final where you get a chance for people to fix things. i've heard the concerns to which you point and our role will be trying to address those concerns. >> my time has expired but i would just like to place a motherly reminder actions speak louder than words and the american people have gotten very tired. they are fatigued with the talk. >> thank the gentleman from colorado. stomachs before mr. chairman and mr. sunstein for appearing to answer some questions. do you believe they have an overregulation problem in the united states? >> yes or no answer i am pleased to give, yes. >> u.s if you disagree with some of the others we have a price tag in mind of the overregulation but i hope to be able to cut the leadership of

the agencies to cut three existing cost down very significantly. >> with the cost can be right now and what we can say is we already cut hundreds of millions and in a short term will be able to cut a billion. if we aren't able to cut billions of this process the would be a surprise to the >> executive order 563 specifies that regulations should promote job creation and regulation should impose the least burden on society. when were the your office of edify with our rules promote job creation or whether they will result in job destruction? >> okay what we have been doing is working carefully with the agency's credit and guidelines approach we've been working with agencies when a role has potential job impact to make sure that is addressed fully.

>> will you be issuing guidelines for the analysis to identify the rules? >> it's an interesting question whether this should be done by a guide line verse is rule by roel basis and we've been focusing on 530 plants in the last month. >> you will not be issuing guidelines. >> we are focusing laser light on the job impact of rules and you can see actually with of rules with strong or amended in the last month in part because of concerns about the job impact some of them very prominent so this is something we've been doing on a daily basis. whether this should be done through guidelines or not it's an interesting question it's consistent with the executive order and also some words on this to focus on job impacts and rules whether guidelines are useful or not as i say that's an interesting question and very worth considering. >> under the process you're

considering that are you going to require methods of analysis that account for the direct and indirect impact or will your office follow the epa lead? we had testimony from the assistant administrator of the epa and ignored the job losses that resulted from shutting down facilities. >> i believe that testimony was focused on a rule issued before the recent executive order, and under the recent executive order job in pacts have been and will continue to be discussed. >> but it requires a look back so they should have done a look back on that. >> well if epa, the role you are referring to is a proposed rule where there is extensive set of comments including comments that involve job impact and would be very surprising if those impacts were not carefully addressed before the rule was issued in terms of look back process we are very much concerned with the prioritizing the look back so as to get job growth going.

>> there are a number of studies i have one right here in my hands a number of studies that show health effects associated with job loss, health effects and impact on family and back on education, if the rule is expected to shut down a facility, shut down a business or reduce employment, do you think the cost to americans as a seated in the shutdown should be considered under to exceed of order? >> i'm aware of that empirical literature it's an interesting set of findings. what i would say is the job in pectorals definitely should be addressed whether the health impact still are a consequence of job impacts should be addressed is a little bit of a frontier's question of social science i know the literature to which your pointing and existing allin the documents don't require that, but it's certainly worth thinking about. >> right now you're not taking into account impacts on children

or families when they lose a job as a result of -- >> to take account of a job in pacts which as i say is a central focus of ours is to consider job impact on families and children. the word job impact in ordinary language especially in the current economic environment, even before the word jogging pact naturally calls out adverse effects on families and children. >> are you aware of rules of the department of transportation real regarding the counties tens of thousands of not more dollars each? >> yes and i am aware the secretary of transportation is very concerned about that and pulled back on the rules. >> so they have a pullback on the rules? >> absolutely. he personally has been in the two engaged. the rule that was causing the public concern was pulled back and there's reassessment. and you can be sure that the

most vocal and convincing concerns about the unjustified cost have been well heard by the department of transportation. >> i think the gentleman's the time is expired. mr. griffith is recognized for five minutes. >> the executive order 13563 states the regulatory actions must be based on the best available science. your office has primary responsibility for helping the president and chief the subjective. you may be aware there's a pending science decision of the national toxicology program that involves the listing status of formaldehyde and an upcoming report on carcinogens. this listing status is important as the basis for the regulatory actions that may be taken now or in the future by the epa and other federal agencies and in addition affect the market place purchasing legal decisions in the near future. my understanding is that the studies and the data sets reviewed by the ndp and its on willing decision making process are the same as those used in

the draft of formaldehyde assessment by the epa. as you may know the national academy of sciences recently called that epa draft assessment into question and raised serious concerns suggesting the assessment is in need of substantial revision at the very best. i assume you agree the government must of consistent, coordinated and scientific positions on matters of public health considering the inconsistent positions of fundamental science issues between the bodies can you assure me that you will personally be involved in retrieving this issue and insuring any policy decision made by the ndp will reflect the best available and sound science including recommendations and conclusions of the national academy? also, oira from times times has engaged in the academy of sciences to review the scientific evidence and provide an assessment will you engage on the questions at hand in the report prior to this release?

>> thank you for that. our domain, our central demand and falls regulation and will making and the best available science crucial to that and we care a lot about the national academy of sciences i work closely with the president's adviser john holguin and the office of science and technology policy to make sure the science is right on the issue raised its not rule making in the sense with our normal domain, but i can promise you that in the next 24 hours i will discuss this with john holder in. >> let me let you know why i'm concerned that it. we heard the regulations are good and in some cases i'm not sure they are always good for jobs but sometimes they are and sometimes they aren't but formaldehyde is of great concern in the county alone we have an industry that employs over 600 people. we are also looking at an announcement in the next week we are going to lose jobs in that

same county. the county is 17,000 people come and we are looking based on regulations over the course of the next couple of years we have a good chance of losing it of regulations go into effect, and you can do the multiplied years and realize that in the areas where the money tends to stay in the community, and i am talking about the county, not one count of all the town sat up to 17 so the county that has the 600 jobs based on the industry that uses formaldehyde is extremely significant and it's not the only county in the district where jobs can be impacted by these regulations, so i ask you to look into that. let me switch over to another subject of interest in the district and that is the regulations we do appreciate that the epa did decide not to regulate and i assume you stand by your statement in your opening statement both written and oral as to that and i appreciate that. it's also fair to say that those

regulations treating milk animal fats as an oil never actually went into effect if they had been etkin had been kicked down the road for some time and without the april 12th epa announcement that they were going to exempt the products you mentioned in your written statement. without that exemption they would have been regulated in november this year is that not correct? >> it is mostly correct. my understanding is the coverage of milk was real and into law enforcement, and this is a good thing, was not firm, so it was an enforcement, kind of an enforcement limbo. >> without the action on april 12th the enforcement would have begun november. >> that's correct. >> i appreciate that. thank you very much and i appreciate your work on trying to save jobs like so many others that is the main concern in our district, and we hope that you

have the presence here and can convince him to some of the regulations that have already gone into effect and not propose and not willing to affect whether they will cost jobs like the regulation would have done. >> thank the gentleman from texas mr. green is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman and mr. sunstein. i would like to talk about the importance of regulations on protecting the economy and an advance of the hearing you wrote german upton and chairman stearns sharing our concerns of burdensome regulations and investment and chasing jobs overseas. i have an industrial base and i share that concern. although i am concerned about some of my republican colleagues that the regulations regardless hurt the economy, and let me give you an example of the years of deregulation brought the market to the point of collapse in 2008. the federal reserve had the authority to stop the practices that fueled thus the prime

mortgage market and chairman greenspan refused to regulate the industry. the security exchange commission relaxed its that cattle will in 2000 for aligning investment banks to increase the ratio to 33 period one. the treasury proposed legislative efforts for the transparency and oversight concerning foot trading in energy derivatives. the office of thrift supervision and control remained for protecting home buyers from predatory lending and was the result in the fall of 2008 from the united states collapsed this economic crisis created a recession called the -- causing 8 million americans to lose their jobs. from the t.a.r.p. oversight panel the concluded had regulators given adequate attention to any of one of the key areas of transparency in fairness we might have averted the worst aspect of the crisis.

mr. sunstein, this oversight panel concluded the lack of regulation was a primary cause of financial crisis. my first question is do you agree with the findings of the oversight panel and is this a case where the lack of regulation harmed the economy and caused the nation to lose millions of jobs? >> in general agreement with that. >> the increase of government, any increase of government rules and regulations, do they hurt the economy? >> depends on the rules in the regulations. some do and some don't. >> hopefully we learned our lesson the we have to keep learning a lesson we saw during the financial crisis targeted effective regulations can provide and receive cards for the economy and we hope we remember the government regulations can play an important role in protecting the country and citizens but on the other hand i see a lot of what i

think our release. silly regulations and how did they get to that point? and i tell people congress is the only institute known to man that can turn an elephant into a draft. sometimes i think the committee is coming up to the regulations can do the same thing. mr. chairman, that's -- i appreciate the opportunity to ask these questions. >> i thank the gentleman, and mr. sunstein, we are going to do a second round, so we want to to much longer. i will start out with i want to go back to the chart up there. i think we have given you a copy of the chart. did you know that that charge came from the web page regnf.gov? >> i did not but it's one of m >> i did not but it's one of my favorite and 3 regnf.gov? >> i did not but it's one of my favorite and i trust it. >> assuming that that information is correct if you look at the draft again, you will see that the fell one graph shows the number increasing in

the number of regulations that have economic significance in that review by the oira from 2008, 2009. do you see that? >> i do. >> he would assume it came from your web site that that's accurate? >> i would. >> then you go to the second graph and see that during the same time, particularly in the 2000, 2010 and 2009 the average duration for those reviews have gone down. do you agree with that? >> that looks about right. i wouldn't put a lot of weight on the fact. >> let me finish. the information came from your web site that you approve, it's accurate, you agree that the first graph is correct and the second is correct, so i guess going back to the first question where you disagree i guess that you would now agree the second chart shows less time and review of the regulations and you would have to agree with the chart.

>> i tell you what i want to see before signing off on that the left hand chart says economically significant rules are reviewed and the right-hand chart says average duration of the regulatory review. most of the rules review it are not economically significant. so, what i believe is the case, the why would want to see the chart to make sure, is that in 2010, our average duration for the rules in general is pretty close to the predecessor. i believe that's true but i want to see the chart to make sure. >> well, i'm glad you agree that the charts are accurate. i think that you are parsing your words here by saying the actual wording of our title you might not agree with. >> it's not semantics. we review significant rules that are not economically significant. economically significant or just a well under 50% of the rules we review. so, what we want to compare is

the significant rules of the average review time or the -- >> okay. all right. it sounds like the chicago professor at lot. i think the point we are trying to make is you have had more economically significant rules in the years from 2008 to 2010 and at the same time the actual review and economic impact has gone down so that's the point we want to make and we want you to understand that you might come back with a little different interpretation but these can from your web page. let me move on to my next set of questions dealing with end of life care rules. during your last appearance you testified that the decision to include the end of life care rolls into the medicare regulation was inappropriate and the american people deserve to see the content of the rules before they are finalized. do you still agree? >> absolutely.

>> are you aware that on march 3rd, 2011 and appearance before the subcommittee on health, psychiatry sebelius freely admitted that she made the decision to public this regulation without notice our public comment. were you aware of that? >> i was not. >> that is based upon what he said she did not comply with that. have you ever had any discussion with secretary sebelius about this submission? >> secretaries sebelius was very responsive to the concern that this had not been adequately ventilated by the public and that was promptly corrected on exactly the ground he stayed and that was the secretary's decision. >> so here we have in the care who rules in medicare, controversial to say the least. and she agreed that she had not even sought public notice.

don't you find that as a word preposterous? >> i think what happened is that long before anything like that went into effect the correction was made and there is a good thing. >> but you agree she was incorrect by not asking for public comment? >> well, hhs i think what they formally said is not the haven't asked for public comment but it hadn't been adequately ventilated by the public. >> ventilated? not in the sense of a year but -- >> do you think those particular rules, and of life care should certainly have asked publicly for public comment and in a very clear manner unambiguous set of the american people have confidence? that seems to be basic wouldn't you agree? >> that's why the secretary amended the rule. >> was your office every from the decision to include this

regulation? >> we saw the regulation -- >> yes or no? and answer is no. were materials provided by the hhs about the regulation to you? >> the regulation was presented to us. >> could you segment those to the record for us? >> the regulation is the same that was published. >> but i had asked for the materials, not the regulation, the materials. >> i don't believe any independent materials were provided. >> has your office ever been contacted about the possibility of including and of life care rules into future regulation? >> no. >> at this point do you feel that the analysis for the end of life care rules are sufficient by the administration and a comment period that it's an adequate? >> would understand is the provision to which you object

has been eliminated and i support the secretary's decision. >> and so we don't think it will ever come up and again the rule for the end of life care? >> we are in the business of reviewing rules that come before us i would defer to the secretary. >> but your understanding is by her unending and pulling this that there is not going to be any further end of life who rules or are they going to be amended -- >> i would defer to her on any such issues. >> all right. my time is expired. >> i recognize the gentlelady. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. sunstein, in your testimony you talked about how initiatives described in the preliminary if regulatory fullback plans by the agencies to potentially save billions of dollars in the future. can you describe some of the steps that agencies have taken

that have already led to significant cost savings for individuals and businesses? >> yes. we have from dhs something that happened in december which was a reporting requirement imposed by the airlines. it's 1.5 million hours. so that 1.5 million hours has been eliminated already. i mentioned the epa rule it also exempted biomass from the greenhouse gas permitting requirement. something that was of great interest to the volume as industry. it's a three-year exemption particularly launder that will have significant economic consequences, and now what was announced they will finalize $500 million burden reduction initiative, and we have a number of initiatives that actually work announced long before the president's executive order promised over 60 million hours of annual burden reductions and

i don't know how much an hour is worth but even if it is worth relatively little, which i don't believe that 60 million ellers turns into a lot of money. >> as you described in your testimony, now that you have had the comment turkomen the public process i think you said now through august of the agencies are actually going to be looking at a more exact way that they can cut regulatory burdens and start implementing the plan on would assume august from september; is that correct? >> exactly. >> i hate to do this to you but i suggested to the chairman that we have you come back in the fall after the labor day and talk about what progress has been made over the summer because just like you, we are very committed to comments and regulatory reform. it's like i said to you before, at least my view i always been a

proponent of the regulatory reform but i don't think the regulation is the necessary -- i don't think the regulations personally have values attached to them. i don't think that they're inherently good or bad. i think some regulations are helpful and they can protect the public interest and save money, and i think some are overly burdensome. i think that is the view that you share and the administration shares, correct? so if you can come back and let us know what kind of progress you have made, i think there would be helpful. would you be willing to do something -- >> i would be delighted. >> one of the things the executive said is that he wants to tayler -- the president wants to taylor regulations to cause the least burden on the society, and a lot of our concerns on both sides of the always the concern about regulatory burdens on small businesses. so i am wondering if you could talk to me about what you see

all ready and not what you see coming ahead this summer to reduce the regulatory burden specifically on small businesses. >> on the same day that the president issued the executive order, he issued a memorandum on small business, protecting small business from justified regulation, and with the memorandum does is two things. first it reiterates and underlines the requirement of the bigot pachauri flexibility act an extremely important statute for small business. second, it goes further by saying if an agency is not going to have flexibility for small business such as a delayed compliance, they are partial or total exemption simplified reporting requirements specifically explain itself. now we have seen in the last months some prominent actions by capital all departments to eliminating burden for small business. sometimes reporting burdens,

sometimes not reporting burdens and sometimes regulatory burdens. and in the two important cases by pulling the rules back so as to engage in the small business community to see if there is a way of doing it would be minimal the burdensome on them. >> one of the things i noticed i was thinking about this when i talked to businesses in my district small and large, one of the great frustrations is obsolete regulations that have reporting requirements that are based on lack of technology and now that the technology and moved ahead and they say why can't we just report electronically, why do we have to sell all of these forums, too? is the administration doing anything to specifically address those concerns? >> absolutely and we have heard the same thing. it sounds more small potatoes than it is. small businesses we can do it electronically. you are having us do all this

paperwork which is a mess for us. if you look through the plans you will see numerous initiatives from numerous agencies that they were going to go from paper to electronic and we have a little precedent here actually not so little, the department of treasury has a paperless initiative that's going to save $500 million in the next few years by a eliminating the use of paper. taxpayer dollars we hope to transfer that. >> let me ask if you can get somebody from your staff to send an e-mail listing all of those initiatives so we know what's going on and communicate that to our constituents. thank you. >> the gentlelady's time is expired. dr. burgess is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman and we are appreciative of you spending so much time with us today. you wrote a piece for "the wall street journal" 21st century of

regulation and an update on the president's reforms. you talked about let's stop copying over spilt milk but to set the record straight everyone in this town loves to blame all the problems on the world on the previous administration but sometimes we need to give credit where it is due to the administration and the spilled milk for will actually was proposed in the federal register january 15th of 2009, which was a few days before the president took the oath of office. is that correct? >> our final rule is much more aggressive in its deregulation than the bush proposal. >> all right, give the president credit when we talk about that. i do have to follow up with some of the questions ms. blackburn asked because the apco insect mr. chairman if i may ask today's politico deputy secretary health and human services now at the hudson institute senior fellow at the hudson institute said it's time

to address the rules and gives a very good description they actually are a concept started with the group demonstration project under the secretary michael levin in the previous administration and while perhaps they are not my individual favorite, they may have been a bipartisan approach to bring down the cost of delivering health care in the country particularly with in the medicare system. many clinics across the country had embraced this concept. but when they were left with a mismatch of regulations they said we can't do this. this doesn't work yet it was working in their demonstration projects in psychiatry lippitt's administration. one of the things he found is that they put a 2% savings before they got to participate in the shared savings there was a 2% barrier and into the rule it's now 10% to almost 4%. so what they found an undersecretary leavitt was only

four out of the ten practices as i recall the position practice demonstration project data only four were actually able to meet the barker, and now we have in fact increased the bar and meet the higher. is that a positive step in this regulation? >> the rules proposed in your comments and those of your staff as well as those of your constituents are not just welcomed but are needed so we got this right. >> just to be clear we've got a hard deadline do we not in the affordable care active january 1, 2012? so this rule has to be revised or repos. the clinics have to escalate the state of and decide whether or not they can meet the statutory and of the financial requirements which are significant ball by january 1st, 2012, is that correct? >> if we could in four months produce 600 pages of look back plans with hundreds of rules to be revised and we can get that done on the schedule.

>> you can get it done but i am talking about a guy singer and mako clinic, i'm talking about gunderson lutheran. are these organizations going to be about, through the its january 12012 deadline? >> the statutory deadline, yes? >> well, we are going to do our best -- >> use it to ms. blackburn no more legislative interference was necessary but i would submit to que perhaps we do need to amend this secret document to allow clinics more time to analyze why you're going to put forward. what is the minimum financial outlay clinic is going to have to come up with to institute an accountable care organization by your reckoning? >> i don't have a secure for that. this is a proposed rule where all these issues are under discussion. >> the figure that's given is like $1.8 million that the hospital association estimates

it's going to be between 11 to $25 million. so it's a significant financial investment and doctors should be in the driver's seat. if they are going to deliver on the promise as a patient i want my doctor to be in charge. i don't want my health plan to be in charge, i don't want the insurance company to be in charge. but the doctors are in a poor position to be able to manage the financial out late because not only did you have to pay the startup cost of all of the things, the ancillary personnel, the electronic health records and all the things required for the disease management care coordination, but he also have got to manage against the financial risk of taking on a group of patients who has a set of chronic illness which is ideally what they are going to be a managing. and here's the problem we have. we are trying to figure out what to do with the sustainable growth rate for mia lee and many people think the model may be the way we can visit to a different way of payment so we stopped paying for stop and pay

for wellness and you deliver to us a regulation that is so confusing that the people who report to be able to do this are now shaking their heads and walking away, and we have got six months to fix the problem. >> i appreciate that and you are clearly a specialist in this and we need your help to get it right. there was a somewhat analogous controversy over the regulation under the americans with disabilities act, chamber of commerce incidentally raised many questions about lack of clarity and overreaching and the first people out of the box to celebrate what the eeoc finalized was the chamber of commerce. so my hope is we can fix this. >> i'm going to submit a question in writing that deals with the fda and medical device because we've heard a lot of testimony about that in this committee. it's extremely important issue and the fda guidance documents under development by the agency and out of a streamlining process is going to impact those

it is incredibly important. not for the manufacturing in the country but america's patience and patience in the future. thank you. >> thank you. >> the gentleman mr. bilbray for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. you know, one of the things that's frustrated me after 35 years in public life in one way or the other, working with regulatory agencies and being in a regulatory agency is the huge gap between the intention of the legislation and the attwell application. gooding symbol would be wouldn't you agree that any environmental law that is being implemented in a manner that hurts the environment, you know, may not be obviously was not being implemented in the manner with the legislative intent. would you agree that no

environmental law should hurt the environment? sounds right? give me an example what we've got. we've had for a long time in san diego. the clean water act requires going to secondary activated sludge for sewage treatment. the institutional father of the greenhouse gas issue stood up and demanded that we take a second look at law, and as you know we we require that you do environmental assessment. the environmental review said not implementing the law would be the best environmental option that there are negative in their middle impacts, the habitat to the ocean introducing chemicals, the air pollution, but the bureaucracy still is caught on this issue that don't confuse us with a scientific fact. we have the law and is is you got to do this no matter what. and we have been fighting this

battle for 20 years, and we are still running into this issue. don't you think that the administration has two ways to do this. either make the call like the judge did we had to have a judge in the sierra club and the health department suing the epa to force them not to put this in, that's interesting coalition because remember the county of environmental health is from my find republicans. either accept that or come back and ask us to change of the law to allow the items to be done. how would you propose we handle that kind conflict? >> i don't know the particular controversy. i know some of the names. the first obligation of the executive branch is to follow the law. so it's profoundly to be hoped that following the law is environmentally desirable, and by and large that is the case, the clean air act as noted

previously -- the clean air act is the wonders particularly good data on overwhelming health benefits but there's good data on the benefits of clean air act also so have to follow the law. .. >> chicago dumping into a river that went to the ohio and

dumping pollutants into ohio rather than cleaning up their mess. >> well, our role is a narrow one of implementing what you've told us to do, so i wouldn't want to comment just in my little domain on what you should do tomorrow, but i would say that the executive order makes a very strong plea for quantify cation for costs and benefits, and that would apply to the clean water act. >> let me shift over. is there anything that requires four to five to one mitigation for disturbing has habitat >> i don't believe so. >> no, there isn't. is there anything in the endangered species act requires when you go in to clean out a flood control channel, you have to mitigate every few years, remit gait for that? >> i'm pleased to say i'm confident there's nothing like that in the act, but just note that the department of interior

in its lookback plan referred spectically to streamlining the requirements under the endangered species act and taking another look at that. >> i've run into that where it's just not an impact on local community, but displaced public space and park land because there's agents under fish and game and fish and wildlife screaming bloody murder that we have to get our pound of flesh if you four to one to make up for somebody else's problems, and i don't know, do you know anywhere in the endangered species act that allows agencies to make a permitee to allow for other violations? >> it's a pretty short statute, and it doesn't require what you particularly described. i think it's authorized, the secretary of interior has a lot of authority under some broad term, so i believe it's not required, but it is authorized.

>> mr. chairman, i believe the one thing in the rule making were so many of these things were done by -- in the rule making process that was never included in the legislation that was passed by representatives post of the united states, and i think this is one thing republicans and democrats can work at, getting the act back to where it was meant to, making sure the clean water act is helping the environment, not just fulfilling a bureaucratic agenda and hurting it, that the clean act is implemented to protect the public health, not just running up costs. i hope that both sides can work on this one, and i appreciate your testimony today. >> i thank the gentleman. the gentleman from virginia is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and i appreciate you what you're doing. we have to roll back some of these regulations that are killing jobs, and it really doesn't matter to me who gets the credit as long as we get the job done. in my earlier questioning, and you were kind to say you'd look into it in regard to the

national toxicology program remitted to formaldehyde that affected jobs, hundreds of jobs on the northern end of the districts, affecting thousands jobs across the nation and particularly some well-needed jobs in the southern end of my district which is my district that is about the size of new jersey. interestingly the science there is also similar in its belief that there may be the national toxicology program may be labeling that as a reasonably anticipated carcinogen, although there's huge debates on that. as a matter of fact, the science indicates it's not a problem, so if you can add that to the list, i'd greatly appreciate you looking at that. it's interesting because my predecessor wrote a letter last year details question, and i can give you a copy if you'd like, and i followed up with congressman this year saying,

hey, do you have an answer to the questions because the main thrust of those questions were, all right, we have all these jobs that are going to be impacted, and yet, the science doesn't seem to back up the ruling, so i do ask you to take a look at that. also related to jobs, obviously, i come from a coal district and i know the rest of the committee members are surprised it took me this long to get the coal, but i do come from a coal district, and as we've heard today, there are a lot of regulations out there, and i really wish we can quantify as congressman bilray was just saying because we all want clean water, clean air, and clean jobs. we have to have a balance to see whether or not you get your bang for your buck. my opinion is everybody on this committee knows is that a lot of the regulations proposed in the newer regulations related to the mining of coal have very little positive impact for the environment. i won't say they don't have any, but they have very little at the

cost of huge amounts of jobs and huge use of coal in the district and in this nation, and one of the things that i think is interesting and this applies both to the formaldehyde as well. the products will be made. the question is if nay are made here? if another country wants cancer, that's fine, but the bottom line is when you talk about coal and some of the things, one of the things interesting is we've had testimony here that we actually may be creating a worse problem with coal by shipping the jobs overseas. we're still using the products. they still come back here. they are made in china and india and you name it, places that i didn't know about when i was in high school that, you know, now are on the map and competitors of ours, and we're ships coal over there, and they ship their air pollution back to us. as you know, it takes 10 days according to a nasa study for

the air to get to the eastern shore of virginia, and as a result of that, i'm concerned that not only are we getting a small bang for our buck on the regulations proposed and that are coming out and that have some already implemented, but we're actually increasing the air pollution in the united states by shipping these jobs off to countries where they don't have even the reasonable regulations that i think everybody would agree the clean air act did bring us in its early days, and so i think we have to be very, very careful with what we're doing and we're using the clean water act i think in my opinion and others who testified here inadd vertenly to dire -- dirty our air. i yield the rest of my time. >> i agree with you about the fact we are here to implement the law and sometimes there's problems, and god knows every source abroad i didn't want to touch clones and hair sprays for consumer productses.

you mess with the ladies' chanel number 9 or whatever it is, you have real props. but u.s. versus the arizona just filed last year -- this administration claims in that that the executive branch has the ability to pick and choose which laws it wants to enforce. look at that file because to me it's extraordinary because that's the position of this administration that the executive has the right to choose when not to enforce the law, and they've got that on record, so if it can be applied to the issue of immigration, my question is why wouldn't it be publicble to these other -- applicable to the other regulatory groups. i leave that with you to just look at it to see how that affects your latitude in

straightening out the problem. i yield back. >> does the ranking member have concluding comments? i'm going to let you go. i have one comment. you previously testified that you disagreed with the crane report that stated that the current regulations are costing american businesses $1.7 trillion. are you aware that the crane report was a report commissioned by the obama administration's small business administration in 2009? >> yes. what i'd say is i wouldn't say i disagree. i say i hope this is not a subtle difference. i don't agree. i don't think it's been supported -- that number has nots been supported -- >> well, i think your answer is you do not agree with the crane report. >> yes, the number i don't believe has a solid -- >> i just want it on the record that you disagree with the crane report. >> yes, i disagree with the analysis of the crane report. >> well, thank you. i see you won the prize for

forbearance today, and we thank you, and we welcome the second panel. >> thank you. [inaudible conversations] i'm going to ask unanimous consent dr. burgess asked that troy's opinion in the "politico"

. .

>> you have retired military surrounding the compound. you have isi agents as well. this is not a normal house. this was a large compound. heavily fortified. suspicious-looking. in a military area. it leads me to the question on our relationship with pakistan. where do we go from here? in my judgment, it is hard to believe they did not know he was there. at what level did the government

know about this? either they were complicit or incompetent. either complicit with providing material support by providing him a safe haven, or incompetence in not knowing he was there. let me throw the question to you mr. coll. what is your assessment of this picture? how did this affect an impact our relationship with this country who has been known to proliferate nuclear-weapons? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i associate years -- myself with your analysis. i think you describe the picture well. the circumstances about the house raises disturbing

questions about the knowledge that must have been present in some sections of the pakistani government about this unusual compound. i hope that over time we will discover more about how far up the chain of command such knowledge might have gone. a couple of quick observations. pakistan has one of the lowest tax participations. one of the reasons why is that if you build a million-dollar house, someone knocks on your door and says you can avoid tax, put me on your payroll. the person is almost always a regional official. it raises the question of whether isi would have been involved in such a racket. it is understood best as a criminal enterprise. they are involved in many racquets around the country.

it is important for americans to understand the ambiguity and the nature of the haven of bin laden found is not unusual in the country. there are five or six listed terrorists living around the country in similar circumstances. sometimes they are under house arrest, sometimes they are difficult to find. many of these people have been there indebted to or been charged with mass killings on indian soil. these patterns look outrages the united states when the personality of someone like bin laden is there. but the way pakistan has been involved, the circumstances were not unusual. by way of the united states and pakistan, i think it is a you sell -- a useful wake up call.

by its partners or by its own people. it has made it difficult for its people to hold services accountable by suppressing those who question the military supremacy. for the united states, this is an opportunity to come to a grip with the facts that we do not know we see these important security questions the same way. to try to hold the military to greater account, while acknowledge in the sacrifice the soldiers have made, and the shared interest that will endure. >> i think it also calls into question as we go into the appropriations cycle the billions of dollars we provide

in foreign-aid. they have played this game for quite some time. i believe they need to be held accountable. there need to be answers as to whether they were complicit or not. professor, do you have any observations? >> i agree with you and mr. coll. there may be a third explanation beyond complicity or incompetence but willful ignorance. on this question of the doubled game you talk about, as i'm sure you know, right now inside the district court in chicago there is a trial of someone. testimony is being made by david headley, an agent of the isi. one of his handlers not only knew of the mumbai plot but made

no effort to stop plans to target american citizens at the hotel. we have not seen any investigation about to this major is and what his role is. this is another area we need to hold pakistan accountable. >> it is a great point. how many other terrorists are being provided a safe haven by pakistan who we provide aid to. we work together to eradicate terrorist. do you have any comments? >> pakistan has long had what it feels our strategic interests in afghanistan and india in terms of ensuring a friendly government dominated by pakistan. india and preventing kashmir from becoming a part of the european union. as a result, we think of rockeye

as a terrorist group. it is also an organization that has put energy into working with insurgencies around the region. in this capacity, it is hard to say where al qaeda begins and some of the components began. certain components of the network have been useful to pakistan in india and afghanistan. it is hard for us to make progress without making progress on afghanistan-kashmir. >> i think that is a good point. my time has expired. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate that. i think the greatest concern we have right now is the

possibility of terrorists getting ahold of nuclear weapons. that brings pakistan front and center in that regard. the way we are proceeding with pakistan, some of the issues about weak governments and the strong anti-american sentiment that exists, and the blunt -- limited ability to monitor the programs. the president has said he is going to call to measure of accountability in metrics, real metrics. for the entire panel. could you comment on what kind of metrics this could be measured in? how can this be tangibly monitored? how can we hold pakistan accountable? senator kerry, when he returned from pakistan, he said that it will be more what you do, not

what you say. they are looking for a tangible metrics that can be measured. if you could comment on how you think we could measure, what those metric should be. i would appreciate that. >> that is an excellent question and subjects. an important direction for u.s. policy. you can start with the observations that were shared about the compound in the pakistan. the first venture would be the status under the law of the terrorist known to be residing in pakistan. there is a body of evidence about a number of terrorists whose status under the law is confused or unsatisfactory.

the devastates has the capacity to monitor security services and its relation to militant groups. there is always a debate about what the true capacity of the state is to do more. pakistani is used their weakness as a defense against accountability. there are some areas where it it is clear. one of those is in the cross border movements of militants from pakistani territory into india. that border is essentially a military zone. nobody moves without the army's permission. the indians have been watching the army said young men with groups across the border with impunity for years. united states has not made a priority of holding pakistan to account for the rates of infiltration. you should have zero infiltration in this complex

territory. the rate has allowed -- it suggests state policy. surely there are metrics to monitor the actual conduct of pakistani security services to prevent cross border infiltration, applying some rule of reason as to what the capacity really is and then holding the states to that account. >> anyone else wish to comment? >> i agree completely. i would add some of the metrics our cooperation. cooperation is slackening rather than increasing. the number of cia intelligence operas has decreased. -- operatives has decreased.

the mentors may be able to be publicly stated but the reporting may be classified. the degree in extent and pakistan is sincere about cooperation against terrorism. >> i have a few seconds left. i apologize for giving you a difficult question so quickly. how would you suggest, and what would be some of the benefits of linking our foreign aid to these metrics? is there a way to do that? is there a danger in doing it too closely? >> i do not think we have much choice. the problem is from the pakistani perspective, they believe we require the cooperation. a blank check -- it is our only leverage we can exert over them.

>> do any of you think that could be measured so there is some accountability for their actions? >> there has often been, from congress, sources of conditionality attached to u.s. aid to pakistan. it has been the executive branch's prerogative. whatever the degree of automatic trigger that such accountability might involve, i think it would be a helpful change to attach specific metrics of the sort we are talking about to that finding. even if the executive branch retains some discretion, they ought to be held accountable on some of the same issues rather than a generalized sense that things are good enough.

>> i could not agree with you more. some countries use their own weaknesses as an excuse. thank you very much. i yield back my time. >> i agree. this is excellent testimony as we go into the foreign aid appropriations cycle that we use these metrics. clearly the new location of the bin laden compound calls into serious question of pakistan's cooperation with united states. i recognize the gentleman from missouri. >> thank you, mr. chairman. a question for all three of view, however you can best answer it. it has been said that al qaeda on the arabian peninsula has put its american supporters on a noble quest to vanquish -- save the world from evil. we know al qaeda has killed more

muslims than americans. how do we go about debunking this message? >> i will take a first shot of this one. this is the great weakness of al qaeda. it is something that muslim thinkers have noticed and repeatedly mentioned. it has caused dissent within the broader islamists, the question of killing a muslim and non- combatants. i would recommend several things to emphasize this. one is that diplomacy, we not make about the united states. if we try to sell our policies in iraq or palestine, we're not going to win. we do put it in their court when we talk about the killing of muslim and non-combatants.

we should elevate the voices that condemn al qaeda. this is a difficult thing for congress because many of these voices are anti-american. you might have someone who says you should not kill muslims, al qaeda is wrong and evil. but you should go to iraq until american soldiers. i and the stand white -- understand why you do not someone to say that. people with credibility are going to have views we disagree with. >> when you say public diplomacy, walk me through that again. >> in my view, public diplomacy emphasizes how good is to be a

muslim in the united states, the validity and justice of u.s. policies. these are legitimate activities. to me it is more credible given the popularity of al qaeda's message, in a way it is negative campaigning. they have done many things that are extremely unpopular in the muslim world and have been criticized by the radical fringe. we need to amplify those voices and make that debate rather than insert ourselves into this. >> i think this question of al qaeda claiming more muslim lives is important. generally we do a bad a job at countering the oxide and narrative -- al qaudeda

narrative. i think we also tend to look at the world through our own eyes, not the answer the audience we have to communicate with. >> how do we change that attitude? >> we have to understand our enemy and target audience much better than we do. just as the professor was saying, too often it is either from a prison or lens. much has been made in recent weeks about the videotape of bin laden sleeping on the floor with a blanket around him, wearing a wool cap, almost a sense this is some broken old man watching films of himself. we have not thought of what the image portrays to muslims elsewhere. they see a man who lived to the end. who is true to his commitment to forsake a life of comfort to wage jihad.

he is a pious muslim. he wore a head covering. we see this as someone who is humiliated but that is not the image other people see. in terms of better countering the narrative, the victims of terrorism, a young woman in margin washington. she is created a survivors' group that has motivated and eliminated the role that victims and survivors complained countering the message. the documentary she made, killing in the name of, was nominated for an academy award. this is a message we have underused. >> i agree entirely with the profs.

. it gives an opportunity to advance what the speakers have outlined. there will be an opportunity for the united states and many other countries wishing well to the nascent democracies like egypt and tunisia to support civil side -- civil society groups. to strengthen speech and to bring forward the underlying opinion in many of these societies that has -- that al qaeda does not represent their ambitions. it is an evil in their midst. that in direct opportunity speaks to the strategy they have outlined. >> thank you for being here today. i have no time to yield back. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from south carolina. >> thank you for being here.

it has been in lightning. i will direct this question to -- just to understand the relationships on the arabian peninsula. what is the relationship between al qaeda and the muslim brotherhood? >> it is a relationship that in recent years, they have been and inimical forces. in recent months, hamas, part of the muslim brotherhood in gaza, to enter in any kind of negotiations or a democratic process. we are talking about -- they are

quite separate and different. >> anyone else have something to add? >> he managed to write a book denouncing the muslim brotherhood while on the run and being hunted. i have difficulty writing a book sitting in my office for years on end. the fact that he put such effort into it. he has been quite better toward hamas. what people referred to the narcissism of little differences. they were close enough ideologically that they're split in terms of where they have gone, it grates all the more. with the muslim brotherhood in egypt, you have a political alternative. this is a group that is moving

on the path to being a part of regular elections. if that is a success, that is a different message and a different hope that should be encouraged. you will come up a lot of -- against a lot of bombs, but that could be a blow to al qaeda. if they're excluded from power, that would send a message to many young members that the world will not allow them to take power peacefully. the exclusion could be quite dangerous to a group of these people. >> just a follow up about al qaeda. what is the relationship between them and the iranian revolutionary force? can you talk about that? i would love to hear some testimony about that. >> i tried to get a classified briefing because the unclassified material is

noticeable by its absence. there are significant things going on. we had senior members transit and find >> -- haven in iran. iran has a history of working with a new range of groups it does not see eye to eye to. iran is quite pragmatic. we've seen cooperation in the past. but in my judgment it is a fraught relationship. there are ideological differences. these groups even hate one another. that is the right word. they have other problems as well. this is an area where i run and al qaeda have been trying to keep it quiet. >> clearly they are in iran.

the cia does counsel they program where we ward -- just canceled a program where we were tracking those people. >> it should go is be a priority. i cannot speak directly to this program, however. >> a news report just came up. i yield back the balance of my time. >> in closing i just want to make a couple of comments. when we heard from the previous panel that the administration does not provide a complete picture of a threat assessment as a relates to proliferation of weapons -- weapons of mass destruction. when we look at things that pakistan and others that hav nuclear capability. , it is essential that they come for a as required by law and report these findings to the

congress. i assume you would all agree with that assessment. it has troubled me the past two years. almost more so than bought -- bin laden, because of his ability to impact muslim youth in the united states and radicalize them. this is a virtual safe haven. he is in a safe haven in yemen. his ability to use the internet's deceptively to radicalize remains -- the testimony i heard, he is emerging as a top leader of cockeyed. one of the biggest threats. we talked about the predator drones. i believe they have been very effective.

the surgical strikes. there was some controversy within pakistan and yemen as well. how effective are these drone strikes? >> in my view, the drone strikes are affected. three caveat. when you bomb people a few times, you mess. iss. they're more surgical than others. but we have to accept innocent deaths as part of this. they are not popular in pakistan. when you conduct military operations on the soil of another country, that is understandable. they are less popular farther away from the areas where the drums are operating. people farther away our -- it is easier to take offense when you're not dealing with

militants nearby. the drone itself is not a strategy that solves the problem. it reduces the problem, but this is something that will be solved by the pakistani state. the drones do reduce the number of leaders. it forces them to operate in a different way. they spend much of their time playing defense. it is hard to quantify but instead of spending 12 hours organizing planning and training, they spend two. the remaining are spent moving from place to place, avoiding dangerous to medications. that is a huge impact. with the death of bin laden, he needs to lead. he needs to communicate. he needs to show he is taking over. that is harder because he risks exposing himself to u.s.

military if he does. his death would be an extreme blow to the organization. >> do you agree with that assessment? >> i do. i would add a couple of points. it has been an effective tactic. this is just one arm of the war. i predict we will see diminishing returns. i think we already are. when we see the list of targets being killed, we look of that list as a diminishing number of high-value targets. nothing wrong with disrupting as well, but i think we will find it pays your dividends. -- fewer dividends. one of the lessons we should take from the highly successful

steel operation is that we also have a capacity not to to kill high-value targets but use that intelligence to capture them. >> that is a great point. do you believe that pakistan is cooperating with us in getting that information? >> it is difficult to said. it is not clear. they did let the cia into the compound to do their forensics dance with equipment and capabilities the pakistani do not have. in terms of intelligence, it is not clear. >> on the last point, it is my understanding that the access

to the wives and other civilians who were left behind was difficult for the united states to obtain. the circumstances in which those individuals were held by pakistan raised questions about the government's intent in terms of maximizing cooperation. it does seem from the evidence that things have improved. the first 48 hours, there were some real breeches and cooperation. on the larger subject, i agree with both of the other speakers. about diminishing returns, i think the evidence makes clear that bin laden's circumstances suggest what life is like if you are on run.

>> that is a great point. with that, i want to thank the witnesses for an excellent discussion. you have until sunday to submit questions in writing. i would hope he would answer those. thank you again for appearing here today. this hearing is adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> he was known as a czar. it was not a compliment but he regarded it as flattering. >> during his three terms as speaker in the 1890's, thomas reed change the power structure of the house. >> he was impugned as a tyrant because he overturned a longstanding custom that the minority would be on equal parliamentary footing with the majority. >> james grant on his new biography of him. you can also download this another podcasts, one of our many programs on line at c-span .org. >> president obama says the three big automakers are now turning a profit. an agreement has been made to sell the remaining stake of chrysler.

he made the remarks at a chrysler plant in toledo, ohio. this is about 30 minutes. [applause] >> good afternoon. i have been a chrysler employee for 17 years. i am a second-generation worker. my mom retired after 30 years of service. like many of you, i am a parent. my husband, chris, also works

here. we have two beautiful children. in may, when chrysler announced the bankruptcy and close the doors, things did not look good. my family's future became uncertain. we rely on this company for our livelihood. many thoughts were running through my head. will we keep our home and stay until the dough? would we have health care? would we be able to send our children to college? would we get the opportunity to retire? the despair was overwhelming at times while we waited for some word of hope. after several months of uncertainty, the news came of government loans and the partnerships with fiat that would allow chrysler to reorganize.

now the outlook for the future is better. now, two years later, i am proud to be a part of this company that has achieved so much and shown the president that the chance he took on chrysler was a good one. if not for the president, the auto industry would have been at risk and a good paying jobs would have been lost. we would not be here without his commitment to protecting those things. on behalf of the hard-working men and women here at toledo jeep, it is my honor and privilege to welcome the one man who paper -- put his faith and the autoworkers, our president barack obama. [applause]

>> thank you. thank you, everybody. thank you. [applause] thank you. please have a seat. it is good to be back in toledo. [applause] it is good to be with all of you. for those of you who i have met up close, i want you to know that i stopped by rudy's. i had to chili dogs with onions. i have been looking for a mint backstage. [laughter] it is wonderful to see you.

we have some outstanding public service workers who have been working hard on behalf of working americans their entire career. one of the finest senators i know of, jerry brown is in the house. the congresswoman is in the house. your mayor is in the house. give him a round of applause. i just took a short tour of the plant. i watched some of you putting the finishing touches on the wrangler. i now need to call lead the eye -- iconic wrangler. that is appropriate. when you think about what wrangler has always symbolized,

freedom, adventure, hitting the open road, and never looking back. which is why my daughters will never buy one. until maybe there 35. i do not want any adventure for them. i want to thank jill for the kind introduction. somebody on my staff oust jill to describe herself in three words or less. she said hard working. her entire family agreed. she is with the right team at this plant. i know there are a lot of hard- working people here. [applause] i am proud of all of you. jill was born and raised right

here. her mother retired from this plant. her stepfather retired from this plant. her uncle still works of this plant. she met her husband at this plant. now they have children of their own. there three-year-old lots to work here. i do not think her story is unique. i am sure there are a lot of you who have similar stories. previous generations working for chrysler. in this plant, or the one down the road, it is the economic rock of the community. you depend on it and so do thousands of americans. the wrangler you build here directly supports 3000 other jobs. parts are manufactured all across america.

tires from tennessee, this plant in directly supports hundreds of other jobs right here in toledo. without you, who would eat at these restaurants? who would buy all of those cold ones? that's one right there. [applause] what would life be like if he did not make these cars? two years ago we can close to finding out. we were still near the bottom of a vicious recession, the worst we've seen in our lifetimes.

ultimately it cost 8 million jobs. it hit this industry hard. before i took office, this industry lost 400,000 jobs. in the span of a few months, one in five autoworkers got a pink slip. two great companies, chrysler and gm, stood on the brink of liquidation. we had a few options. we could have followed the status quo and kept the automakers on life-support by just giving them tens of billions of dollars in taxpayer money but never dealing with the structural issues at these plants. that what a kick to the problem down the road. or we could've done what a lot of folks thought we should do, nothing. we could of let the automakers

go into a free-fall. that would have triggered a cascade of damage across the country. if we let chrysler fell, plans like this would have shut down. dealers and suppliers would have shriveled up. ford and other automakers might have failed, too. by the time the domino stopped falling, more than 1 million jobs and a proud industry that helped build the middle class for generations would not have been around. that would have been a brutal and irreversible shot to the economy and the future of millions of americans. we refused to let that happen. i did not run for president to get into the auto business. i have more than enough to do.

iran because to many americans felt their dream slipping away from them. that idea of america, if you work hard, if you do right, if you are responsible, you can lead a better life and pass on a better life to your kids. that dream fell like to was getting further and further out of reach. folks were working harder for less. wages were flat. but prices kept got -- going up. the bottom fell out of the economy in the closing weeks of that campaign. life got that much harder. our task has not just in to recover from the recession. our task has been to rebuild the future on a stronger foundation than we had before to make sure

you can see your income and savings rise again and you can retire with security and respect again. you can open doors of opportunity for your kids again and we can live up the american dream again. that is what we are fighting for. [applause] as is what drives me stepped into the oval office. that is why we stood by the american auto industry. it was about you. your families, your jobs, your lives, your dreams. making sure we were doing everything possible to keep them within reach. we decided to do more than just rescued the industry. we decided to retool it for a new age. if everyone involved was willing to take the tough steps and make the painful sacrifices that were

needed to become competitive, we would invest in your future. we would have your back. i have placed my bet on you. i have put my faith in the american worker. that every day of the week. what you have done vindicates my faith. all three automakers are turning a profit. they are gaining market share. that has not happened since 1995. . the government has been read paid for the investments we made under my watch by chrysler. [applause] because of you.

[applause] chrysler has repaid every dime and more of what did those the american taxpayer from the investment we made during my watch. you paid ahead of schedule. [applause] and last night, we reached an agreement to sell the government's remaining interest in the company. so, soon, chrysler will be 100 percent in private hands. early. faster than anybody believed. [applause] so i couldn't be prouder of what you've done. and what's most important, all three

american automakers are now adding shifts and creating jobs at the strongest rate since the 1990s. so far the auto industry has added 113,000 jobs over the past two years. in detroit, chrysler added a second shift at its jefferson north plant. gm is adding a third shift at its hamtramck plant for the first time ever. in indiana, chrysler is investing more than $1.3 billion in its kokomo facilities. and across the country, gm plans to hire back every single one of its laid-off workers by the end of the year -- every single one. and that makes a difference for everyone who depends on this industry. companies like a small precision tooling manufacturer in vandergrift, pennsylvania, have brought back many of the employees they had laid off two years ago. manufacturers from michigan to massachusetts are looking for new engineers to build advanced

batteries for american-made electric cars. and obviously, chet's and inky's and zinger's, they'll all have your business for some time to come -- especially those guys over there . [laughter] so this industry is back on its feet, repaying its debts, gaining ground. because of you, we can once again say that the best cars in the world are built right here in the u.s. of a., right here in ohio, right here in the midwest. [applause] and each day when you clock in, you're doing more than earning your pay by churning out cars. you're standing up for this company. you're sticking up for this way of life. you're scoring one for the home team and showing the world that american manufacturing and american industry is back.

now, i don't want to pretend like everything is solved. we've still got a long way to go not just in this industry, but in our economy, for all our friends, all our neighbors who are still feeling the sting of recession. there's nobody here who doesn't know someone who is looking for work and hasn't found something yet. even though the economy is growing, even though it's created more than 2 million jobs over the past 15 months, we still face some tough times. we still face some challenges. this economy took a big hit. you know, it's just like if you had a bad illness, if you got hit by a truck, it's going to take a while for you to mend. and that's what's happened to our economy. it's taking a while to mend. and there are still some headwinds that are coming at us. lately, it's been high gas prices that have caused a lot

of hardship for a lot of working families. and then you had the economic disruptions following the tragedy in japan. you got the instability in the middle east, which makes folks uncertain. there are always going to be bumps on the road to recovery. we're going to pass through some rough terrain that even a wrangler would have a hard time with. we know that. >> no! >> a wrangler can go over anything, huh? [laughter] but you know what, we know what's happened here. we know what's possible when we invest in what works. and just as we succeeded in retooling this industry for a new age, we've got to rebuild this whole economy for a new age, so that the middle class doesn't just survive, but it also thrives. these are tight fiscal times.

you guys have all heard about the deficit and the debt, and that demands that we spend wisely, cut everywhere that we can. we've got to live within our means. everybody's got to do their part. middle-class workers like you, though, shouldn't be bearing all the burden. you work too hard for someone to ask you to pay more so that somebody who's making millions or billions of dollars can pay less. that's not right. [applause] and even though we're in tough times, there are still some things that we've got to keep on doing if we're going to win the future. we can't just sit back and stop. we got business we got to do. we got to make sure that our schools are educating our kids so that they can succeed. i was looking at all the gizmos and gadgets you got in this plant here -- it's a lot more

complicated working on a plant than it used to be. kids have to know math and science. we got to have a transportation and communications network that allows our businesses to compete. we used to have the best roads, the best bridges, the best airports. in a lot of places we don't have that anymore. if you go to china, beijing, they've got a fancier airport. you go to europe, they got fancier trains, better roads. we can't let our infrastructure just crumble and fall apart. we're american. we've got to make that investment. [applause] we've got to invest in innovation that will pave the way for future prosperity. we invented stuff that the world now uses and the world now makes. we've got to keep on inventing stuff and make sure it's made right here in america. and that requires investments.

that requires investments in basic research and basic science. so these are all things that will help america out-innovate, out-educate, out-compete, out- hustle everybody else in the world. i want america to win the future, and i want our future to be big and optimistic, not small and fearful. so we've got a lot of hard work that's left to do, ohio. we've got a lot of work to do. but we're going to get there. and if anybody tells you otherwise, i want you to remember the improbable turnaround that's taken place here at chrysler. i want you to remember all those folks who were -- all those voices who were saying no -- saying no, we can't. because, toledo, you showed that this was a good

investment, betting on america's workers. what we see here is a proud reminder that in difficult times, americans, they dig deep, they recapture the toughness that makes us who we are - builders and doers who never stop imagining a better future. what i see here is a reminder of the character that makes us great - that we're a people who will forge a better future because that's what we do. what i see here is an america that is resilient, an america that understands that when we come together, nobody can stop us. so i'll tell you what - i'm going to keep betting on you. and as long as i continue to have the privilege of being the president of the united states, i'm going to keep fighting alongside you for a future that is brighter for this community, for toledo, for ohio, for america. thank you. god bless you. god bless the united states of

america. [applause] ♪ >> house republican leaders said

the the job report demonstrates the obama administration's policies are not working. while the economy added 54,000 jobs, the unemployment rate increased from 9% to 9.1%. john baker another -- john boehner and other leaders spoke after the figures were released. this is about 10 minutes. >> job creators will tell you that the overtaxing, over regulating, and overspending going on in washington is creating uncertainty and holding them back. this week, house republicans met with the president and urged him to change course and work with us and our plan for new jobs and

economic growth in our country. we hope he will take us of what her invitation. we are serious about creating jobs in america. we cannot raise taxes on the very people who create jobs and keep spending money that we don't have. yesterday moody's the reinforced our point that an increase in the debt limit without major spending cuts will hurt our economy and destroy jobs. that is why we said the spending cuts must accompany any increase in the debt limit. one look at the jobs report should be enough to show the white house it's time to get serious about cutting spending and dealing with our ailing economy. >> good morning, if there is every time we need to focus on jobs, this is it. if there were ever an indicator that we actually need to start having a plan to grow jobs, this is it. the house