mr. chairman, i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. chair will recognize the gentleman from california for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i opposed this amendment. this bill is an unprecedented regulatory earmark. the legislation singles out one project for special treatment. in some ways mr. terry's substitute amendment improves the legislation but in other ways it makes worse. as introduced it calls on the federal regulatory commission to approve trans canada's permit in 30 days. representative terry has presented this as simply putting the project in the hands of an expert agency. he introduced the legislation, he said that, quote, going forward with ferc is simply moving the authority to an agency that understands pipeline, end quote. but this legislation is not about letting experts do their job. ferc testified before that it was impossible to allow for public comment and build a record that would yield a defensible position in 30 days. now it goes even further. its first duty and practice to impose conditions on permits

mr. nunes: if i could get 15 more seconds, mr. chairman. mr. hastings: i yield the gentleman 15 seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. nunes: as many will say, secretary of interior, bruce babbitt, made a deal with republican governor, pete wilson. a deal is a deal. the only problem was is there was some dishonest brokers at the table that never went to congress to get this implemented. the chair: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentlelady from california. mrs. napolitano: may i inquire of the speaker how much time is left? the chair: the gentlelady from california has 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from washington has 2 3/4 minutes remaining. the gentlelady from california. mrs. napolitano: what? mr. hastings: mr. chairman, i am prepared to close when she has done -- mrs. napolitano: i have one more speaker. do you? mr. hastings: i am the last speaker. mrs. napolitano: reclaiming my time. i say i will take a moment and then turn it over to mr. dare mendy. mr. hastings: mr. chairman, the gentlelady, counting hersel

mr. chairman. thank you for recognizing me. mr. chairman i am also delighted to see the referees there, it's a good opportunity for them to exercise their craft, but i expect there to be a big battle to take place this morning as this morning's hearing, before mr. chairman, today we are holding yet another hearing on the keystone xl pipeline as follow-up to the last hearing. the last markup, and the four more we had where the majority attempted to force the obama administration to hastily make a decision on the keystone xl pipeline. let me remind you the majority first tried to move legislation that required the administration forgo its legal obligations and its due diligence and come out with a favorable decision for keystone xl by november 1 of last year, and mat jorty's recklessness and irresponsible view, so be it, if the american public was left unprotected, because the administration did not have the time needed to conduct a thorough review. i want to repeat a thorough review, and oversight of this project. for my republican colleagues,

mr. chairman. i appreciate that. and there is a great deal of consensus and i certainly agree with my colleague from maryland, congressman van holland. our focus needs to be on dealing with the payroll tax and medicare issues and unemployment insurance and i certainly support the bonus depreciation. i think that's an important tool we need to continue. i'm somewhat confused by the house rules. i served in the house for a long time but i'm confused. i thought your house rules allowed to you extend the tax breaks for the highest income people without any offsets but maybe i was wrong about that. and now you're saying that we have long standing tax policies that you -- i know that's for a different day but i would think that there should be a different standard used when we're talking about extending current policies that have been long standing but i think that's an issue that has to be coupled with this discussion and i know we're trying to get the policy today but i agree that how we offset this is very much affecting

mr. chairman, i have no questions and i yield back the balance of my time and it does not require a response. >> mr. chairman, effective response. >> it doesn't require a response, mr. chairman. >> i certainly appreciate. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate the chance that we have lost any to point out that from time to time, congress will pass a lot and then not find the office in charge of enforcing the law. it happens with some regularity. this happened when republican congresses have enacted when not in subsequent democratic congresses have refused to fund it. the fact that the allies created are not funded with a subject of full appropriations by a subsequent congress always. it is part of the democratic institution. to give you an example, in your home state of missouri congressman clay, it is urban legend at least that it was once legal to shoot a woman in missouri. i don't know whether that was in fact a statute. it might reflect the extermination order by wilbur fox indicated no more birds. i am grateful that wasn't funded, that was then executed. this is a very different kind

mr. fahrenhold. >> thank you very much, chairman issa. mr. attorney general i want to follow up on what mr. ross says, management in general and how the doj is managed. i think you told him that you were informed about agent terry's death but never heard anything back about it being associated with the guns that walked. i'm the kind of person, maybe our management styles are different, if an employee under my charge was killed in the line of duty, i would want to be briefed almost on a daily basis as to how that investigation is going. i'm asking you again, you didn't hear for quite some time that the fast and furious guns were involved in this? >> that's correct, i didn't hear about that for a while. i mean, you know, to draw a distinction here, and i'm almost hesitant to do this, we are talking about a brave law enforcement officer. well, it wasn't a part -- that doesn't matter. i was brought up to date about the ongoing investigation, what we were doing at the justice department, but did not hear anything about the connection between that death and the gun w

mr. chairman, i will yield back. >> all right. congress member tom reed. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> why not say big reed and little reed. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i listened with intrigue to senator reed's comments and other comments. the one thing i hope we can set as a goal as we discuss this issue, we have a lot of discussion about unemployment and the benefit check itself. i hope we can do better than that. that we can lead to reforms that lead to paychecks for americans. that is why you see proposals in the house bill that was sent to the senate talking about reforming unemployment insurance by requiring people to get a g.e.d. or a high school diploma. to me, that's a common sense -- just being a country lawyer from upstate new york --york, a comme initiative that i would think we can all agree upon. because if you arm an individual with a diploma, the likelihood of that individual, my gut tells me, and i think every study tells me that higher educational success you receive, the better your chance of being re-employed into the marketplace. so as folks

mr. chairman, i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized for five minutes. mr. ryan: mr. chairman, i won't take all my time. the gentleman is right, the army corps provides an extremely important function, very valid federal function to our government, to our country. i rise in opposition only we shouldn't be covering not exceptions. the idea we will carve out an exception from appropriation bills for consideration to one government agency versus all the other government agencies out there i just don't think that's a good precedent to set. what's to say other agencies shupet be exempted from consideration -- shouldn't be exempted from consideration? if congress feels these are important projects which they clearly do when they pass these bills then clearly they will affirm that if another vote does arise. for the sake of consistency, for the sake of treating all agencies equal, i would urge rejection of this amendment, and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yiel

i would suggest mr. chairman that it may be appropriate for us to put in place some benchmarks for how we move forward to get to the next step. i think it's important for physicians and patients of this country to appreciate that we understand that this isn't working, that there is a construct and a way to move forward. and then as we discussed the extenders, i think it's important to just talk honestly about them and recognize that patients have to be our focus. not members of congress, not insurance companies, not even the medicare system itself, but patients. so when you talk about therapy caps, when you talk about physician-owned hospitals, when you talk about section 508, when you talk about pathology direct billing, all those things in addition to the others, it's important to keep in mind that patients are the ones that need to be kept in mind as we move forward. i hear some common themes and i'm optimistic about that. i look forward to working with others and sharing ideas as we move forward to hopefully

mr. chairman, i have no questions. and i yield back the balance of my time. it doesn't require a response. >> mr. gilbert, if i could respond to that. >> it doesn't require a response, mr. chairman. >> weshlgs sill, sir, i'm sure witness would like an opportunity to answer. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate the fact that we have laws and i need to point out that from time to time congress will pass a law and then not fund the office in charge of enforcing that law. it actually happens with some regularity. it's happened when republican congresses have enacted one law and subsequent democratic congresses have refused to fund it. the fact that the law is created or not funded or the subject of full appropriations by a subsequent congress is not lawless. it's part of the democratic institution. to give you an example, in your home state of missouri, congressman clay, it is urban legend at least that it was once legal to shoot a mormon in missouri. i don't know whether that was, in fact, embodied in a statute. it might just reflect the, termination order in

i see my time has expired. thanks, mr. chairman. >> can i say on this point to my colleague, you know, i the original iteration of the class act, i called it a ponzi scheme. i think senator quoted me on the floor. that i said -- yeah, i remember it quite often those words coming up. and part of my analysis was based on cbo analysis and the actuary's analysis that told me in the early years it was cash flow positive because premiums come in. but that that worm turned especially when you got to the second ten years. it was very clear to me that it wouldn't work. but i mean, i want to say part of my analysis was based on what cbo provided us a number of us in writing. acknowledging, yes, you get money on the front end, but then that worm turns and the work of the actuary. >> mr. chairman, i congratulate you and thank you for that courageous statement actually. i think it was an important thing for you to say. i also -- my prior colleague here, judd gregg got in line, required the secretary to certify that it would be sound over a long

i encourage your acceptance of it. >> mr. chairman? >> senator collins. >> mr. chairman, could i suggest, since we're, i believe your plan is to come back at 2:30. >> yes. >> that maybe we could try to work on this amendment? i'm sympathetic to the argument that both of you are making in that this is a huge enterprise. but on the other hand, i'm troubled that bonuses are being given at a time when the postal service is losing billions of dollars a year. and i also wonder if maybe we could cut down the number of people who can be paid at the level of the vice president. but this is one of the largest enterprises in the united states, so i find i have sympathy with both of your points, and i wonder if we could try to work, since we're going to break, to see if we could come to a meeting of the minds. >> i think that's a constructive idea. the idea, what i'd like to see us do is to align, to the extent that we're paying money say above the capital secretary level, money above that, that should be tied to results. it should be tied to, you know, better performance, b

mr. chairman, i think that's a good idea. obviously this will set up to a significant degree tax reform efforts that you and i are undertaking this year, it leads into tax reform, which is critically

i appreciate you raising that point. >> mr. chairman? >> yes. >> briefly, i would like to follow-up on senator baucus' comments. i think it is progress that we move beyond december. i just want to say that separating policy from pay for is somewhat problematic because the pay for involves policy. so, i think we should not assume that there will be no reference to whether we pay for and how we pay for while we accept the notion that we're going to try today to focus on policies and not address or resolve the issue of pay for. there is a relationship in terms of policy whether we pay for and how. >> that will be -- when we know all of the policies we have, we will know all of the pay for. we don't know all of the policies. i'm glad to see that at least for this part of it, i r

mr. chairman. i rise in opposition to that amendment. >> the gentleman is recognized for five minutes in opposition. >> i appreciate where the gentleman from michigan is coming from on the basis of this amendment, but the reality is this is an extraordinary situation because we have a president that chose to deny this permit, putting us in this position. the presidential permit, as done by executive order, the reassertion in here, i agree the whole purpose of this bill is to move forward on the pipeline despite the president's effort to kill it. it is the president who said or -- let me back up. it is the state department who said they have enough information to make a decision. the volumes of binders sitting by mr. pitts is the environmental study, the final environmental study. so saying that there isn't one is just outright wrong. the state department said they had enough information here, that they were working diligently and would make a decision before december 31st. this is the president then

mr. chairman. >> i think you. and if i could make a clarification for the record, ambassador gray was in the first bush administration. use of president bush but i want to make sure everyone knew he was not the immediate past and with that we recognize the distinguished german from south carolina. >> thank you, mr. chairman. senator lee, welcome. thank you for them with us today. who was outstanding to challenge the? >> if you talk about article iii standing for purposes of determining whether a case is just in a federal court, the most likely type of party that could establish standing would be at a party agreed by a decision care and the force of law, i.e. the national labor relations board or the consumer financial protection bureau. one such an order has been issued if you have an aggrieved party, someone could in theory take that case to federal court and say i have an injury in fact, traceable to the conduct of the cfr pb, and the kind of injury who could fairly be regrettable in court. >> united states senat

mr. chairman. if you ask a question, he should have an opportunity to answer it. i'm trying to follow it. but the point is that without him being able to respond, i mean what are we really doing? >> the gentleman's point is valid. i appreciate that both under your leadership and hopefully under mine we make sure all witnesses get to answer. >> mr. chairman, i ask -- >> wait a second. >> one additional minute for the gentleman. >> without objection so ordered. mr. attorney general, at the end of any round of questioning, within reasonable period of time by yourself, if you feel you have been unable to answer a question, and i'd like you to be succinct, you can -- we'll give you the additional time at the end so you may answer. i do respect the fact that a member may want to go on to a next quek so you may have to wait until the end to sort of revise an extend briefly. with that, i mean no disrespect. the gentleman was within his rights. but i want to make that clear because the past chairman and my po

mr. chairman. i think we should look at supplemental grants. it's true seccally outside the scope of the conference. but, you know, we're probably going to need 60 votes in the senate anyway. and a house rules can do what it wants if we agree here to the provision such as this. i have a hunch that it will prevail. second, it's not a lot of money here. it's in the neighborhood of like a couple hundred, million. and it is also true as congressman levin pointed out without it some states, some kids in some states are in much worse condition than kids in other states. so i would hope that we can work our way through that and find a way to include it. i believe now according to the program we're going to a different subject. >> in agreement. there wasn't a vote to terminate. what we did is to extend it through a certain period. that's number one. number two, in terms of scope, the tanf program is before us. the entire program is before us. and i think that it's unwise to say that we can't consider it. look. i just want to close with this. those of u

i yield back, mr. chairman. >> mr. honda?he >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate it. agree and thank you for your presencet here. the budget is, i think, for the public and i agree with mr. simpson that when we talk in terms of percentage of gdp, people's eye just glaze over because it's just not something. that we talk on a daily basis, it's not a common language outside of the beltway. having said that we've been talking about extending the e payroll tax cut and the unemployment insurance benefits% and the information i have is ic we extend the 2% payroll tax cua and the unemployment insurance benefits, that could add about 0.5 percentage points to the economic growth in 2012 and supply between 120,000 and 600,000 jobs. moody's analytics said this, mo' that doing this would add 0.9% s percentage points to economic growth, which is almost double. the nexus between the extendingt of the payroll tax cuts and the job creation, how does that t happen? i mean, you know, how do you create the jobs from the tax cuts? dy what is the economic dynamics that happens in people's

mr. markey: i thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for as much time as he wishes to consume. mr. markey: unfortunately according to the congressional budget office, these drilling measures the republicans are bringing out on the house floor today, together, would only raise $4.3 billion over 10 years. less than 1/10 of the revenue shortfall needed to fund our highways. in reality this bill amounts to little more than a give away of our public lands to big oil under the guise of funding our nation's transportation projects. and most estimates are that no new revenue will be produced. that is usable for this transportation bill. under the united states -- across the united states oil production is at its highest level in nearly a decade. natural gas production has reached levels we have never seen before in the united states. oil production on public lands offshore is higher than it was during each of the last three years of the bush administration. according to industry analysts by this summer ther

the gentleman from maryland is recognized. >> i thank you, mr. chairman. at the outset of his remarks, mr. price referenced the economy and the president's plan. i think it's important to remember that when the president came before this body for the first state of the union address, the economy was in absolute freefall. mr. van hollen: in fact, we now know it was even worse than people realized at the time. we were losing g.d.p. at a rate of more than 7%. we were losing over 800,000 jobs in this country every month. and as a result of the passage of the recovery bill, the congressional budget office, the same nonpartisan independent office that this bill is asking for report, they have told congress that because of the recovery bill we saved or created up to three million jobs in 2010. those are the facts reported by the congressional budget office. that we helped reduce unemployment in this country in 2011 by over 1.4%. you know, in your -- when you're headed down fast you got to stop the slide, pick yourself up and begin the climb back up. and that's wha

just a few thoughts, if i could, mr. chairman. first, i would suggest that comments have been an contribute an attributed to you with comments in the committee. i would just want to encourage you as strongly as i possibly can. i think that is something the committee should take up. i hope we will. then, i hope very much that we will take this up as a full body. i have to say, i am very, very disappointed we are going into our third year without a budget. i think that is a failure to accept the responsibility that the united states senate has. i hope we will, at least, remedy that this year in going forward. i understand that the budget control act does provide as a substitute in certain respects, but it is not a full substitute for a full resolution. i happen to be a fan of establishing discretionary funding caps. there are many other things a budget resolution sort of uniquely addresses. and i hope that we will take it up in committee and then the full body will. >> if i could just answer you on that point, senator toomey. number

mr. chairman. i yield back. >> i thank the member for his statement. this is the first time i have seen an override button. i never knew that was here. >> before you do that, mr. chairman, could i ask unanimous consent to put his statement in the record? >> yes. i ask unanimous consent that the statement of tory farms of new york and the statement of dale forman, chairman of the apple association be included in the record as well. without objection, so ordered. we have a distinguished panel of witnesses today. we are fortunate that we got our votes done so we can be uninterrupted now before members might have to return to districts. each of the witnesses with statements will be evenntered i the record. i ask that you summarize in five minutes or less. we have the beautiful timing devices. when the light switches from green to yellow, you have one minute. when it switches to red, it signals the time has expired. we are not as precise as the supreme court is. if you had an opportunity to argue before the supreme court, when the red light comes on, you are

mr. chairman. i want to make a comment or two about the conversation that's been going on, the questioning. two points i wanted to make quickly on the last questioning. you may want to -- you were gracious not to, but to point out that the oh ryan budget last year voted by the republican house did not reach balance in the ten-year window. so that's the standard -- i think the president's doing pretty well. just a comment, also, about the chairman's not wanting to acknowledge what i understand to be the budget process, which is to take current law even -- which might be a law passed in the past. and apply it to our current budget and to the ten-year window. he wanted to take away the fact that this president, president obama, actually put more expenditures in the budget rather than considering them emergency spending every year. and so did anticipate those expenditures in the future to be honest about budgeting. >> yes. >> and the fact that we're now not going to spend all of that is a good thing for

mr. scalise: can i inquire on the balance of the time, mr. chairman? the chair: the gentleman has 1 3/4 minutes remaining. mr. scalise: i yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from texas, mr. olson. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for 45 seconds. mr. olson: mr. chairman, i rise in support of the amendment introduced by my friend and colleague on the energy and commerce committee. the gentleman from louisiana. in april of 2011 the deepwater horizon rig exploded, killing 11 workers. and starting the worst oil spill in u.s. history. while the whole nation suffered, the five gulf states were particularly hard hit. each of our five states suffered different damages. a moratorium was ordered that sent u.s. jobs overseas with the rigs that went overseas. tourism on some of our most pristine beaches was lost. the fishing industries were unable to bring their catches home. the water restore act will not replace the lives lost, it will ensure that the five states most impacted by the spill get their fair share of the compensation for our damages. i

mr. chairman? >> i yield back. >> yield to the gentle lady from california. >> i want to comment on your comment, mr. chairman. that was the period of time that you mentioned is the maximum allowed for a study. that is not the earliest date. so it kind of undermines what you said. i know you don't support the amendment. but it seems to me that we are again a -- as i mentioned earlier, i think we're on a slippery slope. we pass laws, we work together, we put thing onz the books for the benefit of the american people and then what do we do? come along today and we leapfrog over what the work that we've done. so it is -- it can be done in the shorter period of time. that is the maximum and i appreciate you yielding. >> i appreciate the clarification and will reiterate my pledge that if in fact they come back sooner, next month, whatever, if they have some serious issue that they would like to raise with us, i look forward to working with the gentle lady to address it. i yield back my time. is there further

mr. chairman, i yield back. >> thank you very much, coffman. you raise an important point about the umj. >> i somewhat agree so what my colleague mr. coffman said. i think we all agree, we kind of have our arms around this but we have to put teeth to it. we talk about accountability and i've had the fortunate opportunity to actually chair the va subcommittee on disabilities assistance at memorials. so obviously i have dual jurisdiction here. and we are beginning, obviously, with sam houston cemetery experiencing some of these same pitfalls that we have here at arlington, unfortunately. again, the word accountability comes up time and time again. and if there are no teeth to anything we're doing, actions have consequences. no one has the fear of a consequence coming down, whether it's through contracting, whether it's through your predecessor. how do we do this? do we do it through the contractor? do we have to do it through legislation, through this committee? i mean, obviously recalling mr. coffman has a legitimate pathway to address that issue

mr. chairman, i appreciate you yielding your time. >> the chairman of the full committee is recognized, mr roger. >> thank you in your ranking

i ask consent to let our guest -- >> mr. neubig has been recognized for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, i yield the balance of my team to mr. tiberi. >> thank you. very interesting comments. i do want to point out just for the audience and for the record, one former chairman mentioned nobody's talking about getting rid of the charitable contribution. that actually in the president's prior three budgets, the president has capped the deduction on the charitable contribution at 28%. i just wanted to remind the gentleman from new york regarding the president's last three budgets and what he proposed. obviously it wasn't adopted by the congress. but there is one person in washington who has talked about the issue in the context of reducing that charitable contribution. i wish mr. lewis were here, because he and i as the chairmen of the philanthropy caucus have both opposed that as co-chairch of the philanthropy caucus. to the witnesses, starting on the left, those of you who are vice presidents for companies dealing with tax issues, can you tell me who your major competitor is and how the current tax code causes you to make decis

i thank the gentleman. we now go to the senior member of the committee from pennsylvania, mr. platts. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i certainly appreciate your efforts on this important issue. mr. attorney general first i'd just comment, most of my line of questions or questions have been addressed, asked and answered and i'm not going to repeat what others addressed. to the last exchanges i guess i have two comments. for the most part i agree with what you just said and consider the gentleman from idaho a friend, and don't share the approach in this instance that he took, and i think your points of reminder of civility are important. along with that i also share the frustration i think that's coming through in his presentation or others on both sides of the aisle of, that what this is all about is a courageous american who died in the line of service to this country, and that the actions of others in service to the country may have played a role because of mismanagement of a program or outrageous conduct related to gun trafficking, and that we stay focused on that. the frustration is that apparently the attorney

mr. chairman. i think i'll denver to our house colleagues since these are were included in the house-passed bill the? >> mr. levin? >> i'm going to ask chris van holland to discuss this but i don't think we should only ask those who have a higher percentage of federal employees than the rest of us to carry the entire load. because this is an issue can that affects all of us and all of the country. there are from employees working everywhere. and i think what ben said is not at all parochial. and what chris is going to say isn't at all parochial. it's something that's national. in that regard, i want to point out that the three issues we're discussing today, basically, hit middle-income taxpayers. there are a few exceptions. i suppose there are some federal employees that wouldn't that be classified as middle income but there are very, very few. and for the bulk, there are very much middle-income taxpayers and middle-class families. and when we talk about health care and pension benefits, for federal

mr. chairman. i yield back. >> thank you. mr. hunter? >> thank you, chairman. and thank you general and mr. secretary. there is one thing bothntio ofd. i want to run through a few things. the new requirements don't reque otecon to the same stringt requirements that they were originally stated. the first question is why relax the requirements? i'm going to keep going if you don't mind. why did we relax the requirements? why did we relax the weight limit? if you go over 13,000 pounds, as you know, it makes you less mobile, whether it's air mobile or if you're putting them on, if you're putting these, because the marine corps is going to use them too. they're going to be on ships. they're going to be heavier on the ships as well. from what i can see from all of the different vendors that are applying for this, their vehicle come in around 13 to 16,000 pounds or more when you add their armor kit on, which makes them -- you can't carry them in fact in a ch-46. my specific question is about ford motor company. my dist there. i have no dog in this fight, no horse in th

i don't know about you, mr. van holland. >> and chairman -- is this on? there we go. i think it's on. chairman, to me i'm going to keep this drum beat going. we've got work to do and we're on the clock. today's the second of february, we have 27 days before our authority expires to extend the pay roll tax cut for 160 million working, tax paying americans, to extend the insurance benefits for up to 5 million americans who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own and to make sure that some 48 million seniors in our country continue to have access to the doctors they've come to count on

mr. chairman. i appreciate the opportunity. mr. zients, i appreciate the opportunity to question you today. i appreciate the budget presentation. and going through the budget, i haven't dug into it as much as i will shortly, but if you had to pick one thing as the absolute highlight of this budget, what would it be? what your most proud about in this particular budget? >> i think it's the combination of investing in the short term to make sure that we put people back to work. and at the same time, putting us on a sustainable path by getting our debt deficits under control. >> when i look -- >> it's doing both at once. it's not an either/or. >> i appreciate that. and we've had earlier question. i stepped out for a little bit. there was another committee visiting with folks about their budget in a particular area. but you did answer the question early ber exactly when do we actually balance? when i visit with constituents, they are worried about a deficit. they are more importantly worried about the debt. they understand the math. do

mr. chairman. >> mr. levin. >> the chairman and i and you've agreed will give everybody a chance to say a few words. we don't have this formal allocation of time. >> we have about seven minutes left on the clock on this issue. so it's your time. >> so we'll be brief. there are a few of us who wanted to speak. you want to go first, miss schwartz? allison, you want to go and then henry. >> hearing this conversation, i come into this debate as someone who believes very strongly that we can have a strong economy and strong environmental protections. i don't think it's either or. there are jobs created to repair these boilers and to bring them up to grade and those are real jobs as well. there have been modifications made by the epa, the rules have been responsive, they've tried to work to compliance costs and to increase flexibility and responsive to some of the concerns that were raised. but i also this particular moment in time for this conference committee, this kind of debate should be taking place somewhere through regular suggested has already been taking place in the house and some rules have cha

i yield back, mr. chairman. >> very good point, mr. chairman and ms. hayworth. i appreciate your thoughtful questions on every occasion. >> thank you, mr. chair. mr. chairman, i want to pick off where congressman watt left off on this committee and i'm the lead democrat you're asia and subcommittee. europe is very much on the mind. we just recently came back from a trip over in europe where their economy of cost is what was much discussed. so i'm going to -- would like to ask, too, because i know i'm limited in time. two questions and see if i have any time left thereafter, after your answer. first, given the close linkage between our economies, it seems access to the feds swat lines is crucial in times of market tension. and so can you discuss how american companies benefit from the availability of the fed swap lines with foreign central banks and the difficulties u.s. companies and workers would face, if any, if those swap lines did not exist? and secondly, could you also tell us what is the exposure of u.s. financial institutions to european sovereign debt? an

i yield back. >> thank you. >> mr. chairman? >> yesh, sir? >> i understand that mr. engel would like his three minutes. >> mr. engel, you're recognized three minutes. >> gentleman yield to me? >> yes. yes. i'll yield. >> i thank you for yielding. this last statement by my colleague from california made no sense to me. he's criticizing the different alternatives of bringing these tar sands down from canada and saying if it's done by railroad as opposed to pipeline. the real issue is whether they're going to do the tar sands at all. if they can't bring it into the united states, they're not going to develop those tar sands. and in accepting the tar sands which is the dirtiest source of coal, they have to spend so much energy to refine it sufficiently they have it go through a pipeline and train. at some point it's going to have to be refined. and the energy used to refine it adds to the green house gases. i just want people to understand there's not just a question of how it's going to be transported. we have pipelines, by the way. we're not against pipelines. any pipe

>> i am not sure what you mean by last card. >> mr. chairman, if i could have 30 additional seconds here, i will be quick. the bottom line is, if we have an american military presence post 2014, at the request of the afghan government and people that will allow counterterrorism capability, american air power that would always give the edge to the afghan security forces and probably be the end of the taliban militarily. do you agree with that construct? >> i do. i think that would be a very positive thing not only in afghanistan but regionally. >> and the best way to negotiate with the taliban is saying that you will never take this country back over militarily you need to get involved in the political system? >> at a minimum, the taliban would not provide a reservoir or safe haven for al qaeda. >> thank you. >> thank you, senator graham. >> mr. chairman, i am going to yield to my colleague, senator hagan. >> of course, senator hagan. you have no competition left at the moment, senator hagan. >> thank you. i wanted to follow up on senator graham

mr. chairman, i appreciate you saying that. i wrote the gang of six enforcement mechanism on my pad here, because i would love to see the president endorse that much of the work we have done here. >> i would say that that gang of six proposal, the strength of it was good enforcement and one of the things we know if you pass a sequester that requires a $1 trillion reduction and you waltz into the congress less than a year later and propose to eviscerate it, it does not give confidence in anything we ever do would be followed through. i know what you're suggesting. but you have other cuts and i know you have other tax increases but you have walked away from those cuts and replaced them with fundamentally tax increases as the senator just said. >> well, i don't think we have seen a specific proposal to -- as to how achieve the 1.2 trillion that is anything other than the sequester itself, which is bad policy. i think we could all agree that's bad policy. what we're proposing here is to replace wit a balanced approach and the presid

mr. chairman. i would ask without the starting of the clock again, if he wants to fully answer that, in concern to mr. towns, i just want to be able to do the follow-up question. >> the gentleman is absolutely right. gentleman will continue. >> if you want to answer that question, continue -- >> i'm not sure where i was. >> the interaction between the department of justice and state department. >> right -- >> fast and furious. that's the concern here. >> right. we work on a number of things with the state d., there is the merida initiative which is really the umbrella way in which we operate in mexico in a law enforcement way, so there is a lot of contact at lower levels and not so lower levels. i know our deputy attorney general speaks a great deal with his counterpart at the state department. >> my question, mr. attorney general, is the testimony from october 27th of this year that secretary clinton gave over in the senate where she said, quote, i can tell you that based on information apart from t

mr. rush, i recognize you for questions. >> i want to thank you mr. chairman, administrator jackson, as i indicated earlier, and you know this, i'm a big fan of work you are doing and i wants to commend you for your stick- to-itevness in ensuring that all americans have access to clean air and water in light of the relentless attacks against you and the agency you represent. attacks that i think we just heard a few minutes ago. one issue that was recently brought to my attention is the 316-b rule that protects against the impingement of fish and cooling water intake structures that the epa is in the process of finalizing, i don't want to get too much in the weeds who which, but i want to make sure that the epa is working with industry and listening to their concerns and recommendations before finalizing this rule. as you know, my main priority is protecting the public's health and welfare and i want to make sure the epa gets it right and finalizes the rule that we all can live with. i think that it's very important that we remain mindful of the cost benefit an

mr. chairman. first of all, i want to point out that the reason this is a government wide reform is that the direct -- at the direct request of the obama administration. the postal service makes up the largest number of workers' comp claims in the system, but it's a government wide system and t the -- and the obama administration ark -- argued that they did not want to treat postal workers different from the other federal employees. so that's why the rationale for why it's applied across the board. we've needed workers' comp reforms for many years. that has been documented by countless reports. there's a gao investigation going on right now. the department of labor i.g. has estimated that each time you take a fraudulent case off of the rolls it saves between 300,000 and 500,000 dollars. the reforms that we're making are fair and modest reforms. i have mentioned the number of people who are over age 70 that are on the system, including two that are 99 years old. that creates real inequities between postal and other

mr. chairman. i would say the same applies to that as well. >> jetta manual back. we now go to the gentleman from michigan. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to think what my favorite senators for being here. i'm going to yield my time to mr. pinto. >> i think the senator for being here this morning. two points for the record. i think he is here first because he asked to speak on the subject under. we want to hear what he has to say. secondly he's got a rather unique perspective of these issues with this background having opportunities with the circuit court as well as the supreme court has manders pending. i think your comments -- for your comments. i want to be clear. i will support what the president did. i looked at this issue. i spent quite a bit of time and i think this president in this circumstance overstep his authority. my understanding and please correct me if i'm wrong is that the senate and only the senate, not the president of the united states that has the capability to determine when