tv Washington This Week CSPAN November 5, 2011 2:00pm-6:29pm EDT
what more are we going to hear from him today? >> i must apologize because it is very difficult -- i think all the panelists of here will tell you -- to hear what your question is. >> ok. sorry. the question is -- your boss is on tv a lot today. he has been much more open and explicit in discussing some of these issues than have you. is he going to continue to do that today, or are we going to see the mark bloc answers coming from candidate ca? i bet you willn have to watch him throughout the day. as you saw yesterday, he answered any question put forward to them, and one of the things we have done with him is obviously, tell the truth. get the story out there, and that is what he is doing. >> i guess we will move on.
i know you are hoping to avoid a question, but we see you there. there was a video yesterday comparing mitt romney to a weather vane, and this is a far cry from where he started out a few months ago. he promised to be the candidate of stability, would not attack others. what happened? >> let's see -- first, i am the policy director for the campaign, not strategy, but i think it needs to be pointed out that there has been some shifting of positions as it relates to governor romney and it is important for each of the candidates to maintain a level of consistency in their positions so that it gives the voters the opportunity to make a good assessment on who they want to vote for instead of getting
in the position of not being quite sure what each candidate has a position on the specific issues are. >> to follow-up on that, and this is more corps policy, you all have presented yourselves as the mainstream candidate. does this seem to be the right time for that message? voters seem to be looking for something different than that this cycle. >> i have been fascinated by that narrative. it has been particularly fascinating for me on that because as i was getting to know governor huntsman, i did a lot of work reviewing his whole record. surprisingly, he has as conservative a record as most of the people on the stage as it
relates to his governing in utah. people seem to gravitate towards the issue, and i think that as a personal issue for him because of the family's interest in cancer research, science is something they take very seriously and listen to scientists, so i just -- while we are focusing on new hampshire, and, yes, it is an open primary that allows a lot of people to vote, we are as much looking at the conservative voter as the independents. you have to look at the broad spectrum of governor huntsman's policies. i tend to push back on the whole modern narrative based on -- the
whole moderate in narrative based on his past record. >> what is the governor's message? >> he has a number of them. >> if you had to sort a boil it down. >> his message is that the country is in economic hardship right now and there needs to be solid policies put in place that will ensure a vitality with in the country for the 21st century. that core principle transcends almost everything on the policy front, whether it is economic policy, foreign policy, and so his message is until we take care of things at home, it makes everything else we do as a
global power difficult. so that is his message. >> this is for the entire panel, although i will start with you. the congressman did say a pro- perry superpac in iowa -- positive ads. when do you expect the others to weigh in, if at all, and how long before the nice goes away and we start seeing some punches thrown? >> the question is when do we expect it, and the answer is two weeks ago. he has a lot of money, and we do not know how much because they can raise money more rapidly. we are not looking forward to the vicious negative assault, but --
>> [inaudible] probably the smart thing. building up his positives, but that is what you would do if you anticipate going on a negative attack because he had gotten down into the single digits in most states outside the deep south, and that is not a position from which you could credibly attack. if he builds himself up, he will be in a position to attack, and that is what i kind of anticipate. we would rather not see that. we would rather see more of a commandment approach to this, but that is kind of what we expect. >> can you be a serious candidate in 2012 without a super pak? >> probably not. in terms of campaign financing, i do not like for a whole different reason other than they really are diminishing the role of political parties, and i
think that has a bunch of negative consequences quite aside from the presidential race, but it is what it is, and that is how we will finance the campaign, and i do not think you can do it seriously without a superpac. >> by election time next year, they will be the story. they will have a bigger impact in a lot of states than the actual campaigns will be for this is over. >> what about the influence of the parties? does it have an influence? it certainly has not influenced the states to make their decisions about when they hold their primaries. you guys are doing debates when you want to do them with parties not telling you what to do. what influence does the republican party hold for you guys? >> i think the chairman is doing a great job. we were happy to work with him to encourage nevada to move their caucus back to february 4. that happened. i think it happen in a civil,
gentile manner. it will force nevada hard to compete for caucus goers. he does not have a big stick all the time. i think he uses good personality, leadership, the stick when he has it, and carrots, and he has done a good job of bringing people together. i am very pleased with the rnc and the job they are doing right now. >> i will not raise the chairman because he is from wisconsin, but i will praise him for the fact that when i worked with him in wisconsin, he was one of the officials that understood what the tea party movement or the citizens' movement was all about and worked side-by-side with the group that i was in charge of, americans for prosperity, in harnessing the anchor or the fear of the people. i think that the chairman has taken what he saw in wisconsin
to a national level, and i give him a lot of credit for working with all groups, and, as many people that know me say, we all need to play well in the sandbox to win in november 2012, and he understands that. >> i will toss this toward any of your not toward the romney campaign. the question we heard over the break is who is going to emerge as the real challenger to governor romney. i would ask -- i would argue that i'm not sure any of you have demonstrated that you can take on mitt romney, either in a debate or fund-raising or in organization. are you saying there is more to come, or can any of you persuade me differently? >> shouldn't the question be who will rise to be challenging herman cain? >> [laughter] [applause] >> let's do it.
let's go. >> you are making the consumption, and this is where the problem for me comes in. you guys go back and forth on abortion where one day you are pro-life, but then he goes on tv and talks about how prochoice he is, by saying it is up to the family to choose, and everyone said that as a pro-choice position, and herman cain comes out and says he is pro-life, and a story, and then we run into the same thing about the tax side. now, the latest thing that happened, and he says he has never sexually harassed anybody, and a story, and the point being that everybody up here cares about one thing more than anything else, and that is beating barack obama. our nominee has to be well-read it, and i would encourage the herman cain people to be
forthcoming so that we do not get into a situation where you are a nominee and we find things after the fact. you said yesterday that deming came answered every question that he was asked on this issue. the problem was the answer is change during the day. if you want to be the front runner, i would encourage you to help all republicans make sure we beat barack obama by making sure that your campaign and candidate is forthcoming. >> i think one of the problems you all have is that we have run an unconventional campaign. if we are running such a horrible campaign, why do we continue to rise in the polls? why does the intensity factor continue to either maintain or go up? we had one of our best online fund-raising days yesterday. obviously, we are doing something right. >> how much did you raise yesterday? >> $250,000 online. >> how does that compare to what
you have seen? >> it was one of our best fundraising days ever. >> what does that say to you? >> that the american people are sick and tired of politics as usual. mr. cain is the only non- politician running, and his message of 9-9-9, jobs, jobs, jobs is resonating across the country. look at the polls. you all have probably done pretty intensive polls. just ask the question of the intensity factor in these states. >> here is the point, though. the first vote is not going to be cast until two months from now. so for people to sit up here and pontificate that this race is here or there is absurd. it is ridiculous. a campaign is a series of events and decisions, and the first vote is not cast for two months. i think everyone ought to take a deep breath, and we will see you
in iowa, new hampshire, south carolina. >> i think it is clear that romney has managed to maintain a position of having 25%, 30% of the votes, and you have to believe that in the end, it will come down to romney and someone else. that is going to be the real question. then, what is the message that gets framed out of that? do you want somebody who is going to be a real change agent in terms of changing washington, or do you want someone to come in that has shown great confidence in managing washington or managing government and therefore would be a good manager of washington? there are going to be some key issues that will rise at the point that those two are questions that are coming together and the candidates come together. i think right now, we are in a
sorting of who is going to be that candidate who is going to go through a series of primaries, not just the early primaries, but a series of primaries against mitt romney. >> i want to say i think the story line that has been on this that you have presented, but with all due respect to my friends, we have seen repairing collapsed down to single digits. we have seen michele bachmann collapse to see the digits. herman cain may or may not have troubles. rick santorum cannot get out of low single digits, and the story is romney can i get about 25% or 30%. i think he is showing weakness in this race. i think these are all fine candidates. i think someone will emerge as a challenger, but i think the story is understanding governor romney's strength over a long time. >> where is that strength? what are we not seeing? is this about this being a long campaign and people are just looking around, or is it that they are looking because they are not happy with what they
have? >> the "wall street journal" had a story a few weeks ago. the polling does not really bear that out. the polling does not really show this massive dissatisfaction with governor romney or any other candidates. i think people are really desperate to find the person that can get us out of the mess we are in a lot for the next couple of months. am i do think the media has done a bad job of describing the field. i think it has been a very strong field, and for some reason, because everybody has their mind up on one candidate and somebody has not walked away with this 60 or 90 days ahead of time, which has never happened in the history of primaries, somehow making it seem like the field is weak -- i think we have
a very strong field of candidates. it is all about backgrounds, whether it is government's background, private sector backgrounds. i think that has been a discredit to the reporting trying to describe this as a weak field just because somebody does not have 70% of the vote 60 days out, i think is absurd. >> i think that is there appeared the other issue raised was how quickly, not just that nobody is coalescing, but how quickly and how volatile the polling has been. how do you go from being on top of the polls one week to being at the bottom a week later? >> i did not think a lot of us are all over the state, so maybe how you answer two questions on one debate will move a poll in a given week. i think you will have a lot of debates that will look things are around. i did not look at the polls at all. i do not think pulling a caucus
state this early -- first of all, it is kind of ridiculous. but we have not had over exposure except for in the debate is seen. the debate schedule and campaign schedule have not quite connected, and i think you will see that in december. >> the giuliani campaign last time, the early polls -- [inaudible] >> it is also to some extent, the story line on this campaign has not yet gotten to where the american people really are in this campaign, and i think that's you go back to 2008, and they are saying essentially the same thing now. the whole thing has to change. the country is not competitive anymore in the world. things have to change. the obama people were able to use hope and change as a great fanatic. it turns out that people did not want to change washington. what they wanted to do was use
washington to change america. i think a lot of people have come to the conclusion that they want to keep america and change washington and the first candidates that are able to articulate that in a real way to the country i think have a chance of emerging from this campaign in a winning position. >> all right. we are going to turn it over to chris so we can hear from some of the people following us online. >> thank you. we have had several questions from the audience. the first, to mr. block. based upon your answer to the question about the investigation you have set with your general counsel. they ask if independent counsel reveals that your campaign accepted illegal funds from your charity or if it is later revealed that mr. cain paid off harassment accusers, how will you remedy the situation?
>> we will respond accordingly. that i can you elaborate? >> no. >> with mr. kane ever consider a third-party candidacy in 2012 -- with mr. cain -- what -- what -- would mr. cain consider a third- party candidacy in 2012? >> no. >> were there any questions here in the audience? >> at most of the campaigns, there is actually more diversity that is represented up here today, so i think in fairness to the campaigns, if you look at a lot of the people in upper level positions in all of the campaigns, that this is not necessarily representative or
reflective of the entire campaigns, frankly, or the candidates, as michele bachmann, and herman cain, and the party in general, if you look all the way down the line, does do diversity. and anyone else care to comment? >> [inaudible] >> can you elaborate on your nails? >> john, a question for you, the santorum campaign, you highlighted this briefly, but i would like to expand on it. senator santorum has been very hard on herman cain for his comments on abortion. he has said he is 100% pro-life and is also said it is not up to the government to determine where life begins. has he done enough to clarify his position on abortion, or will senator santorum have more to say about this either in future advertisements, or will
be taken up on this in the next debate? >> i am assuming that other people will take this up. cnn put up on their website different statements herman cain has made on abortion, and they seem to be in great conflict with one another. i think that as part of this process, it is a fair thing for people to ask campaigns to specify when they say one thing here and a completely different thing here why the difference. i think that for republican primary voters, the life issue is a very important one. i think it is one that we certainly will not back away from, and i think we are still waiting for clarification. we are as confused as ever with his position as. >> santorum has sent out several e-mails in the past week. he has sent out as. we will hear more of this. you are saying he has not done a good enough job clarifying his stance? >> yes. anyone who has watched the debates has seen that the
senator is not afraid to challenge any of the candidates. he did with rick perry on immigration. he did with mitt romney on health care. i think so far, he is doing the same thing in a place where he has a difference with herman cain, the it tarp, taxes, the pro-life issue. i think that should be important to republican primary voters because they want to make sure they have a candidate and a nominee that will not be afraid to take on barack obama and be able to do it in an effective manner. >> what does herman cain need to say to convince you or convicts -- convinced the candidates? what more can he say? >> some consistency would be wonderful. you cannot repeatedly say that it is up to the family to decide, it is their choice, and then over here say you are pro- life. i would go as far to say that on this particular issue, i am not sure there will ever be
credibility. >> we have been talking about your boss. would you like to respond in any way? >> mr. cain has stated that he is 100% pro-life from conception. >> and a story. -- and a story -- end of story. [laughter] >> would you comment on the early staff exodus from the gingrich campaign and the decision to join rick perry's campaign, and how do you feel those staffers are doing now? [laughter] >> i did not catch that question. >> i think that some of the other people that had been with a new -- with newt early on did have loyalty to rick perry and
when he decided to become involved, i think that is where they felt they could better serve, and we have picked up. we are staffing the campaign as we speak in the early primary states. we move on from there. >> how do you feel his staffers are doing in their new roles? >> i think we are doing very well. the campaign has been moving forward. we have a lot of momentum. there is a very strong momentum for this campaign, and we think that if anything, we have more momentum at the present time than rick perry does. >> on the bachmann campaign, there has been a lot of reporting about turmoil in the campaign. the former adviser has been very critical. can you help us understand what has been going on behind the
scenes and why there was a disconnect between the national campaign and the new hampshire team? can you tell us what is going on there? >> we have a very focused campaign. we have a great team assembled. we are adding people everyday. some of the comments have been taken out of context quite a bit. i have not heard one voter asked about staff. it is kind of a block -- a blogger phenomenon. we did not really care. some of our strategy has been altered and moving around based on some of the primary states moving around. we have to go to a lot of debates, but we are competing in new hampshire, south carolina, and iowa, straight up. >> the national campaign is at no-fault based upon the grievances the new hampshire team put forward publicly last week? >> not at all. the person that put that out was not a member of our campaign. we do not even know who she is. >> she was a spokesman for that team. no, sheet is not a part of our
campaign. -- >> no, she is not a part of our campaign. >> an audience member noted that there have been many reports that the jobs created in texas under the governor were either created by federal government dollars or four part-time low- wage jobs. is that a correct assessment? >> no. this is not true. >> what is responsible for the report? misinformation? something they lost -- >> it is just not true. the governor has repeated this and made clear -- the facts are that 40% of all jobs in the country were created in texas since 2009, while the current resident of the white house has lost 2.5 million jobs. the environment the governor helped crete in texas has created 1 million jobs. the focus of everyone on this panel is to beat barack obama, and we have to have someone who can energize the economy, who
can help get america working again, and that person is rick perry. >> we have not forgotten about the ron paul campaign. i get your e-mails all the time saying that we have, but we are working on it. i wonder if you could help us compare this election for ron paul to the last election cycle. were there any mistakes made in 2008 that you have remedied this year or things -- you have said you have done better. also, if he does not win the nomination, who do you think ron paul will put his support behind, or will he consider a third-party candidacy as well? >> there is nothing about any kind of third party. ron is a republican seeking the republican nomination. as far as who he might throw his support behind if he is not the nominee, we will have to see. we will have to see if a candidate can emerge that is really serious about cutting spending. ron has put forth a plan to cut
$1 trillion in spending in one year, get the budget balanced. unfortunately, all we hear from other campaigns is nibbling around the edges. we need to cut the spending now before we have a massive debt crisis and a run on the dollar. before we destroy the dollar and see prosperity in the country take a major hit for a long time. i think we are doing a lot better in the campaign. we tried everything better. are we doing things completely differently? no, we're trying to do what we did last time better. we are organizing better. we have a better media team. we have more professionals involved in the campaign. we are working to maintain our authenticity, our grass-roots intensity and the things that made our 2008 campaign so special. we are very well poised in this campaign. if you look at the four candidates that have some sort of path to the nomination, ron is the only candidate that fought against and opposed tarp.
the 2010 election cycle was largely about outrage among grassroots americans at bailouts, tarp, bailing out banks, taking care of wall street, doing that on the backs of the middle class. get up the to message that if you want to get the budget under control, you want to end the bailouts and restore what made america so great, ron is your candidate. >> i just wanted to make clear that governor perry is 100% opposed to tarp and was from day one. >> the governor wrote cosign from governor manchin -- >> it just said congress needs to take action. there were other options on the table. he is opposed to tarp 100% and has been since the beginning. >> you have a lot of explaining to do. i this want to make clear he is
against tarp. we can -- >> i am glad he is against it now. it is unfortunate he was not from day one. >> we will let you guys go. >> the facts just do not speak to that. >> never supported it. >> how does the proportional nominating system play into your strategy? does that change anything in terms of this jesse, if you would answer that. >> this is a race about delegates. who is going to get the necessary delegates to be the nominee? proportional delegate appropriation is good for us. we plan to compete hard in caucus states and primary states where we can win a large proportion of the delegates. we are going to wake up on march 7 and we are going to see if one
candidate has consolidated the delegates that it will take to be the nominee or if there is going to be a split and there will be several candidates battling it out. >> it looks like we are out of time. thank you for joining us. >> thank you, everybody. thank you so much. thank you guys for joining us. next time, we will have podiums for you all. thank you. the national journal concluded its conference with a look at the obama presidency. they believed two of the administration's failures were the stimulus package and the handling of the housing crisis. this is 40 minutes. our final panel is going to look at the key economic proposals
from the candidates. and look at what the next president is likely to inherit in 2016. ajor garrette -- major garrett will be on the stage with scott pelly. also joining the discussion is the former editor and chief. he is the chief white house correspondent for nbc news, chuck todd. the congressman was elected in 2010 to serve south carolina. he has a special focus on jobs, business, and the economy. he serves on the joint house economic committee. we have facing a fellow at.
he was a member of president obama's economic team. over to you. >> we are stuck with the issue nobody is talking about. chuck, i guess we are behind the 8 ball. it might matter just a wee b it. i am a chargers fan. i am a bit traumatized. if you had to say one thing -- if there was one game that, in the effort the obama administration has done trying to deal with a difficult
situation, what would one area that it is handled the? be? >> we hope to pull the economy back from the cataclysmic die if it was doing when we took office. essentially, in did too soon. it ended too- soon. the rates of gdp contraction began to decline. gdp turned positive in the second half of 2009. not fast enough, but that is the case. employment losses began to diminish right away starting in
march of 2010. not enough. when the recovery act starts to fade from the system, you see both of those key indicators began to slow down. the chasm of private sector demand contraction was deeper and longer than the recovery at in terms of land. it needed to last longer. as the president has referenced in his comments, there is always a trade-off between moral hazard -- helping people that other people do not find as deserving as you do -- and getting to the bottom of the thing. that balance was not achieved as well as it might have been. >> congressman, i would like you to respond to the initial point. that there was not enough
stimulus and we needed to do more. >> we talked in this town in terms of hundreds of billions of dollars. that is how big the stimulus was. to hear him say it was not big enough -- in 2006 and $2,008, the entire interstate highway system cost about 400 the with that in 2006 and 2008, the entire interstate highway system cost about $425 billion. if you ask me the question of what was wrong with the stimulus, the administration did not do what they told people they were going to do. if they had built two more miles of interstate highway for every interstate house -- every interstate highway we had, we would be facing a different
election that we have now. >> there is a piece of that that i agree with and a bigger piece i disagree with. i am coming from a critical place. when i look back at what works best in the stimulus, the closer we got to direct job creation, the more we reliably created or saved jobs. when you try to stimulate the economy by cutting taxes, you are crossing our fingers hoping things happen. you are hoping people do not use the tax break to pay down debt. in other words, they say it. we are still a 70% consumption economy. if consumers are not actively spending, you are stuck in the mud. you want to stimulate the domestic economy. that is a change that is a risky one when you need job creation. what direct measures like
infrastructure are better. we can disagree. >> let me jump in on the issue of the tax cuts. not just in the stimulus, but we are seeing a new phenomenon in the american consumer. morley, it was a good thing. -- morally, it was a good thing. corporate america was doing the same thing. taking advantage of a tax break and hoarding money and not spending it. what do you do to incentivize? the republican point of view is to remove some barriers in regulation and dealing with tax cuts. how to you incentivize the tax cuts to pour back into the economy? >> the natural inclination of the private sector is to grow. that is why folks buy houses and why technology does what it does. they want to grow.
let's let it the other way. what incentives can we give to give it to grow? i do not think you need to give business an incentive to grow. we are giving them an incentive not to do it. everybody is concerned about future regulatory environments. we hear businesses say -- is getting to be a talking point and you become numb to with? businesses do not like inserts -- like uncertainty. is this is, by its nature, uncertain. we can deal with uncertainty of the marketplace. what we have introduced is a new level of uncertainty when it comes to government intervention in the marketplace. that is what is preventing businesses from doing what they do naturally. >> housing was the wrong thing
to base an economic boom on in the 1990's. if we can relitigate that, let me ask you, what is your view of how to handle this crisis? do we need to deemphasize home ownership? >> i think it is the exact right segment of the economy to build a healthy economy on. i say this with a little bit of a biased because i used to build houses. it is the right thing for us to do and the right thing for us to encourage. we missed a natural downturn in the business cycle in 2001 and 2002. the industry was due for a slowdown during that time. parts of what the bush administration did after 9/11 is that we skipped a recession.
it was probably one of the things we wish we could have done over again as a nation. we have put off the inevitable for as long as we possibly could and are now paying the price for it. >> i do not disagree. there is no question in the mind of anyone who has taken an objective look at because of the great obsession. it was a bubble that was allowed to inflate to levels that would only be sustainable if home prices continue to defy gravity forever. once they re-asserted themselves, the bad underwriting
that inflated the bubble was inevitable. if your question is, what should we do about its -- -- i happen to believe there -- i hate to this word -- correction that needs to happen in the system when they cannot service folks who have to get under -- out from under the burden. some foreclosures are inevitable. >> there seems to be two schools of thought. he did the government forces the banks to refinance. you have to do this rather than an incentive program. what he is suggesting is what mitt romney said the other day. with the band-aid off. >> you have to let the market
work in certain circumstances. the reason this recession has dragged on for as long as it has is that you have not allowed the system to work. many people are in their homes that should have been foreclosed on two years ago. there were many contributing factors. we have continued to prolong this circumstance by not taking the medicine. >> dodd-frank has nothing to do with it. it has not been faced -- been phased in yet. there are a lot of people out there who could benefit from refinancing at lower rates. the president made a lot of sense. to the extent that the system can intelligently separate folks who could actually service their housing debt, the problem has been that that has been a difficult thing to do.
>> there is an economic question of the velocity of hitting bottom and a political question of hitting bottom. the administration wanted to slow down that the loss of teeth. is that a problem for republicans -- the administration wanted to slow down that velocity. is that a problem for republicans? is that an economic imperative? >> i am helping governor kerrey right economic policy. i am and about in that campaign. more and more of the republican candidates have had realistic discussions about what you just described. it's going to have to get worse before it gets better. we are going to have to rip the band-aid off because we have not allow ourselves to do it. the same is true in naples,
florida and all of the nation. we have not cleared the junk out of the system as we have been able to do in the past. there is something to be said for creative destruction in a capitalist system. i am glad to hear the candidates talk about it. the administration has been telling people, we will make it better for you and we will fix this problem for you. >> many people accused the administration of coming down on the too harsh side of that trade off. i was in many housing meetings as a member of that team. moral hazard was always in the room. many people on the other side of the sense were pushing us to go much further in terms of bailing people out. the issue is, why should my neighbors get a break what i have been good at paying my mortgage?
the administration was quite cautious and has been criticized. >> we were in a background briefing with someone no longer in the administration. i remember one of your colleagues saying, there was a little bit of fear that this foreclosure process would work the way it is supposed to. people would think that it would be financially better to walk away. what do you do about that? is in our interest to walk away from your home, particularly a second home? that is why we have all of these vacant beachfront houses in florida or the issue in las vegas. those are the two highest examples of that. >> the question you have to ask is, is it better in the short term with the long term? to a certain extent, people are going to do the rational thing, at in the rational way.
it is better for me to walk away from it, i will walk away from it. that shifts over to the banks and they are struggling to figure out a way to deal with the situation. >> what about the super committee? do you want them to fail or do you want them to sort it out during the 2012 election? >> i do not want it to fail. i do not think the prospect for success is high. let me put it to you this way. if i wanted to have new ideas about how to fix things in washington, d.c., i am not sure i would have put senator john kerry on the commission. that is not an influx of new ideas on how to fix problems in washington, d.c. >> a democrat might say the same thing about jon kyl.
five meetings. they have come up with a schedule. i am not sure they have agreed how to count which baseline to use in terms of how they will measure their cost savings. at the end of the day, whether they succeed or fail, it is only $1.20 trillion over the next 10 years. that is 1% of the anticipated deficit over that time. if i come up with a program tomorrow saying we cut $1.20 trillion, 80% of those cuts will be in years a, nine, and tin of -ceiling window. that is the bigger issue. can we deal with the budget issue on a grander scale. >> i do not think any of us believe it is going to succeed. there is this sense that both parties have that, we will let
the voters decided in november. the most likely outcome is that one party will have a marginal advantage because they held the white house. you will still have this gridlock on capitol hill. what is the sense that that will somehow motivate to say, let's go get it $4 trillion. >> i am not sure if i understand the question. pwas going to finish major's oint. this will be solved in the election. sooner or later, it will be fixed. you cannot continue to spend the money you do not have. either we decide the way to fix it or the folks lonely us money will decide how to fix it. -- loaning us money will decide how to fix it. >> the fact that congress's
approval rating is 9% is indicative of the american public's complete, fed up attitude about this kicking the can. even kicking the can to the super committee strikes a lot of people. henry waxman told me that it is patently offensive. most people go to work and do their jobs. we need congress to do the same thing. in terms of understanding the basic economics of the budget is impossible. my colleague said that $800 billion is a big stimulus. it is temporary. it contributes less than 0.5% of the deficit to gdp ratio in 2012. it contributes nothing to be that as a going forward.
the bush tax cuts, if they were to actually expire, the budget deficit as a share of gdp would be the% in 2021. we are not talking about -- would-be 3% in 2021. >> i have spent a lot of time on the campaign trail. one of the most repeated an impasse and promises of candidate obama was to make sure the bush tax cuts would never be extended. the bush tax cuts for the wealthy were extended. the theory was that it would be helpful and economic times -- in an economic context to do something stimulative. they were extended and what happened? the economy slowed down.
to both of you, what does that tell us about the economic vitality of the bush tax cuts and the propriety of the president extending them. >> extension of the bush tax cuts in december of 2010 was the price of a lot of other stuff that was much better and more effective in terms of boosting the holiday period extended unemployment insurance benefits. it was the political price. high end tax cuts helped little in terms of stimulus. you run into the problem i mentioned earlier with tax cuts. they are marginal propensity is to consume an extra dollar. it does not help you much. >> in the traditional keynesian economics, we focus a lot on consumption.
one part of the equation of what creates gdp. it is 70%. look what happened during the stimulus. what was able to get to these folks -- they went to walmart and they bought clothes that they needed to get by every single day. this had a negative impact on exports. the healthiest part of the economy right now is the business community. that is the one place right now that has money. households do not have money. businesses have money. to the point of the bush tax cuts -- you talk about the super rich and i will not use pejorative terms. that is where the money is. if businesses are where the money is, if high what individuals are with the money is and we want to stimulate the economy -- if we are going to
try to boost the economy, why not go to the segment of the economy than is healthy and say, what do you need to get us out of this? >> what do the last few years of that economic activity tell us about the economic vitality of extending those tax custom of -- of extending those tax cuts. >> you can sit here all day and play these what if games. the truth of the matter is, it could have been much worse if we had not kept those in place. the president himself has said he did not raise taxes during a recession. >> they are the ones with the money. the reasons corporate profits are not just back to where they were, but have surpassed that is
because the ones who are doing better are the ones who have figured out how to sell into growing and emerging economies, which do not happen to include the u.s. and europe right now. they can do -- they can sell outside our borders. we have got to get those folks off of the sidelines. what is holding them back is more money, more resources, more tax cuts. this is what we get from the republican side. a tax repatriations the site -- a tax repatriation program. what they need to see our people, shopping customers, orders, projects they can invest in in this country. that is where the tax thing does not help you. >> i will bring in our able and ready online moderators. every public function becomes
-- function as an online component. >> we will start with taxes, something you have spoken a lot about in the last few minutes. do you think an income tax increase by the end of 2012 is inevitable? or will folks against the tax increase when again in 2012 like they did in 2010? >> will be boys tax cuts whichuled expiration -=-- tax cuts scheduled exploration -- expiration happen? >> no one wants sequestion. no one believes the super
committee will be able to do anything, which leaves you with a blank slate. i am sorry. i lost my train of thought. >> the question is, will be tax -- the bush tax cuts expired or will there be another political compromise? >> first of all, in 2013, if the president is three elected, we will see high and tax cuts. in 2012, i do not have a good crystal ball. since you worked on mitt romney -- rick perry's plan and we have a chance to talk about that, it will be fun. >> do you think because we are seeing more of an aggressive tax campaign -- the flat tax coming from cain.
mitt romney is feeling the pressure to do something a little bitter -- bigger on tax reform. what does that do to the conversation in congress for 2012? >> we talked about tax reform within the budget in march. the budget that paul ryan drafted and republicans approved in the house contemplated a two tax code with all the loopholes gone. >> i think what the campaign is telling us is that the bush tax code may be coming to an end. if republicans win the white house, when a majority in the senate -- even if they don't, the idea of reforming or changing the tax code is to get into a post-bush era. >> all of the other republican
candidates -- if i missed it, i apologize -- have taken the idea that moving to a system that is more understandable is more fair. it doesn't make any difference how you spend your money or who your tax preparer is. we are moving to a simpler system. >> that sounds good. unfortunately, when you get under the hood of these proposals, let me get to your question about 2012. i cannot imagine that reform by the 2012 election. i cannot imagine that the middle class tax cuts passed before then. it is like apple pie.
you cannot be against it. we are seeing things that the devil than. here is how i see a big problem. i am sure we will give you a chance to defend this. a huge problem with the perry plan because it allows you either to pay a flat tax or sign on to the current system. is passed to be a big revenue loser. -- it has to be a big revenue loser. it is going to lose $570 billion per year. that is huge. you take the social security, medicare, and medicaid, and that is more than the rest of the discretionary budget outside of defense. so we are talking about a level of cuts -- bruce bartlett this morning said this plan cannot be taken seriously on this basis.
when you look at the fact that for the very wealthiest, the very top of the scale, you are cutting their taxes by $1.5 million, the middle-class by $13, and at the bottom of raising their taxes by $160, it is intolerable to me that this will fly. >> i have some of the same questions when we tried to sit down and hammer out this proposal. i challenge it did little bit. we found out that it is modeled after hongkong bank in hong kong, there is a flat tax but it is optional. you can opt into this flat tax. 90% of the people caught into the system. it does attract more people naturally by its very nature. this is to your second part regarding revenues because i asked the same question.
the hong kong system, 15% flat tax, generates almost as much money for gdp as our system does. it is 200 pages long. the percentage of gdp raises almost as much money of the percentage of gdp as our tax system. plus one of the things -- many of them do not scored dynamically. they scored ecstatically. there are billions of dollars of new collected taxes out there every year because the system is too large. geithner does not understand the tax system. $358 billion every year sitting -- >> now i have to figure out my taxes to late.
>> there is no way the bottom percentile are going to pay more into this system. you can stay where you are. for andard deduction family of four is $50,000. if you make $50,000, $12,500 per person, a family of four is not going to have to pay anything. >> i wondered that myself. i believe, and you can address this, according to the score, they assume because somebody in the campaign told them that the wreck. folks are going to allow the tax plans to expire. there is actually a significant expansion in refundable tax credits that are in the bush tax cuts that would disappear. >> we are getting into some --
>> our next question please. >> this is from the audience in the room. how do you think the success or failure is going to affect the 2012 election? how confident are you that the super committee will meet their deadline? >> will you want to repeat the question? it was a little hard to hear. >> how well the success or failure of the super committee affect the 2012 election? the congressman in a minute ago said no one wants 8 sequester. -- a sequester. those people have skin in the game. but there are a lot of the entitlements exempt from the sequestered. they are exempt from the
sequesters. i do not think it would be all ar.popululaon popula it will -- i don't think have a big impact on the election if the super committee hits a gridlock. i think that is priced into the market. i think people are already operating from the mindset that these guys cannot agree on anything. >> one of the discussions we have is there is a group of folks in congress who thinks they dictate the result of the election. i do not have that level of hubris. i think the presidential election stands on its own. i do not think the outcome is
going to affect the presidential election. >> in 2014, ben bernanke's term is going to expire. let me start with you, congressman. it seems to me that he is now going to get reappointed whether it is obama or a republican presidentbig. >> they do not want the job. >> describe the type of person you expect to take over the fed if a republican is elected president. >> sitting right here. >> i will give you a full disclosure that we have not discussed that with the kerry campaign -- perry campaign. i think one thing that i have heard rumblings of within the conservative wing of my party would be to take a very strong look at moving to do a dual mandate. you heard bernanke say that in the long run the only things the
fed can impact is inflation. rigght now, the fed is to keep inflation within a certain brown per year on average, and to try to encourage full employment. if you use traditional analysis, those two things might be at cross-purposes. two different reactions may be dictated by the fed. there is a group of us who would seriously consider trying to remove the mandate regarding full employment to get the fed back in the business of just controlling inflation instead of moving into -- >> more transparent and more audible. >> ron paul is a friend of mine and i enjoyed my relationship with him as a colleague.
>> transparency. >> everything can be more transparent. >> how would you get rid of the dual mandate? >> we gave it to them in the first place. >> that would deeply freely out to tell you the truth. [laughter] >> that was a non-economic termed. "freak me out." >> because -- >> [laughter] >> it would be a positive spillover. the best economy that we have enjoyed from the perspective of the broad middle class was basically a new york minute in there in the 90's when the economy achieved full employment. at that point, wages had and incomes of lower income, middle income were growing at pace because we achieved full employment. in an economy with diminished
borrowing, a tiny union percentage, the best friend we have in the global economy is at tight labor markets and full employment. if anything, i would turn the volume way up on that side of the mandate particularly in the world where price pressures have been far less of a problem than job growth and unemployment. >> i will give you the last word if you would like to have it. >> the other time we came so close to that was in the mid 2000's right before the bubble burst on what was happening with new technology. i think it is easy to look back and say the end of the 1990's was great. no one anticipated the surplus being there. i cannot remember the specific policy that was designed to get to full employment.
bernanke will tell you in the long run that he cannot have that impact because it is a fiscal decision. >> the economy was humming. that is what america needs right now. another scandal. >> that is why we have chuck todd. >> a little comic relief here. [laughter] >> "static," dynamic." >> on behalf of jared bernstein, mick mulvaney, and chuck todd, i think all of you for your attendance. i am invited victoria lion monroe back up here. >> thank you, gentlemen, thank you, congressmen. today's event was filmed by c-
span. additionally, the archives of this morning's events will be on nationaljournal.com. i would like to thank our underwriters, the association of home builders, and the american beverage association for helping to make this morning possible. thank you again for joining us. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> coming up this afternoon, a hearing on an epa regulation dealing with power plant pollution and the impact on job growth. at 6:30 eastern, gary shapiro on what recommendations at the technology committee is making to the joint deficit reduction committee. later tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern, a live debate between herman cain and newt gingrich. they have agreed to a lincoln-
douglas style debate. tomorrow on "washington journal," an economist on unemployment and the u.s. economy. and a democratic strategist discusses recent developments in the 2012 presidential campaign including poll numbers and advertising. after that, the center for responsive politics talks about the influence on next year's election. "washington journal," live on sunday on c-span. >> when i finally started selling my book, every person i worked with had a rejection letter from. you would go to a meeting and they would love your stuff, but what about this? [laughter] >> he questions the motivation, ethics, and morality of brilliant people.
"bringing down the house of" followed a group of mit students. his latest book tracks a possible astronaut candidates. now, it is your chance to ask a question. live, sunday at noon eastern on c-span2. >> i think reading to write books are helpful. but really, the wrong books can be educational as well. like seeing a bad movie. >> a cleopatra author has advice for riders. she won a pulitzer prize and spent time as a senior editor. >> i think every young writer out there should remember that publishers are desperate for new books to be published. there should be a glimmer of hope for what is yet to be done.
>> more sunday night on c-span. >> next, virginia attorney general ken cuccinelli testifies on why he believes a regulation known as maximum achievable control technology reduces job growth and increases energy costs. held by the house oversight committee, this is 2 hours. >> this meeting will come to order. the oversight committee exists to secure two fundamental principles. americans have a right to know that the money washington takes from them is well spent, and second, americans deserve an effective government that works for them. our duty on the committee is to
protect these rights. our responsibility is to hold government accountable to taxpayers because taxpayers have a right to know what they get from their government. we will work tirelessly in partnership with watchdogs to deliver the fax to the american people and bring general reform to the bureaucracy. this is the mission of the committee. mmittee. today, a debate is unfolding in america about how much government in our lives. from this side of capitol hill all the way to pennsylvania avenue, there were hearings everyday and listening sessions every day about the creation of jobs. today we are going to listen about whether or not a tsunami of regulations some will
intended, expedited, some perhaps in conflict with each other or creating an environment in which the economic downturn wi be prolonged. on the one hand, the obama administration has been stubborn in its determination to issue costly regulations and pay little regard to the impact of these mandates on the broader economy. on the other hand, the administration has admitted that there are at least 500 regulations that need to be withdrn. they've talked in terms of duplicative regulations. they've talked in terms of believing regulatory burdens on job creators so much so that the gallup poll of job creators and entrepreneurs consider the number one impediment job creation to be in fact regulatory excess. today we are going to hear about utility mtters. the environmental protection
agency epaproposed an issue of this will and 11 billion-dollar world but in fact by most of the people on both sides of the ogle who are looking at the high end of what it could cost the curtain times that or more anything that causes the price of energy and its availability to suddenly change will disrupt markets, will change th balance of cost effectiveness here in america because after all if you increase the price of an essential fuel like electricity, you will by definition increase the cost of doing business and particularly for manufacturing jobs which often depend on a high volume of electricity in order to create efficiencies to offset the advantages to third world countries in the less-expensive labor. whether you are in florida or as thfirst witness today,
virginia. whether you are adonor of the fuel of the greatest choice, that being called for in fact recipient to the power plants you know that in fact the grid depends of the 51% out of the reliable power it takes from coal. we applaud the epa for continuing the tradition to to find ways to continually clean up all of our energy sources to reduce particulates and particularly set the standard for reducing mercury. we have no objections to the attempt to on an ongoing basis increase the reliability of our power plants to deliver clean energy. at the same time, 24 attorneys general's both democrats and republicans have requested the epa to postpone issuan of its role for one year.
today we will hear from one of those attorney general's along with the epa and a think tank individual giving free different views from three different perspectives. this is not the last hearing we will have on the speed with which we can make their and water cleaner and the cost that will have. and no case do we want anyone to misunderstand. if this rule does not take place, air and water will be as clean tomorrow as it is today. if this world takes place a year from now, and it is diffent and better, it will only increase the cleanliness and the reliability that comes with good clean energy here in america.
>> consider the technology topics that this committee has not held a hearing for. status and consolidation, implementation of the plant or approving the acquisition workforce. we have not held hearings on filling the holes or how to improve training for personnel. we have held markups of legislation to create new funded mandates but not the legislation
for streamlining consolidation or the cloud-based data storage processing and republican leadership has abandoned the most important issues of federal technology and management issues which are of vital importance to one of the most important job- creating sectors of our economy. instead of focusing on these important topics, the majority has decided to attack limits on mercury and other pollution. dpas updating toxic mercury pollution because the court found that the prior rule on behalf of the polluters violated law. under he obama administration, the epa is trying to do its job and reduce oxic pollution as the congress directed in 1990. sep attempts to administer the clean air act, it's worth recalling the clean air act to step bipartisan support. the sign in to in to lob a
republican president 40 years ago and strengthened substantially by republican president in 1890. they any empirical measure the clean air act is a wild success. it saves lives. major regulations implemented on the clear act have saved far more money than the cost to the implement. since the clean air act was passed commend the u.s. economy is currently 200% but the vibrant new clean energy industry that creates jobs without creating disease is associated fossil fuel production. the regulation the committee majority is attacking today's typical of the clean air act regulations that will save lives and money. according to crs, the utility will save 6800 to 17,000 lives per year with a net savingof at least $48 billion. the republicans claim to be concerned to life-saving public health data were teatened director liability of the
supply. once again, we're presented with a fals choice. in this case, a false choice betwe electricity and clean air. those of us would've been outside today breathe cleaner air cleaner air brake your nation's capital as a direct result of the clean air act. and yes, there are four cars on the road and kilowatts of electricity being produced and when congress passed the clean air act in 1970. primary republican witness today, virginia attorney general canet cuccinelli has used his office to focus on narrow ideological issues that in my view squander taxpayer invement. he's subpoenaed a uva professor michael mann in 2010 because he believed the well-regarded climate research might quantifies front and researching a lot. not surprisingly the circuit court disagreed and attorney general cuccinelli is appealing to the virginia supreme court. the witchhunt has strong condemnation from 800 virginia scientists. the conservative if almost every
major newspaper in the commonwealth american association of defense science and so many others. it's appalling to taxpayer money would be squander in a vain attempt to discredit a single climate scientists. in addition to litigating against his own sttes, premier university founded by thomas jefferson by the lawsuit against the federal government for the epa findings of the greenhouse gas pollution poses a danger to human health and welfare. unfortunately, a character for the monarch republican party and attorney general cuccinelli has fulfilled the predictions come a suggestion it's given this bizarre ideas he would very likely become an embarrassment to the commonwealth. i regret that we are holding this hearing instead of dwelling -- going into other topics i think would be more per.good and would create jobs. without i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman.
members will have seven days to submit opening statements extraneous material for the record. we will now recognize their first witness, the distinguished attorney general of the commonwealth of virginia, the honorable ken cuccinelli. pursuant to the committee rules, all witnesses here will be sworn. would you please rise and take the oath quiet do yu solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? let the record indicate the witness answered in the affirmative. i ill take a point of privilege very briefly. i appreciate your being here today. i am going to regret that there were some levels of the previous openinstatement that may have seemed personal and i apologize to the extent that you were
offended. we appreciate your being here. the recognizer one of many attorney general's that is involved in this end i think i'm an overall committee basis, i would say we are very pleased to have you here as a representative in hope that you'll take the spirit of the full committee witut any questions you may have from other opening statements. with that, you are recognized. you have to push the little green button first. and then you may have to get a little closer. thank you. >> cha and i sat ranking member coming from member of the committee, and ken cuccinelli, chairman of the commonwealth of virginia a i want to thank you for the invitation to speak about the role today. one of my duties as attorney general as is common among the attorneys general is to serve as the attorney for utility customers in my state, advocating for fair rates for customers for electric utilities seek rate increases from the commission that approves them.
as you know, publi utilities that have reset by state commissions are entitled under the u.s. constitution to recover from customers for necessary expenses they incurred to provide utilities. that includes th expenses comply with fedel laws and regulations. thatmeans every time new environmental regulations are placed on electric utilities, it is actually the customers i represent to pay the cost. this isn't to say environmental regulations should automatically be rejected because they impose some cost, but it does mean the epa should follow the proper procedures to ensure the alleged benefits of the regulation outweigh the real world costs. unfortunately the epa hasn't been following normal procedures in its regulatory impact analysis for the mact will come and epa conceded it would increase electricity prices and would cost jobs in certain sectors.
yet the epa admitted it did not have sufficient information to quantify those losses. in fact, they will having a huge economic impact on this nation. first, it will increase electricity prices over the course of the next five to 10 years of between 10% and 35% but will vary depending on where you learn what the conditions particularly of her generation and transmission are in your region. that can be a financial death blow for businesses struggling to meet payroll and families on fixed incomes. second, retrofitting power plants to meet the standards will come as you all knobe prohibitively expensive, so there's no question certain plants will close in the nation's electricity supply will decrease, living to upper pressure on prices and likely drown out the possibly blackouts and streamed periods of use. the epa even concedes at least 10 gigawatts of electricity will be lost in the nation's power grid for its first initial
analysis has over 80. that is a pretty germanic difference between the epa and the people who you would expect to know better. third, while the epa says it cannot quantify the number, it acknledges the jobs will be lost. their estimates of 180,000 jobs per year between 20 to team in 2020. for virginia come in the is even weaker than for the rest of the nation, does not mr. connolly is part of virginia, which is worth . majority of electricity for southside and southwest virginia is generated from col. since the mact will increase ices for electricity produced from coal, the poorest part of my state will face the largest price increases, including part of appalachia, one of the poorest parts of america. but it gets even worse. the most import industry and southwest virginia is coal mining. these regulations may pull more
expensive and less desirable to use, which means the economy and southwest virginia again including up alicia will be devastated by the destruction of the coal industry and the jobs lost on with it. whatever you think of the benefits of the mact will come a decision about whether it's prudent policy simply can't be made without considering these other impacts and not just for virginia, but the entire country. what is even worse is that the regulation is important, the epa said just 140 days -- 104 days recently extended to 134 to review more than 960,000 public comments on the impact of the rule. if you compare this to other significant goals for the epa favored few. for more than a year with less comments. this abbreviated review period curred because groups that support the peace positions to the epa and then in a very
friendly settlement, and epa agreed to the short review. this kind o gaming of the system is an affront to proper procedure and the rule of law and really should concern people across the fact term. this obvious attempt to brush the rule through so outrageous that as you noted, mr. chairman, i live with other republican and democratic, governor of iowa and territory of guam filed an amicus brief asking the court not to approve the consent decrees shorten time. given these major economic issues, it's not good enough for the epa to say that it? sufficient information to quantify than negative effects of his regulations. inngs to collect information before imposing the will to make sure the benefits in fact outweigh the costs. if the epa needs more time than it should take a common set of gaming the system by entering into a consent decree, thi shortens the time for review. thank you again for the opportunity to address these issues. >> thank you. even though i didn't limit you
to five minutes, you're perfectly prepared to deliver for five minutes. i now recognize myself for five minutes. the chart up there i think you're probably familiar with, general. it's a little deceiving, though for anyone watching it here that the large blue line represents the late entry nearly a million comments. the two others -- i will ead them because they look like they are not there, but there's life there that represent 214 comments in the case of the middle one, for which there is 344 days of an intervening to evaluate. and then in the case of casper, 3907 in which there were 278, is there any logical reason from your experience both as an attorney and as a representative your estate, that she wouldn't have for nearly a million at least as much time as you did
for 214 comments. >> done a logical reason. >> what you think the reason is quite >> it's hard to escape this is being ran forward and i understand there are policy goals. given the impact and i would venture to guess having not read all 960,000 comments -- >> i'm sure it even combined no team highs, they probably relate primarily not to mercury, even though that's where this all begins. because of the massive impacts across the economy and across the industries that are it. >> i am going to put up another piece on this. could you get that diagram up? this one baffles me a little bit. perhaps he could help explain it. when we look at health-related items in this new standard, if i read correctly that little sliver of red fire is the
mercury that's going to be dead. all of the flu area represents particulates. if that's your understanding of what we're dealing with here? >> my understanding is nearly all are not consistent with this graph that any benefits will come from the non-mercury elements of this rule. >> most of the technology that has to be developed and implemented overnight and the cost will cause from the compared is coming not harmless, but particularly at nonfactor mercury is so many people are legit. >> that's correct. tautology to receive the mercury benefits if left to stand alone is a lot simpler and cheaper to utilize them what's necessary for the whole package. i'm sure that's no surprise. but it also tried to radically though it quantified into the
shutdowns of plans. >> let me ask on the question because he looked at the regulatory impact much more than anyone else has. my understanding is that when bp's mandate to regulate particulates comes under that, a whole different discipline. does that appear here as though they are combining 99-point some% of this bill subside under a section in the review process that isn't appropriate? >> absolutely. none of this is beyond epa's reach through mo explicit authority that they have elsewhere in the act. and yet, i know there is always or often in legislation there're sort of catchall phrases and whatever else you think might be unhealthy kind of language. when one gets crammed in there along with mercury is explicitly express our house. italian appropriate to address at this rate.
>> a couple quick follow-ups. one of the ranking members from virginia mention one under 60,000 lines of the clean air act case each year the epa figures. many of the estimates appear that at least 280,000 jobs will be lost as a result of this legislation in its current form. how does that impact your state of virginia quite >> again, i point to virginia will be affected differently in different parts of the commonwealth. if you got a martinsville where they have over 20% unemployment, desalvo lost manufacturing their that we are rather hopeful if we can economic and keep relatively cost-effective energy prices and make the match were difficult for that to happen in the swath of virginia unemployment is
particularly high. imagine what happens at west virginia, which is not a rich area either. >> you are never clean coal, but this would still be cold i would be upset. ck to manufacturing, i wanted to focus on this because i'm a former manufacturer myself. nature of american manufacturing is a understand is we take affordable energy and the leverage it to compete against less expensive labor in third world countries. in this essenally would take maybe two-kilowatt hour power and increase it by three or four times. it's a huge increase if your base fuel is: it becomes natural gas. is that correct? >> i can't speak to the decrease of increase, but there is no question that the state we are in is much more marginal for us to become economically competitive and anything close to the changes described take
si -- makes us nompetitive with large loss of the world. >> my time is more than expired. >> is good for you to be better. i'd like to put on the record that i would like to have the joint statement from the attorney general of the state of maryland, my state, doug hanson and robert adam summers some of the secretary of t department of environment statement inserted and successfully implemented a law that required reduction in emissio from coal rning power plants. rio verde reduce mercury emissions by 80% without effect in my ability in doing so has put jobs in maryland. has to be part of the record. >> without objections to order. >> mr. attorney general, exposure to the toxic pollution from power plants such as hydrolytic acid to mercury
causes a wide variety of health conditions. these include asthma, which i suffer from another respiratory ailments and developmental disorders, birth defects, cancer and to. do you disagree with any of the signings? >> when not in a position to give you medical assessment. i'm just here to talk about the legal side. >> i understand that. you were sworn in in the technical state are you not? >> i think you take into consideration anything that might cause to provide these different things. that's why he asked. >> certainly take those things into consideration i was looking for a balance. >> it has also been reported among industrial united states at coal and oil fired power plants emit the most of all pollutants in 2009. you disagree with?
>> i'm not in a position to disagree. i would note that we have some co-located among their utility as oil and coal. and one thing would've led to the same because we see the voile infrequently, only when we have peaked demand, if those that's one way that would've provided more flexibility for peak demand why still achieving many of the pollution reduction goals we set here. >> it's been >> i've heard that, yes. >> do you have any reason to disagree with that estimate? >> strikes me as quite optimistic, that it's such a large number. but i haven't done any independent research on that, no.
>> mr. attorney general, andersen u.s. federal judge as he testified this to delay the final air toxic roles for one year, making many of the same arguments we've made here today. is that in the form of a brief? >> it was, yes. >> re: wiki or toxic roles have been legally required byhe clean air act since 1990, 21 years ago? >> i am aware of that, yes. >> i'd like to enter into the record the judge denied this request. the congressmenwould be given under way and i asked that be admitted. >> without objection although it noted went hand-in-hand with the 30 day extension and may not be germane 30 days from now. >> i understand. but is that basically the same argument quite >> the same judge told the epa that if they need more time they
can come back and she would grant it. so it is not from our perspective a close question. >> i understand. without i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. we now go to the gentleman from the coal producing alternate capital, cleveland, ohio, mr. kucinich. >> revert a time mr. chairman. -- happy birthday, mr. chairman. attorney general, welcome to this committee. as attorney general, isn't part of your responsibility to protect the residents of virginia and not put them at greater risk for illness or even premature death to pollution? >> protecting the people of virginia is an important part of my job, yes. >> is their responsibility to protect thpeople of virginia
from air pollution related illnesses that could cause premature death? >> part of what we do in my office is enforce environmental laws and we are progressives about doing that, so yes. >>ow many prosecutions have you ha of environmental polluters since been in office? >> ordinarily the way that is resolved is with the epa. i'd are not many. i know without a regular flow of them -- >> have you recommended prosecution fopolluters? how many have you recommended? could you speak quite specific? >> we have resolved all of them with consent decrees. >> we meaning he'll? >> inevitably it is our department of environmental policy negotiating on the epa. >> have you been in the negotiations related to resolve
things >> my personal involvement i related to improving of those negotiated by the attorneys in my office and with epa and the defendant questioned. >> and you know, what the outcome of those have been? had they been consent on behalf of communities that have complaints about pollution? >> yes, that's exactly how they've been resolved. typically finds that requirements going forward in court order for all cared to be taken. >> cirrhosis has been instrumental, you are saying and causing polluters to be signed. do you have any information you could present to this committee right now about specific cases? >> eight did ot bring specific cases. >> but you could produce -- ll you produce for this committee a
list such cases? >> i'd be glad to. >> could you tell members of this committee. i was particularly interested in some of the equations you were talking about. you said that clean air standards -- they will paraphrase, that they can cost jobs. is that your position? what kind of jobs today cost? can you be specific as to the types of occupations? >> sure, for starters the most obvious ishat since we are coal state, sou assertion in the coal fact good and i'm like thpart of her gender and front, northern virginia has fairly diverse economy, there is not an economic alternative in southwest virginia. so there is a challenge which is the most overt. then comes the industries and businesses reliant on energy as a major component of their cost.
and certainly any manufacturing that would take place, which we have been virginia, and primarily not exclusively inhe southern part of virginia and that the western part of the state, though again it is scattered. >> thank you. you are saying that they cost jobs by definion the coal industry? >> sure. >> is it possible that if you don't have clean air standards that it could also create health problems for people? >> sure, that is the trade-off here. that's the trade-off. >> is dirty air good for poor people? because there'll be less poor people of the air air is dirty or? is it good for poor people because there will be less poor people if there's dirty air? >> dirty air isn't good for anybody, jobs are good for
everybody. can you tell me if you are looking at job calculations about the jobs created by poor air standards. can you think of jobs created by poor air standards? >> the comparison we are looking not and it is in our own. we are swallowing all the studies were as many being done as compared to where we ae now versus what is propose we are not suggesting anything not to be undone. although i do think it would be far more apropriate for epa to decouple some of the elements of the world they are now proceeding on. >> thank you, m chairman. i just wondered f the gentleman was including its advocacy jobs created for undertakers when people don't survive as a result of poo standards. >> the gentleman may respond if you'd like. >> sarcasticly or in general? >> you're the witness. >> no, we are trying to look at
th in the aggregate. and you know, as i said to one overt industry they can really be addressed from virginia's standpoint is the whole industry in the spinoffs they are. after that it becomes the energy cost associated with the gradual rising cost as those incorporated to the utilities because utilities paid none of this. it is the ratepayers to pay for all of this. >> mr. chairman, i appreciate given a chance to respond. we've been talking about commencing 17,000 lives a year on the line with respect to regulations. thank you, mr. chairman. >> i thank you goes. we now recognize mr. connolly for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. in welcome again, mr. attorney general. the national capital region including northern virginia is classified as a nonattainmt reach and in terms of air
pollution. do you know wt percentage of that air pollution is migrating pollution from coal-firepower plants? >> i do not. >> the surprise you to learn a third of the air pollution in this region is saturated to those migrating pollution sources from coal-fired power plants in this region? >> i wuldn't expect anything in this region to have started here. so i created that. the specific numbers don't really suggest. >> certainly if the attorney geral, representing all of virginia, you can understand anxiety and concern in the northern part of the state with respect to pollution caused by coal-fired power plants? >> i don'think that concern is quarantined to northern virginia. i think it is shared across virginia. additionally shared the desire for balance to be achieved as we
gradually keep our air cleaner can improve the standard of living. >> mr. attorney general, the proposition is that showed the speculation goin to affect, who would have devastating effects, both on sources of electricity, and jobs. in 1990, with the clean air act amendments, similar arguments were made. do not have been the price of electricity in the commonwealth of virginia? >> in the intervening 20 years, did it go or down? >> i can't go back to 1990. >> what a surprise detour in electricity rates in the commonwealth of that time. it actually fallen by 35.6%? >> would not entirely surprise me. >> does that not all into question perhaps then the claims that in this particular case that won't work and in fact electricity rates are going to go up? given the experience of the last 20 years.
>> certainly be easier to analyze the argument if there were more than 134 days to look at 960,000 comments, presumably not all of which if you just compare them to other rules, you all had your own here from this committee. i would look at others that the chemical recovery combustion wa 2.5 years commerceppertaining combustion engineer and a half for cement departments that manufacturing. >> wrister cuccinelli, we look at for the past month to consider questions for the same dancers. >> mr. cuccinelli, unfortunately time is limited. certainly the clean air act of 1990 were farmers swping them up in front of us now. what happened to electricity rates another coal-fired -- states with coal-fired power plants in western west virginia, north carolina, ohio, kentucky
and alabama? are their electricity rates intervening 21 years since a sweeping set of amendments quakes are the higher or lower relative to 1980? >> i don't study other states electricity specifically i sit i sit at the national compared to virginia, sunday borders virginia and where the rate case where it's relevant. >> wld it surprise you to learn they're also cheaper? >> i wouldn't be surprised either way not knowing. >> mr. cuccinelli, i was under the impression that in the health care reform act, the afrdable health care act, you were a advocate for nullification. you supported legislation. you supported legislation of the general assembly of virginia that made universal mandates illegal in the commonwealth of virginia is that not correct? >> nullifition is incorrect turned and suggest you don't know hisory. vilification sinise says we are not going to obey your federal law. that isn't what happened in virginia.
the general assembly in a bipartisan basis passed a law. to be exceeded the president signed p. paquette and those two are in conflict. as our constitutional structure provides, we went to court to resolve the disputes of authority related to those two laws. that is not nullification. >> general cuccinelli, you can answer any question you choose to answer, however you are only bound to answer questions that are within your made this a good subject for which were brought here. you may continue. >> mr. chairman, the purpose of my question was not to focus on health care. i wanted to get the opportunity to the attorney general to explain his position because my question has to do with whether -- you don't like nullification and preemption. does the commonwealth f virginia had a similar preemption right if you don't want to subvert nullification power with respect to this regulation your fewest attorney general of virginia? >> i think the commerce clause.
clearly gives congress the mayor for the federal government broad powers to address something what pollution across state lines, whereaif you compare that to the health care example, or during a particular individual to go buy a product, not regulating western commerce, or ordering them into commerce is a completely different comparison. i have no constitutional complaint with what is going on in terms of te exercise of federal authority here. my concerns are policy concerning chemical process concerns. >> so you see the two is different? >> absolutely. we put the processes in place to protect not only rights, but to achieve the best policy outcomes. i know regardless, everyone here would like to achieve the best possible outcomes for this country. i think that we are more likely to do that if we actually take a legitimate amount of time to consider the material that is now before us that is simply not
humanly possible to consider all the comments now before us on the incredibly short time. >> thank you, attorney general and thank you, mr. chairman. >> i asked him his consent up is another record the details of 1990 clean air act showing a five-year period for rule-making exception. additionally, i'd ask unanimous consent that the statement by the union for jobs and the environment, the public comments come utility communion organizations combining says epa data imlies that no coal units in the united states meets all the proposed new sources hepa standards. or the effect goodness of it pollution control devices. that's unions for jobs and environmental public comments. and with that, it would now recognize the former chairman of
the committee, mr. towns. >> today ge it wrong? >> i apologize. i no recognize the distinguished it from the district of columbia, ms. norton. i'm sorry, i didn't see which came first. i apologize. >> that's all right, mr. chaian. welcome, mr. attorney general. there appear to be two separate talks to your complaint. one is the process in the time for the process. i'd like to get to the substance because it would appear that some states already implement stringent mercury emission limits that are even more stringent mercury emission as i understand bp is now compong. so i went to a set of states closed by a a way. can indicate, new jersey, new hampshire, massachusetts and new
york. i hear is what the massachusetts departme of massachusetts department of environmental protection said. experience in massachusetts in emission limits for mercury and other pollutan clearly shows that epa's proposed limits are achievable and effective. for example, although massachusetts mercury emission limit for existing coal-fired power plants are considerably more stringent than those proposed by epa. massachusetts would fill these and have been able to install control equipment with no impact on reliability of electric power and have demonstrated compliance with the interests. mr. attorney general, i does the same technologies available to the state virnia, for example? >> presumably there available
everywhere. >> have you considered the possibility of using those very same technologies to achieve the results in virginia that has been achieved even beyond those even beyond those even beyond those even beyond those its? >> congresswoman, i think you are focusing on what amounts o less tn 1% of what bp is doing and that is the mercury piece of this. the mercury piece is a lot more achievable with a lot less damage than if you pile everything else on top of it. all of your statements with respect to herstory i just accept them as stated in with suggest that it wouldn't cause nearly -- not on an order not t tear the kind of challenge that the whole world the epa -- >> mr. attorney general, the northeast states of the
coordinated air use as epa's opposed rule in here i what they see threw itself is the successful track record demonstrates there are no insurmountable cost -- emphasis on costs as you appear or timing various to achieving epa's proposed mercury and air toxic standards. now, they are speaking beyond the mercury standards. do you disagree with that statement? >> i am not quite sure what they mean by the air toxics. i'm assuming they mean the toxic gases, which you got the mercury, acid gases. you have that particular matter. >> is a air toxic, so i assume they're talking about all the
air toxics. >> if they talk about all, i uld not say what that statement. if they were stickley kiki and the mercury piece. >> they are not strictly speaking of that. >> i thk the mercury piece is probably within reach. >> you think virginia could move forward on the mercury piece? >> if you strip the other stuff out. >> these people when ihad under him, mr. attorney general because they care about the health of their people in the air beyond what epa is now proposing. so you're going away forepa? >> no, ma'am, they are not. they are beyond the vp is proposing an area mercury. >> said they are beyond what they are proposing in mercury alone? they went ahead before epa proposed. i'm asking you, don't you think virginia might go ahead i mercury allowances you think that is achievable? >> virginia could do that, but obviously it's made a policy decision not to do that. i would note that this all has,
as i said before, the balancing consequences. we have a much lower unemployment rate than any state your name. we have a higher economic growth rate than any state you st mean. despite the economic challenges. >> mr. attorney general, i don't know if that case i will not accept them to look at those figures. was ligatur concerned with the process. >> the gentlelady has an additional 30 seconds. >> i thank the gentleman. are you aware that the rule saying alliance apparently to be finalized in december would not have to comply with until 2015 and then extensions could be gotten after that if you demonstrated that an extension was necessary? >> i'm more of the rule goes in effect was approved in mid-december to effect in january and other three-year implementation timeline, i also
know what it takes to replace, to permit into all the steps necessary for utilities in my state to replace certain power generation that will have to be withdrawn inhat time period. and we cannot match the two. we can getind of close, but not match them up. >> in which case, that would be justified. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> that's always true. however, there is a limit on the epa's authority to just extend than relying on that from a business pleading standpoint is not some thing that i can argue before my state corporation commission when utilities come in and say we have to meet this. they don't have to rely on the extension of the law of virginia is dictated by the u.s. constitution because they are granted to write a return is this race will pass thugh to all of our citizens, porous, richest and everyone in between. >> i think the gentlelady and i thank you attorney general. but that i recognize the former chairman of the full committee. i'm sorry.
chairman, you're just cannot do it one more moment. but that it the gentleman from oklahoma for five minutes, mr. langford. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i apologize for taking at the former chairman's time. >> we will make up for it. >> thank you fo being here. my concern is that i went back or decide years ago, congress was congesting hearings and discussions about pushing power generation not natural gas into into nuclear because we are running out of natural gas peers to no more natural gas out there appeared folks tt were used to not need to go into coal. now, plus 35 years, now the federal government says cole might not be a good idea. let's try natural gas and see how that works and it is better or if we can use wind. i think you need to adjust to the provinces the federal
government and now use a series of studies to justify how we want companies to move, that is very difficult on power generations. you can't just plan for next year. better plan for next decade what they will construct. my concern is the cumulative effect of these regulations and if that is then evaluated, is it your opinion of all the thing is coming down i've got three pages worth of different rates coming down right now it is epa on power generation, weatherby 316 v., across tables, whether it may be for cool and a whole litany of issues from the china comes from the ground all the way to fly ash at the point at the end. do you feel that has been adequately studied in this hurry to get through at least a million diffent comments made, with the cumulave effects also evaluated? >> appear after midwicket was inadequately? absolutely not. this hasn't even gone and they're still setting the finalization date in the middle of december.
that's where my self financed process. of course it's november now. so that isn't what happened if they're going to keep to the schedule they've laid out. that is absolutely not been looked at. you mentioned some of the triggered gods with respect to greenhouse gases and i think of the switching of fuels, you know, the fact that we had epa over their improper process in the greenhouse gas endangerment finding was raised earlier. what is interesting about this is it that is so important, this makes it worse. and that hasn't been looked at either in any serious way or maybe. the 960,000 comments. it seems the timeline has been set up so they won't be reviewed, not so that they will. >> that is my concern is that has not been enough time. the president has been very urgent to say we need to look at cuba to the fax if that is not
occur to catechumen of effects with all the rates coming in this the day are coming down to the size of an. one of the statements made by epa was this may have a potential 10.9 alien dollars in annual cost on the economy. it's just that one regulation alone, $10.9 billion. then you start adding all the different areas of 316 v. and everything else coming down. it's fairly significant was happening. i understand comments made to say we continue to have regulations to the power industry. it presupposes some point that doesn't work anymore. you can't for a thousand regulations that they will continue to drive the cost on to adding a regulations. doesn't work that way. at some point you to common sense. >> i certainly agree with that. i would also note executive order 13563 requires epa and other regulators and i quote to tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society consistent with obtaining
regulatory check is, taking into account the cost of cumulative regulations and the pa has not performed cumulative regulations cost analysis in the utility now. >> what about the effect on reliability? >> i understand that is widely debated here. it is not much debated in virginia. we are looking for one of our utilities probably $250 million of transmission infrastructure costs. those bylaw passed right through to the ratepayers. on top of that, from a public policy standpoint, i was in the state senate. these are the ones people scream about. this is where power lines will be built across 50, 60 miles of people's backyards that do not now exist and are going to be necessary to provide flexibility in the grid, to meet the reliability requirements that you would expect of a modern
electrical grid. so we are also looking at that challenge. bennett talked about that at all. >> i would say again, if we make a major decision will affect future planning, we better make it right. 35 years ago we said let's the most critical because that's more abundant than it is for natural gas, now a now a treasury person that we say of denv studies instead of a knee-jerk reaction, which is the same knee-jerk reaction in the same kind of consequence if we don't do this right. with that, i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman from the nature gas producing state. and i think the former chairman of the full committee whose picture adorns the area just behind us, mr. talents for five minutes. >> that only means i've been here a long time. >> okay we will make it six minutes. >> mr. attorney general, you testifd today that one of the impacts of the air toxic rule would be closure of coal, fire
power plants, which will in turn cause job loss. is that correct? >> and with the increase electricity cost that comes with it, yes. >> at evidence from our previous hearings on the subject before the set committee on regulatory affairs, suggest that many of these coal fire power plants are older and would've gone out of business anyway. what is your answer to that? >> i think you are certainly accelerating retirement to part of the cool flea. i do not think in a way to utilities and vision necessarily, but certainly that will be where they try to sacrifice another generation. that is just logic. >> let me ask you this. in a meeting on june the first with investors, the chairman of the american electorate power by the name of michael moore's told investors the following and i
quote: as you know, those are high-cost plans. throughout almost all of 2009, those plans probably didn't run 5% of the time because those natural gas prices. when we shut those down, there will use some cost-saving as well. and on balance, we think that that is the appropriate way to go. what is your responsto that? do you agree or disagree? >> are second-biggest utility is one of their subsidiaries. apco isn't a peace subsidiary. the 5% comment, we have some plans that fit in the category you described. i use the oil fired as an example. and mind you, there is some value to keeping fuel
flexibility. anything if tey are dirtier plants, even if they are but schumacher and all the time, have been available for peak time in the winter and summer as i was suggested great you on both the cost basis and the reliability basis that far outweighs the benefits he might get by shutting them down permanently, which as his comments suggest, what is going to happen. and i think when you -- moving them perhaps from a broad 24/7, 365 positions to using them as peak power would be a great alternative for america. he would achieve, even if you accept all the health claims, everything come without disputing any of that, moving from one position to the other would be a huge boon and with tremendous cost savings from an opportunity cost perspective that are dropped on ratepayers
because you moved them over instead of shutting them down. but that is not an option under this rule. it is not an option under this rule. in fact the opposite where you have to put in all the upgrades for their use some 100% of the time or 5% for a 5% plan. so of course you're going to shut it down. >> let me ask. ee plans to close two plants in virginia and glenn bland, is th true? >> well, i can't think for ap, but i certainly woud expect they are on the box, yes. >> ap agreed to retire those plants under 2007 consent decree over violations of environmental law. isn't that right? >> i don't know that shutting them down as part of any consent decr. >> my time is about to expire. mr. attoey general, it seems to me that your testimony before
us today is a transparent attempt to blame the government for the fact that many high-cost dirty coal plants could not compete in today's market, even before the air toxic rule goes into effect. >> and they would be shut down of their own course. >> you know, i know when you answer, that you only represent virginia, but when you -- actually in the position of atrney general company do have to look at what happens in other states as well and then you make an opinion and actually evuate whether it's good, bad or indifferent. you have to compare it with something. so i want you to know you do have to look at other states. you ju can't look at virginia. >> my comic to that effect was only with respect to specific data for those particular states. paper you've got to draw from
experience of other parts of the country in other states and i do do that in trying to do what is best for virginia. >> i get back. thank you for coming to testify. >> let me make a quick comment as well. i would take a quick moment and then yield to mr. connolly and then we'll make a transition as well. there are 25 other states obviously rep senate in this brief. it's not just virginia we talk about at this point. this is not just single state issue. this is a national issue when all that is happening. currently, what is in place on this is not just stealing with a small group of plants out of date, but there are no coal plants that can abide by this nationwide. no one is at the standard at this point. that is the challenge to figure what do we do with this but no single utility will not be affected bthis process? a quick question for the attorney general is well doing with the combined regulations we
talked about the killing of effects is. american coalition for clean coal electricity estimated that some of the combinations, an increase electricity between 12% and 23%. i know we are guessing earlier on some figures. he did support pretty tough, especially. but numbers have you seen? >> and our last round of utility rate cases and i am now awaiting orders on what is the center ground since i've been attorney general, but in the last round we saw -- we analyze rate increases is related to federal, not state, just federal environmental regulation and 35% to 40% of increases or pastor environmental cost. in virginia unlike north carolinaome utilities can absorb these costs is to incur an ongoing basis.
in north to any utilities can tinker until they ip a switch under the new plan timeline. so it happens a variety of different ways,but it goes. edelman had a couple townhall meetings as attorney general they were both on utility rates and the poor parts parts of our state because it is hard to describe from people who are not from poor parts of the state what utility rates mean to the people of these households. when you talk about 10 bucks a month or 20 bucks a month more, it is real moneyin a small house that is pulling me the 1250ilowatts, which is an apco average. that is big dollars to them. it hurts when they aren't fixed incomes is a large swath of that portion of that you had is relative to the rest of
virginia. we see that a lot of the poorest parts of virginia. make no mistake about it. there'll be economic economic consequences. you will make these decisions all the time about where the trade-off should land. make the mistake about this. do people hurt first and the people her first economically are the poor. they are the poor. patsy will hurt first of will hurt the worst. thank you, mr. chairman. >> with that i yield three minutes to mr. connolly. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i ould note that the attorney general's view of history in mind might be slightly different with reese that to utility rates in even the poor part of virginia. many rate increases he is referring to occur subsequently to the reregulation passed the general assembly of virginia has the favorable to industry, not particularly favorable to this
numerous. mr. attorney general, let me ask you just one question. he talked about utilities. the largest utility in commonwealth of virginia is dominion resources. as dominion resources requested that you challenge the air toxic rule legally or that legistion be introduced to prevent it from being implemented? >> now. as i mentioned earlier under mr. mr. rotation of nullification, virginia isn't in the constitutional position to step in on federal environmental regulation of the constitutional objection. even if we have legislation. the supremacy clause of the constitution is federal law trumping state law, the huskers th you asked about earlier in the supremacy clause contains an exception when the federalaw is not constitutional. no one i know whereof that's what epa is doing is unconstitutional. an approach.
incredibly unique in terms of speed, particularly in light of the volume of the comments and impacts, which even if you asked that the epa's are one of the dispute. >> the answer is so far the largest utility they seek to overturn the rule. i mean on the federal level. >> have you received -- as the attorney general of virginia can have your seat communication or indication from the largest utility of the commonwealth that like you or others in fact try to seek to overturn this pending war. >> now. my concern is smart ratepayers and it is with utilities. >> thank you. mr. chairman, i would just add
a million public comments evaluated in the way that is appropriate before we set a regulation that people may asked for extensions on but which may in fact be a different regulation that if all these comments are properly viewed in a public way. so your attention here and willingness to come on short notice we very much appreciate, and again, i appreciate people willing to come before this committee. it's not alwys pleasant but it's essential. i yield back. >> we will take a short recess and sft to th . >> the hearing will reconvene.
we recognize the honorable robert perciasepe deputy administrator of the united states agency [inaudible] -- all witnesses are to be sworn. please stand and take the oath. raise your right hand. thank you. u.s solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? thank you. with the record reflect the witness answered in the affirmative. pursuant to the normal routine, i know you have five minutes or more to give. you're entire statement will be placed in the record. you may read off of it or summarize it we would only ask you try to remain fairly close for the time for questions and with that you are recognized for
five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman and representative connally and members of the committee. i appreciate the opportunity to appear for you to the on the mercury and air toxics standards. >> is your microphone on? >> i will move in a little closer. it is clean air necessary to protect health and the environment from the pollution by the plants especially the oldest in the dirtiest and least efficient of them all. the epa will issue a final arcuri and air toxics standard which is the topic of today's hearing on december 16th, 2011. we are not the first administration to recognize the need to clean up power plants and issued rules to address that need. in fact, since 1989 when president george h. w. bush proposed what became the clean air act amendments of 1990, power plant cleanup has been a continuous policy of the united states government under to democratic and republican
presidents. while past epa rules have made progress in reducing the harmful effects of pollution more remains to be done to insure all americans have a clean environment to which they are entitled. the queen of power plant rules, the mercury in their talks extended and across state air pollution rules finalized earlier this summer will achieve major public health benefits for americans that are significantly greater than the costs. these pollution reducing rules are affordable and technologically achievable. there is tremendous public support for moving forward with these rules. since march we've received hundreds of thousands as has already been mentioned of the comments from the public urging us to reduce mercury emissions from power plants. the mercury and air toxic would have a significant public health benefit from a sample if we reduce mercury which can cause neurological damage in children exposed before birth. the rule as proposed also is projected to avoid thousands of
premature death, thousands of non-fatal heart attacks and hundreds of thousands of asthma attacks. this would provide americans with five to $13 in health benefits for each dollar it costs. our analysis and past experience indicate warning from the consequences of moving forward with these important rules or exaggerated. while not the focus, the mercury and air toxics standard rule has the potential to improve productivity and provide jobs. we estimate the proposed rule would result in 850,000 fewer work days missed due to illness and could support 31,000 jobs years of short-term construction work. the net of $9,000 of long-term utility jobs. money spent on pollution control and power plants provide high-quality american jobs in manufacturing steel, cement and other materials needed to build the pollution control equipment and installing the equipment and operating and maintaining of the equipment and many of these jobs
that are jobs that will not be and cannot be shipped overseas. in fact the united states is a leading exporter of the pollution control equipment. our publicly available analysis shows the epa rules affecting power plants are affordable. the siskel lubber read the weather outside groups and some in the industry who recognize that issuing the rules in the same time can help provide power companies with a certainty they need to make smart and cost-effective decisions. as we did more than two decades ago, we are also hearing claims the rules will lead to potential adverse impacts on electric reliability. epa analysis projects that the agency rules result in only a modest level of retirements that are not expected to have an adverse impact on electric generation resource adequacy. our rules will not cause the lights to go out. while there are some industry studies suggesting the rules will result in substantial power planned retirements in general they share a number of serious
flaws. most notably as the congressional research service emphasized in august, these studies often make assumptions about requirements of the rule the inconsistent with and dramatically more expensive than the epa's actual proposals. in some cases the analysis performed before many of the regulations in question were even proposed. in closing i would like to suggest that the committee should be clear about what is at stake and those who have stalled in cleaning up the pollution calls as those who have stalled the cleaning up the pollution call for further delay. deily encourages companies to avoid upgrading america's infrastructure and putting people to work modernizing the facilities and most importantly deily beans public health benefits reducing harmful pollution are not realized. thank you and i look forward to answering your questions. >> thank you. i will recognize myself for the first five minutes. and i will kind of take your opening statement in reverse order. if i understand the nature every
time one of the political standards i just want to understand you really don't usually do much to the overall facility. it's no romilly additional clinical but isn't that true in this case? >> yes but obviously from the engineering perspective it has to be integrated and to the operation of the facility. >> that begs the bigger question isn't it true that today there is no utility that you can show us that is able to implement this entire standard today. i know there are pieces of it in various places but no utility is currently able to implement isn't that true? >> i don't believe that that is correct. i believe we'll get the best performing plants are around the country. >> boe we look at that and you look at each plant and put together various plants and say if you do this and this and this like frankenstein you can get one person.
but you make the assumption you can put together the best of all these plants. some of these plants have different long combinable operations in the current time; isn't that true? >> i believe that plants can make the standards and some do, but i would like -- >> is there any standard plant today? use it some of them do. could you answer for the record of a single plant that meets this standard today we would be thrilled to hear that because we just had an attorney general, one of 25, 24, and sorry, who have asked for a delay as you know in order to get public comment but most importantly they have asserted else does coming and i will put it in for the record the unions or jobs in the environment public comments a union, combined trade union organization who believes that today there are no standards isn't a not uncommon the epa
believes a standard will be compliant with the standard can be achieved within the time parameter and that it might be and i want to give the benefit of the doubt it might be that you could, they could achieve the 2015 isn't it part of the assumption not that they exist today that if you take all of the analysis they could achieve by 2015. they are proposing for power plants has to be based on available technology that is currently performing at the level that we are the opposing. >> if you have the epa deliver us one power plant of what's just say make a lot or above that uses coal that currently meets the standard we would appreciate having the for the record and we will hold the record over. if we could put up the pie chart earlier today we had one of
those 24 attorneys general who cities and there she is not a scientist skilled in this area that he believed when it came to the area that would be under this normal regulatory process which is the mercury that is incredibly small sliver of paint if this standard will only affecting mercury he would be the shorter comment period with a great likelihood of achievement is possible do you agree with that of mercury is not what is driving most of the objections from what you can tell? >> that chart is correct. the best i can tell, mr. chairman. spinets from your analysis but we couldn't resist using your own figures because they seem compelling. isn't it disingenuous a term we like to use in washington more often than maybe we should but isn't it disingenuous for the epa to talk endlessly about
arcuri and its effects of which were very concerned about when in fact the best record is particulates and if not 920 out of 930,000 comments the vast majority of those comments are of the march report should come a portion which is probably achievable well within the time parameter three estimate the effect on children effect their -- >> my question is very narrow. it's not the effect of mercury. it's the technology exists today or can predictably exist to meet the 2015 s to mercury isn't the combining of particulate normally covered by another part of your authority it fairly disingenuous use of the benefit because the benefit of reducing the mercury and the technology to reduce the mercury for
appears not to be in widespread conflict in fact you get to the mercury only standard you might likely have much greater implementation. >> we can't quantify by neurological impact on children -- >> the result of the benefits as the pollution control achievement for mercury and arsenic amoco and chromium and the gases which are all regulated which have implementations we think have benefits is a good thing in those benefits also have substantial public health benefits so it is the same --
>> the same equipment that is making those reductions and fine particles >> these are the controls but will reduce the other divisions emissions. >> i recognize the ranking member. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> one follow-up i think the gentleman. for roughly 90 present of the benefits york claiming under this regulation would already occurred under project of that reduction under max isn't that true in other words your double counting you have some of the regulations would cover 90% of this your accounting 100% of the reduction in particular when in fact 90% of it is going to occur and those of the benefit, so i guess for the record the differential between the two
standards the last 10% on a particular its what portion of the co benefit would actually occur in other words it is the last little fraction of reduction. >> by the program which clearly the amount of reduction here in the cost my understanding is that about 90% of the particular reduction under that part of the regulatory authority order basically. >> what i have to answer is this rule is aimed at reducing the air toxic emissions those air toxic emissions i mentioned in the acid gases or the same control technologies are used. >> yeah understand that but here's the point, much of this standard for the particular is
below what you say is safe by your own figures. so when you say you get down to the sluve ball you now have clean air, you've defined clean and safe and yet in this regulation you are regulating on the standard lower than what to say is necessary. in a nutshell is in it true that your regulatory authority in said the point in which air is safe? >> your staff is shaking know behind you. if you can answer that you think you have a regulatory authority it needs a threshold which is saved by your own standard i would like to hear it. two quick points deregulating air toxic here and it's a technology standard that's looking at the festival technology, the maximum available technology as for the mac stands for for the toxic. it gets those benefits. it gets the benefits of reducing the fine particle pollution
which we think is great and there are health benefits even below the standard. >> why is it you have 15 milligrams per cubic meter per billion etc., etc. 15-milligram standard and yet you've got your new you are now sitting -- that is would you consider safe on the one hand, and then you come in below 11.5 milligrams and i can't think in terms of that small but i agree the particulates even in the small amounts are important to look at. but why wouldn't you change your standard, supported with science, change your standard to in item come to an amount below the 11.5 before regulating and claiming benefits below the 11.5. doesn't it seem like you've declared queen as 15 and regulating below that and taking credit for cleaner -- i'm not a scientist and i will not claim
to have any expertise in this. i can just look and say there is an inconsistency like a set of books that don't balance. you may not know where the missing money is that if you don't balance you go looking for it. why not have a standard that is adjusted based on science to match the greater regulatory requests you're making. >> we are making the air toxics. the nickel, the or cemex, the acid gases, the kunkel technologies to read a spread of door claiming the benefits of the particulate. >> they are real. they will accrue to the american public. why not lower the standard to the 11.5 or below so that you are consistent in what you say you want to reduce to respect a air quality standards set under the science process where we have science advisers that advice on what level is adequate, adequate for the protection of public health. it doesn't mean that there are not public health benefits below that level. and that's what we are looking
at here. these are co benefits from controlling the air toxics, that is the objective of this particular rule making. >> thank you for your efforts and i recognize the ranking member. >> i thank the chair. mr. perciasepe, the chairman said after the question of whether any coal-fired power plant in the united states could possibly be completed with the proposed rule i have a list in front of me of existing coal-fired power plants that are already fully compliant with the proposed rule including four in my native state of virginia despite the testimony of the previous witness that nobody in virginia could become plight. i got four of the power plants, coal-fired power plants suffer fully compliant today. are you aware of them?
>> i know there's some that are in compliance with of the rules. >> i would ask without objection. >> there is a new one under construction in your state and virginia city. >> i would ask unanimous consent -- >> we will be providing information. >> is it also not true that nearly 60% of all of the coal-fired power plants that report emissions to the epa are compliant currently with the proposed limit for mercury? >> i don't know the exact number. perhaps my stuff behind the has the exact number. >> he and i would ask that be entered into the record. >> we can't base the standard on something that hasn't been met by an existing -- >> my point in asking the question is the consumer is some cut off the source of electricity in the united states is a false premise given the
fact 60% are already compliant on the mercury standard is and it further to 73% of all of the reporting units are already complied with a proposed limit for hci? >> it's likely. >> 70% i ask that the injured in the record also 70% of all or on the limit for the particular matter. what we are trying to do is make at the margins and improved for those not comply and some of which as we already heard in the previous testimony the old appliances are probably on the chopping block any how it would serve both consumers and debriding public of the sort of use this occasion to perhaps move on. we also heard from the german concerns about why didn't you just take a lower level. in the previous of ministration try that and wasn't there a court ruling that it was -- and
required more rigorous enforcement? >> on a fine particles i think it was an ozone that there might have been a court ruling or court activity. but i don't know about fine particles. the bottom line is there are health benefits. you're talking about this rule. the previous administration -- >> please finish your sentence to be spread there's a 20 year history. >> you're about to say -- >> the previous administration proposed control for mercury in 2004. >> and what did the court of law -- >> the court of law through those out because they did not comply. >> that is the answer to the german's question. why are you doing this? it is not unique to the obama administration. the previous administration tried to be with the chairman suggested. why not settle for a lower level in a court of law said not good
enough and told epa you have to come up with new regulations. they are tougher than that; is that not correct? >> if the court said that the -- yes, that's correct. it would be regulated under a different part of the clean air. >> that's the answer why you are doing what you are doing to become the court told you you had throop and throughout the bush administration to have a lower standard. it isn't because you just, you know, in some law somewhere decided to just be painted of every one side by coming up with the top part to reach regulations and as the data shows they aren't as a majority of the unit's reporting already meet one or more of the regulations. was this standard on the toxic pollutants envisioned or incorporated in the 1990 clean air act amendments? >> yes. >> why did it take 21 years than to employment fell law passed
the 1990, into the law by the republican president? >> it's hard to imagine that it's taken 21 years to get to this particular point, which obviously flies in the face that we are going to fast. has been looked at numerous times by epa. there have been proposed regulations that were not properly completed, and we are in the situation now in this administration of having to be guided by the judicial branch towards the end that we are now aiming at. >> thank you mr. perciasepe and mr. chairman. >> thank the gentleman. social studies was a long time ago for me. i familiar with the legislative branch. i'm familiar with the executive branch and even the occasional the executive branch over reached. sue and settle was new to me.
do they ever encourage groups to sue them? >> knowing that usually we get sued when we are not doing with the congress asks us to do and that is usually what results in knous getting on a schedule that is different than the schedule -- >> then you never invite lawsuits and there would never be anything to indicate that you have suggested that someone would sue a friendly lawsuit shall we say? >> never. >> not that i know of. >> what is about december 2011? 21 years waiting. health benefits denied. >> we've waited 21 years and we have almost a million comments. wouldn't you think we ought to make maybe 20 to so we can fully digest all 1 million comments? >> it might be good to see something about those comments since they've come up.
>> of those million comments, 900 something thousand the vast majority are in favor of the rule of those million comments as you know some people have systems they can reply are unique as opposed to duplicates of comments. >> 22,000 is still a lot, not a million, 22,000 seems like a lot to digest between now and christmas is not between now and christmas. we've been working on this rule for a long time. the comment period. we left it open longer than we normally do so that we would expect to get a lot of comments. >> have you asked the court for more time? >> part and? >> have you asked the court for more time. this is a judgment. we recently asked the court for another 30 days to finish the
work. we have read every one of those comments and we would be replying to every one of those comments in the response to the document that we are currently working on. >> we left the comment period open longer than we normally do and therefore we put the staff to the task that we would need to be able to reveal those comments. >> did you have an opportunity to listen or watch the president's joint address to congress several weeks ago? >> i did. >> he mentioned regulations and he mentioned some that are having a deleterious pernicious effect on industry then he said we should have no more regulation than for the health, safety and security of the american people and i think that he's identified 500 that at least 500 that can be done away with. it strikes me as curious -- let me ask before i say this -- are you arguing that the position of
this regulation is actually going to create jobs? >> we believe the jobs will be a net positive in this sector. >> how many cold jobs to you think will be lost? >> we expect -- >> one of the things you have to realize is we are investing, we, the country, not weak epa, we are investing in this role in the coal-fired power plants. we are going to make a major capital investment. >> how many col d'izoard students we will lose? >> do you think we are going to add some construction jobs how many jobs will be lost because neither one of us are not even enough to believe there aren't going to be jobs lost. >> i expect the amount of coal that is used will be roughly flat. the plans we will invest in will
be many will lock in the fact we are going to be using coal for many, many -- >> what with respect to job loss? >> we have a range that we've identified 900 permanent gains in the middle of the range some go slightly below zero. >> i'm just asking about job loss. what analysis did they do about the job loss? >> that is the net gain is 9,000. >> so epa did factor in the losses to the coal industry and others? >> yes. >> my time is up. sorry. >> a month to think you on behalf of mr. connally and myself.
>> [inaudible conversations] spec on behalf of mr. connolly, chairman lysin and myself, thank you. we will recess of the third panel and we will provide the information suggested to the chairman and follow-up and of course every question we will follow up as quickly as possible. thank you for your time and i appreciate question. >> we will be in recess for five minutes.
the hearing will now reconvene. we now welcome mr. josh bivens. he is an economisat the economic policy institute. mr. bivens, i noticed you were here for the previous panel. so, you recognize pursuant to the rules all witnesses are sworn would you please rise to take the oath, raise your right hand. you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? once again let the record reflect the witness answered in the affirmative chance once again, the witness is recognized for five minutes for his opening statement. i think the committee for the invitation to testify today. my name is josh bivens. ayman economist of the economic policy institute in washington, d.c.. by professional peer reviewed research standards the cost of the air toxic are very large but somewhere along the way the debate moved on the ground of job creation which is a little odd because regulatory changes just aren't big drivers of job
growth. but in my testimony, and especially my written testimony, i sketched out of a regulatory change in general in the air specifically can affect job creation and unemployment. i conclude that the rules like almost old regulatory changes will have trivial effect on job growth over the long run but over the next couple of years particularly if the rate remains high the rule will likely create jobs and lower the unemployment precisely as the unemployment rate is high to did will was implemented would have clearly positive impact on job creation so in short the deily to the implementation of the rule based on the deals to the wider economic weakness have the case entirely backward. there is no better time from now from the job creation perspective to move forward with these rules. my research in the written testimony indicates the tic roel adoption would lead to the net creation of about 28,000 to 158,000 jobs between now and 2015. the primary economic impact will
be in significantly boosting health and quality-of-life leading to benefits at least five to ten times larger than the cost and we are here to talk about jobsr at least that's why i've been asked to be here to talk about jobs so let me say a couple words on it. the job impact of regulatory changes dependent am wide econoc impact. when the economy is functioning well the jobs from changes are going to be small for two main reasons. most important is the well functioning economy the federal reserve can neutralize any boost or drag on overall employment growth that may result from regulatory changes to the conventional monetary policy measures they can raise or lower the interest rates. we may criticize the targets that the fed edolphus, but in a well functioning economy they will be able to hit these targets. moreover the direct first from the impact of the change on the employment growth are going to be modest because they carry offsetting influences so the fed won't have to do that much to counterbalance them. on the one hand employment because of regulatory changes boosted because e investments
needed to bring could them into the compliance so the purchasing and installing scrubbers. on the other hand the voice of the price level of energy because the regulary change may be transmitted to the overall economy by causing a slight rise in overall prices and this may cause a reduction in spending but it's clear the first funding package before the federal reserve tries to neutralize the of the regulatory changes are indeterminate and it's important to note that even regulations that havelarge measure compliance costs are no more likely to lead to job losses than those of the smaller cost compliance costs go on both sides of the job creation letcher and represent both the skill of investment needed to bring the firm's into compliance and represent the sort of potentiaincrease inthe prices that may result from them. when the unemployment -- when the economy is not functioning well specifically like today when unemployment is highven as the short term policy interest-rate cut told by the fed on the synopsis changes and the most important changes that the fed can a logger neutralize any effect of regulatory changes on employment growth.
so instead of the fed counterbalancing these changes are actually have multiplier effects so they would ripple through the economy. the paper in my written testimony based on his positive and the - first effect as well as the effect of the likely multiply it to the economy and it comes to the finding of the dominate and i just want to point out quickly that its estimates are awfully conservative. basically they are conservative because the only real adjustme to the results i make is the assumption to the fed can't or won't clean against whatever happens to the employment because of the regulatory changes. but actually there's plenty of reason to think that they will be very little scope for the overall price level to actually rise given how much demand in the economy today and basically the idea that when the past utilization rate of the utility of this at the lowest rate on the record of the regulatory changes will lead to the larger spikes is a very hard thing. in the second, when you have economies with high rates of unemployment, chronic excess of supply the often see the rapid disinflation, and that is what
the u.s. economy is seen basically since what we now call the great recession started and this actually leads to the real interest rates rising even one of the federal reserve is trying to keepthem down and this provides a brake on economic growth. even in the power generating sector is passed on to the general price level this will actually address the upward pressure on the inrest rates and this would be likely not to be positive for the overall demand. i don't include the consideration of affecting my papers so in short i think my estimate is likely job impact of the country by 2015 actually allow the wi scope possible for the negative impact to run free so i think figure every conservative. to be clearly want to conclude this is not a major jobs program it's sething that should be done because it will help americans but it will not reduce job growth. >> i thank the gentleman and yield myself five minutes. >> first of all we want to compliment you. i've never seen an economist with so many.
i try to listen to your opening statement. it was pretty amazing because it did balance somany but, but, but, but so i will look forward to doing for your conclusions once again after the hearing and see if i can't reconcilethem. but let me go through a few things i think are appropriate to you presence re today. first of all, you are here funded by the bluegreen alliance, is that right? >> no. i employee of the economic policy. >> do you work with the bluegreen allian? >> yes, i have. >> would you say that it's fair to say a coalition of unions and environmentalists are essentially the people that you work with closely? >> i have worked with closely, yes. >> what a surprise you to know the ternational brotherhood of the workers of the afl-cio has
opposed this implementation of the standard at this time? >> i did know that. >> without objection by the like to enter that into the record. >> without objection, so ordered. >> i'm not an economist, i don't have a ph.d. so i'm going to make everyone look look set the record of this hearing a little bit simpler and i appreciate the but of your knowledge and capability to balance that so i'm not taking away from it but i just think that most of us have to understand this a little differently. this standard does not create new less expensive energy, is that correct? >> it does not do that. >> it does however when fully plemented in 2015 reduce pollutants in the bus has positive health benefits, is that right? >> that's my understanding.
>> okay. and although there are some jobs created as a rsult of implementing the standard, those jobs are by definition either temporary, 37,000 or so or permanent. the permanent ones obad for mission greater ongoing cost of producing the same amount of electricity, is that correct? >> i think that's correct. >> okay. so to put it in terms of my economt economic professor at kent state would have said those are rocks in the knapsack. the benefit is toget clean air and whenever you get from that is fine but your ability to walk long distances are repeated and this is an additional burden of the ongoing cost of producing the same amount of electricity would you say that's correct? >> with one caveat. we're using the same amount of energy but producing cleaner energy than we would have. >> and the benefit of cleaner energy would be the health care
benefits clearly and we all agree to that. so on the one hand you hav a rock in the knapsack the cost the cost is at least 9,000 permanent greater jobs estimated to be about $11 billion by what we might call the low side the epa estimates. we will forget about the dollars and gist understand you have 9,000 more jobs to produce the same amount of electricity and those jobs will add forever to the cost of producing at energy. so, with that assumption as we look at the speed they want to implement this three years after the look-see period understanding by about a month, what if 100% of the mercury and 90% of the particular it worked out to be an answer which could be implemented with more available technology today, in other words, what if you could
get 99% of the benefit all of the mercury reduction and 99%, and i am using that as a hypothetical figure of the particular at reduction you could get that for a fraction of the cost, let's say 1 billion in additional cost representing only hundreds of additional workers hypothetically? if that were the case as an economist, wouldn't you want a cost-benefit looked at a vast majority of the savings perhaps in the health benefits 100% because some point you have a drop-off in the improvement. i grew up in cleveland, a place all the walls of black and you could see the error when i was a young man, so i'm very aware of the improvements made since the 60's. my question to you is wouldn't you as an economist wouldn't want to have that reformation at your disposal to make the calculation of cost benefit to the economy on a long-term basis?
>> yes. could we achieve the same goals more productively leslie burr need it? in the long run that sounds right. i would say in the short run we have a jobs crisis everyone agrees with that and those compliance costs represent job-creating and iestments will be made to the corporate sector showing no sign of any way showing signs of sitting on a massive amounts of savings without seeing any need to the job-creating investments so that to me is why we are assuming we from the due diligence whether or not the rules should be done if that the case and it strikes me is the case now is the time to do them because what will help solve the jobs crisis we of the next couple of years. >> i'm not sure if you were there earlier but what we have explained to us is it was five years of rule making implementation after the pasge of the clean air act of 90 and there has been as much a full year for less controversy less-expensive propose rules
while this one enjoyed roughly three months now extended by a month, so the question would be not with an economist but the standpoint of wanting to go in million comments evaluating vose and evaluating the cost benefit that comes from those suggestions if that would give you 90% or 10%, and of course alw additional technology to get the rest, but in that be advisable for your finding the optimum benefit to the economy in a way of affordable energy, cleaner air, and f course job creation on both sides? >> yes it would be useful know if that was a possible scenario. >> well we hope it is and with that i recognize the ranking member. as amihai thank the chairman. by the way, you asked earlier whether there was -- with her there were any coal-fired power plants that might meet the new standard. i think you were out of the room
when i entered into the record the list of the coal-fired power plants tha would right now meet the standard including the fo in my native of virginia which contradicts the previous testimony. i would have now been corrected there are actually at least six at the station and the city plant both run by the resources would be fully compliant today. >> hopefully the epa will codify that list as exactly that and i appreciate the gentleman. >> i would also point out that for the record all of at least six coal-fired plants in virginia would be compliant or south, they are not in northern virginia. >> you don't get to represent them? >> i don't put the first witness does. you may recall his concern for the poor communities bearing this brunt. dr. bivens, falling on the chairman question about trying to follow the testimony you are now our third witness and we
have actually three different sets of data in terms of job numbers. our first wtne cited the industry funded a study that claimed that perhaps as many as 180,000 jobs could be lost the second witness said that the midpoint and their analysis was 000 jobs would be created and you just indicated if i heard you correctly somewhere between 28,000 of as many as 150,000 net positive charles creed between now and 2015 if this rule were to go into effect. what do you attribute the syrians in these estimates that is awfully hard as a member of congress to sort of make the right dcision policy wide with such a wide variety the coterie of the loss or creation estimates. >> i can speak clearly between the defense of my estimates and the epa that the industy funded study is pretty opaque so i can ly guess what is driving it but the difference between life and the epa is the restricted to
looking only at the likely job impact witin the utility itself and one supply industry that's going to supply of i think we're missing a good chunk of the job impact buy not looking at the full range of jobs created by e at the positive and negative. the industry studies that have -- that i have seen that have topped up big losses regarding this rule i think make two big problems generally to read each one is a little different. first the seems to be a big discordance deutsch and compliance costs and the cost implications. so basically, they have compliance costs that look, you know, relatively big say two times as big but in the of the price four times as large and given the compliance cost the dollar value wathe skill of investment that support jobs those shuld actually move in tandem with the price increase. the only reason you have to raise the price is if you have to hire new people in order to do this if you have to do to comply with the regulatory new
regulatory regime, and so i think that the consistently had price increases that are well out of line with the rest of their study actually. and the other thing they don't do i think is properly account for the very different macroeconomic environment we're in right now so we simply assume it is what is the inestments deutsch dropping to the u.s. economy at a normal plant in time we are not have a normal pleaded time we've had 9% unemployment even while the interest resource to get zero and the jargon of the liquidity is a really important context for how the economy is operating right now. >> my time is limited so that we ask this question now. we've heard assertions made it this kind of regulation is a job killer and it's going to pass on significant cost to consumers get when one looks of the date of the record for implementation of the clean air act since 1970 and the amendment since 1990 the data suggests the opposite
really wonder as an economist would you comment? >> i agree and i would urge people to look at it the brimley institute they looked eactly at that sort of forecast for what regulatory changes were going to do to jobs, price increases, things like that, and consistently in the and the cost of the regulation this almost always smaller than -- >> the price of electricity? >> i'm not sure if they look to the price of electricity. the best estimate for what's going to happen in the electricity is the epa and i see a lot of studies out there that look out of line. >> i repeat in my native state the commonwealth of virginia, since 1990 the aggregate -- the net cost of electricity has gone down by 36.5%. with that, i yield back mr. chairman. >> if i can ask the gentleman a question about your state. in virginia for those to go down
i'm presuming that sense it is a rate based on their cost that's a matt of efficiency to reduce costs over the same period of time they produce more electricity at lower cost, where they are getting a free turn on their capital, regulated return on their capital. so in this case, where the epa by its estimates has a cost of implementation, those costs would be passed on so it would be temporary spike in what otherwise is a cost benefit reductn that they've been achieving that period of time. >> the chair takes an important role that could happen. i would only point out that contrary to the first witness testimony of the reason for this week's especially in the rural parts of virginia have to do with every regulation of the industry the was written by the industry and the general assembly of virginia and had nothing to do with federal regulation. >> i appreciate the explanation and i will tell you that as
somebody that has seen our state go through deregulation, a dramatic ruction in cost we have partial reregulation although not completed as one of the challenges to we give the regulated utilities when they are given the cost plus situation the often do not complain about the cost drivers because the can pass it on in the cost of benefits to their stockholders. the same time they will say they want a free market system but maldon can't they give greater profit margin. he has a good pnt in your state as i do in line. at this point i should adjourn. dr. bivens you were very helpful. you're entire statement will be there. additionally because you had not
as many witnesses that you have questions related to some economic hypothetical set me be beyond what is in your comments you provided to read any additional for the next cuts say seven days and if you need along derleth us know. we will keep the record so anything you believe are missing and also see if there on the upside or downside we would preciate having -- additionally, if you could do me a personal favor of the committee a personal favor. to the extent to could issue us the cost of a delay was they just had 30 years in the implementation and the benefit that is potentially there from slight adjustments in the final standard how you think of best pal letters of a slight change in the worst case because he has a cost to clean air.
benefit may lower the cost of ultimately greater affordability. i didn't see that in your earlier stuff. it's kind of esoteric debt for all of us who want to wegh dewey deily to get the right to this the cost of the delay something since we are talking about the 90's until today i feel we have to run that perspective and a yield to the ranking member. >> i support your question because i think that to try to understand the economic success this i wonder of the tram would also ask him to provide a little more knowledge to his questions about the job number the creation. pretend like you're in to help us understand the differt methodologies -- >> to the extent that is the ranking member said it might be more artfully than i did because we do see where one side is
looking at the cost of jobs, higher utility costs and so on, and the other side self-serving lee and rightfully so is looking at the jobs created and obviously we want to look at the balance particularly in the relative stes to think the doctor's comments were right on in the free-market regulatory state much of this could be a compression of province of the utilities. in those states that our cost plus or regulated it's going to be passed on the and i think that's one of the things the ranking member made a good point that to read and with the affirmative yes, we stand adjourned. [inaudible conversations]
that will take place in houston tonight at o'clock eastern on c- span. you can also watch on c-span got word -- c-span.org . >> steny hoyer on the ongoing work of the deficit reduction committee, 2012 federal spending bills. he is interviewed on "the washington journal." watch newsmakers tomorrow. >> every weekend on "american history tv," the people and events that document the american story. the fine arts rarely seen outside of the warehouse now on display at the smithsonian. the civil war historical fiction. he has written both the prequel and a sequel to his father's
novel "killer angels." look for the complete weekend schedule at c-span.org/history or click on the c-span alert button. >> earlier this week when house economic adviser gene sperling talked about the ongoing deficit reduction negotiations. this is a little more than one hour. >> tein was at the kennedy center last sunday night. he was introducing jack black, ben stiller, and will ferrell. and today he introduced me. i have now arrived.
that never happen my first time are riled. i am always happy when people mentioned that i was consultant for four years at part-time writer for "west wing" because in washington all of you think it is way cooler to have worked for the fate west wing instead of the real one. while the real west wing has been the highlight of my professional life, the fate west wing has been a highlight of my personal life. it is where i met my wife, who many of you have got the deten to know. a very happy to be here. there are so many friends out here. i'm so happy to be here with david rubenstein and has given me advice and counsel since my
first days when people said since i stayed up very late at night i reminded them of another crazy man who worked in the white house in the carter administration, and i later learned that that was david. anyway, thank you all for having me. mike tock today is simple and direct. -- my talk today is simple and direct. to sustain economic growth now we need a bold, and the jobs plan to inject a man, help as recovery takes hold, and have a meaningful impact on jobs over these next 12 to 18 months, and, two, a balanced plan for long- term physical discipline that includes saving entitlement and revenue from the less fortunate while continuing to make sure we invest in the young people and the economic dignity of our working families. i will start with the imperative for all action to start
jobs. there are those of you who will recognize the need for a jobs plan. those who make the case for inaction at this moment usually do so, usually state as the reasons that we already tried the recovery act and they claim it cannot have an impact. that we cannot afford a new jobs coming backe we're from a financial crisis we have to be passive and patient and that a bold, immediate effort is inconsistent with focusing on longer-termed structural issues in our economy. i will address each of these arguments, but even combined, they fail, because in the current economic context, unemployment is simply too high. the projections for near-term growth are too weak. the risks to the economy, to elevated, and the national price of long-term unemployment to
profound to sit on our hands and do nothing. to those who say as an argument for inaction that the recovery has failed, i will highlight two basic facts. in november when obama was taking over an economic policy, the blue chip forecast projected the economy will contract in the fourth quarter of 2008 and in the first quarter of 2009 at an annualized rate of 1.65%. in other words, they were projecting the economy would be near 2%.t pace in december, that projection had gone to 3.25%. what do we know now? what we know now that we have better information.
during that time, the economy contracted at an annualized rate of 7.8%, nearly 8%. actually, in the fourth quarter of 2008, our economy was contracting, losing growth, at a rate of 8.9% a year. it was the worst six-month period since records of quarterly growth work at first in 1947, other than that. of demobilization in 1946 after war ii. it was the worst six months on record since the heart of the great depression. we were losing jobs at a pace in the first quarter of 2009 -- the first -- the worst record since
the heart of the great depression. growth actually returned to our economy might the third quarter of 2009. later and private sector job growth returned in march, 2010, a year after we had lost 800,000 jobs in a single month and a year earlier and recovery from the previous recession in 2001. we are big boys and girls. we understand the president's opponents will continue to make the next the arguments -- to make the speedy argument that since we have much further to go in thinking ourselves out of the whole the president inherited that therefore that is evidence that the recovery act did not work. but let us be serious in one crucial regard. using the experience of the recovery act, which is critical
to bringing our economy back from a contraction of nearly 8% a year and a loss of eight and a thousand private-sector jobs a month as an argument that any future effort to inject a man to create jobs is futile is but a cynical argument and one without merit. it may be that it prevented the second great depression does not read well on a bumper sticker, but is peppery description of policy decisions that help and improve the lives of tens of millions of our fellow working families. some have suggested to me that even if the recovery act was the right medicine for the economy in 2009, that today we should just sit tight. they will argue, often citing the work people, that as recoveries following recession- induced by terrible financial
crises are inevitably going to be long, slow, and painful, we simply should just wait and be passive as the slow process of healing unfolds. i am not sure i would ever agree with this interpretation, but if we were projecting 3.75% growth next year and a conversation was simply about the pace at which unemployment was headed down, we could at least have a conversation about how quickly one could expect action to further accelerate growth and lower unemployment. but that is not economic moment we face today. it is not the economic outlook we foresee over the coming year. we have an obligation to take a sober, non-political look at the state of growth and employment in our country today, the risk that it could get worse, and what it would mean for our
country if we did nothing and simply allow the consensus economic forecast to come to pass. with regard to the risks, everyone understands the value of taking out insurance against ive events in our personal lives. the administration projects the economy is still to add to the private sector jobs the been created this year. most forecasters agree with this assessment. even though the blue chip financial forecasts found a 35% chance of a double-dipped recession among their nearly 50 forecasters, it is our hope that with the uptick in some recent numbers those odds might go down. nonetheless, it is still fair for all of us in policy positions to ask, when you already have 9% unemployment and
14 million people out of work, is it worth taking out some insurance against even the prospect, even the relatively less than 50% chance that things could get worse? if you thought there was a one in three chance that your house was going to burn down, you would find home interest of the bible. likewise, the value of taking insurance out for our economy today is alone strong basis for taking bold action in the immediate future. remember in 2010 when we have passed separate payroll relief, the price of gasoline was $3 per gallon. we did not know that the error spring and defense outside our control was " pushed prices over $4 a gallon in some parts of the country, but there's little doubt that the insurance we took out in the form of the payroll tax relief has provided
a crucial question to prevent consumer spending from falling and putting us in a stronger position than we would be otherwise. but even if one decides that the need to take interest out against unexpected events at this time of high unemployment is not persuasive. the case for action, if standard projections bear out, is overwhelming. right now, the blue chip projecting 2% growth in 2012. the conference board is projecting 1.1%. jpmorgan, 1.7%. imf world economic outlook finds 1.8% growth for 2012. as such growth would be the load the trend growth, it would hardly be projected to even bring unemployment down below 9%.
this type of growth should be unacceptable and unsatisfactory at any point in any recovery. in any context, it constitutes less than turning a blind eye to our national crisis of long-term unemployment. while washington today is focused on the political punditry over the ups and downs of the american jobs act, it is long past time for all of us to realize that long-term unemployment is our true national economic crisis. and that choosing to play politics as usual or sit on our hands in the face of this crisis is both irresponsible and inexcusable. that death of a recession this president inherited and the difficulty of recovery from a -induced ly r recession has forced us to consider it a lot worse and a
climate in our lifetimes. 44.6% of the unemployed is now -- has now unemployed for more than six months. 75% of them have been unemployed for a year or longer. consider this -- the average length for the unemployed right now is 40.5 weeks. that is the worst on record. it is almost twice the length of the highest prior record, which was 21 weeks during what was a very painful recession in the 1980's. this is a matter of the highest economic importance. we know that very long spells of a plum and cause harm to workers, to families, and to our long-term economy, that shorter
terms and more typical out of unemployment do not. we know when you lose a job it is always painful, but when you are in voluntarily out of work for a year or two years or more, you lose your home, you health, the family. economists have used the term to describe where and a lot -- where elevated and employment can reduce our productive potential. being out of work makes it harder to re-enter the work force. if you lose your job today, your chances of being employed in the next three months are box one in two. but if you lost your job for six months, the chances of the next three months is about one in four, gets worse and worse the longer you are unemployed. and an economist at university of warwick sound there's no
circumstance that has a greater negative impact on mental health than being unemployed for six months or longer. and economists found a permanent job loss results in up to a 100% increase in mortality rates for the next 20 years. on top that, the national employment law project found that a four-week survey of online job advertisements, over 150 examples of companies explicitly saying if you're unemployed, do not apply. do not apply signs that were -- now being put up for those who had the misfortune, usually at no fault of their own, of finding themselves in the dire straits of long-term
unemployment. of course, concerns about the cost of long-term unemployment lead to one of the other rebels in the case for inaction, which is that a diploma is purely a structural problem. some argued there are more than three made jobs openings and this shows that all our problems are simply due to a mismatch between skills needed to fill current spots and the skills possessed by an unemployed workers. as recently described by those, there's little evidence for this case. here is the simple math. there are over 14 million people looking for work, full-time work, not even counting the people who are halftime looking for full-time work and 3 million job openings. that means there is newly -- there is nearly five people looking for every job that is open, far higher than any people looking for jobs before the
recession. no questions that skills mismatch issue is a and a poor long-term issue that we should be committed through education and innovation to fixing. recent research by the new york fed makes it clear that explains only about 1/5 of the rise in employment in the recent recession. with this and other evidence, it suggests the overwhelming cause of the ottoman crisis we face is a lack of economic demand, and the real irony we face here is not so much that structural unemployment is driving high employment right now, but instead that if we fail to act, we will create a new and deeper structural unemployment in our economy. we will by sitting on our hands allow legions of our colleagues, our neighbors, to be disconnected from the work force for unforeseen periods of
time. this takes me to a final point on the subject, which is that a lot of what we do in economic policy is try out policies that prevent this cycles that i necessarily take away the value in our economy. we have bankruptcy laws that prevent credit rushes that would unnecessarily destroyed the value of company or the future of someone who has failed once. steve case will tell you what a difference it would be if a debtor prisoner inside of a second or third chance was what happened to len gonchar nor who failed their first time. we do not allow bankruptcy, a rush of creditors again because it unnecessarily leads to a downward cycle that hurts our economy. we have deposit insurance to prevent the vicious cycle of- runs on banks, and we try to promote policies like our
neighborhood stabilization plan and the american jobs back to prevent a downward cycles in neighborhoods. if we see sections of up to 2% growth right now that inevitably mean that the prices of long- term unemployment will get even worse, we are in essence saying that we know millions of our friends, our neighbors, fellow citizens are destined to a downward cycle of economic opportunity that will cause long-term damage to them and our economy and that we are choosing to simply sit back and watch. a great nation, facing the worst crisis of long-term and apply it in our lifetime, can certainly do better. at president's american jobs tries to deal with this challenge in two and a waste. it has the smarts demand plan
for next year that independent economists have projected result in up to 1.9 million more jobs next year, that is 150,000 more jobs per month than is currently expected and up to 2% higher economic growth, the difference between 1.5% and 3.5% growth it was planned to its completion. it includes elements like the payroll tax cut which uses an existing structure to get a significant amount of money in the pockets of every worker every two weeks into doesn't call will provide work customers and more cash for the small businesses who have been hit hardest by the financial crisis. further at this moment, there is -- the american jobs also is a major investment in creating jobs by the rebuilding our infrastructure. there is just no sound reason not to make a major investment in our infrastructure right now. let me be clear about one thing -- there is nothing fiscally
irresponsible about deferred maintenance. if i choose to cancel my direct tv, nfl subscription, with, which the lines at 6-2 i am not going to do, i would say $230 in consumption. if i decide not to fix that i did my basement, i would just pay more later. at this moment, with interest rates at historic lows, with an overflow of the unemployed construction workers anxious to get back to work, when the macro economic impact would be the best and manageable, how can we passed by this moment to address the deferred maintenance in our schools, roads, railways, and airports? how can we let this moment pass? what is the rationale for not acting? the second thing the president did when he announced his act on september 8, to dow's 11, is but a national focus on this challenge of long-term
unemployment by making it explicitly one of the four major planks of his plan. that meant, including every responsible idea we can identify, from outlawing hiring, discrimination based on being unemployed, to tax credits for people who but a ploy for six months or longer, extra incentives for veterans. we proposed the misleading reform out of plumb it interest in the last 40 years. every aspect of the reform is designed to make and implement insurance more of a bridge to work. and hiring people to use their u.i. to connect for short-term jobs or to start their business or as wage interest out older workers get back to work or for companies to include work sharing over layoffs. we are no doubt disappointed that the republicans in congress
have blocked the american jobs act. but that should not be our major disappointment. our most profound disappointment should be that they have not even come forward with an alternative plan that in the top independent forecaster could possibly estimate as spurring growth up to 2% next year or adding up to 2 million new jobs. at this moment the republicans' main alternative is the best to get a host of long-term measure , some good, like trade agreements and then reform, some not so good, like repealing the affordable care act, but all having one thing in common -- they have nothing, absolutely nothing to do with sparking demand or job growth in the next 12 or 18 months so that we can get this recovery better chance of taking hold or give hope to
the long term on a point of getting back to work. these plants are therefore not really jobs plans. they are plans to sit by while our national crisis gets worse. franklin roosevelt argued during the depression of when facing great national challenges our obligation was to try and try, expert and experiment until we get it right. yet the republicans in congress so far cannot live up to teddy roosevelt's admonition to get in the rain and get a shot. there is no question that the right physical package for policy at this moment is to combine this strong demand in the short term with a balance, long term plan for fiscal discipline. the two are not contradictory. they are as complementary as good hitting and pitching. and together they are exactly what we need to maintain confidence that the economy is
going to pick up, america remains a place for companies to make a long-term investment, and we will not face a debt crisis in our country in the near term for a share. those who suggest we cannot afford the act are being penny wise and pound foolish. nothing will hurt our current efforts to get our path is a steadily more that if our economy stays weak or if we allow long-term and implement the weak economic projections and potential. furthermore, when you pay for the jobs planned as the president has proposed, the long-term cost is just the lingering interest from the jobs planned, while the ongoing offsets lead to net deficit reduction each and every year for the foreseeable future. there is a reason that even their rivlin-does she plan, when of the most efficient plants the together by bipartisan outside group, including the most robust injection of temporary demand come complete payroll tax holiday to ensure our recovery
takes hold. if we are to succeed in achieving strong that is a reduction, let's be honest -- the single most critical ingredient will be the washington reaching a consensus that we must have a balance in our deficit reduction strategies. there is no single barrier that stands and away more of same fiscal policy and the fact that the sizable proportion of the republicans in congress have taken a pledge that there cannot be a single penny of revenues in any significant deficit- reduction act. is notbsolute pledge a historically republican position. in 1982, president reagan raised revenues. in 1983, he and ted o'neal include the revenues in fixing a social security. in 1990, the elder president
bush were to get a bipartisan agreement that included revenue and the visits. in 1997, we had a balanced budget agreement where republicans agreed to continue all the revenue increases from the 1990's and the 1993 budget agreement. every independent bipartisan plan has called for a mix of revenues and entitlement reforms. a letter calling for reductions from republicans and democrats include an endorsement of a mix of revenues and entitlement cuts. prime minister cameron has as much as 1/3 revenue in his budget. the spots us from making progress for a few critical reasons tricks everyone knows the way you achieve bipartisan deficit reduction is through people holding hands and jumping
david, you cannot do this thing we make no differentiation. the president very clearly has continually reached out. he over the summer, we all know, was willing to go further on entitlement savings, take on more sacred cows, risk taking opposition from his base of supporters in the interests of getting an agreement. it is the president who has put out to the supercommittee proposals in detail that would cut agriculture subsidies, affect federal retiree benefits, that talked about adjusting beneficiary changes for medicare. so when you have this of the inability to come together, you cannot just decide that your analysis is that it is a pox everybody's house, that
everybody bears the same responsibility for the failure to come together. you have to look. and others part of the 19797 balanced budget agreement. i was one of the people who encouraged and supported us calling to the extra mile at every point to try to get a major budget deal with the speaker. so i am very much for bipartisan negotiations, and i want to make clear, i believe there are many republicans on the hill who want to be part of the balanced agreement. you have seen the gang of six, a few republican senators in the bowles-simpson who are willing to raise revenues. this is not a democrat-
republican issue as much as a portion of republicans who are blocking from coming to a compromise of a budget agreement that includes revenue savings together with entitlement savings, including medicare as part of a bipartisan -- >> you do not have a majority of democrats, cannot get 51 democrats in the senate, to vote for it. i thought the democrats did not support the president's jobs bill. >> that is not the case. we have sometimes 53 out of 53, 51 out of 53, 50 out of 53. one of the people -- have been here a while, as he said, you have been here a while. getting 96% of your own party is pretty good. you cannot look at -- the reason we're having trouble is that
there is a complete inability for any one to come over. i understand what i did in my talks today. i did not say, here is the american jobs at come our way or the highway. i presented the case for action. i presented why we as a country cannot sit on our hands and do nothing. >> why did the president not meet with bowles-simpson -- why did he not meet with them at that time? >> he chose those two men. he chose representatives that
were very much about reaching a bipartisan agreement, moving toward the center. he was very supportive of their actions. we do not or did not agree with everything in the bowles-sim pson plan, we understand the way you make progress in deficit reduction measures is to create the mechanisms where you bring both houses and both parties together. every successful effort we have ever had as that characteristic. that does not mean it always works. it was very close to working over the summer, but just failed. none of us know for sure how the supercommittee will turn out, but that notion where you bring democratic and republican leaders together from both the house and senate to hold hands
and jump together is the only hope you have. nobody wants to put their political life on the line for a plan that they find out is going nowhere or is going to pass the senate, but not pass the house. if you are interested in actually getting things done as opposed to getting a good op-ed at on the back, what you want to do is exactly what this president did, which as soon as we got down with the yearly c.r ., agreement that took record, within five days of that, the president put out a $4 trillion framework over 12 years and called for both houses and both parties to come together. add the biden group and that was the first effort. bulls simpson bipartisan commission was called together by this president. biden negotiating process was
pulled together by this president. the president and speaker boehner -- and i give him credit for being willing personally to reach out and put revenues on the table as part of the deal, even though he could not ultimately deliver that deal -- i give him credit for trying. in each of these cases, it was the president was trying to create a mechanism that is the best hope for bipartisan deficit reduction, and i promise you, whenever it comes, it will come in this form. it will come in this type of -- it will not be because the president of the united states goes out with an independent group's plan. it will be because he brings both leaderships of the house together. that is what happened in 1993 and in 1990, hot hot for, and
hopefully that is what will happen this year with the supercommittee, and if not, there will be a process like that in the future. the president was focused what the process and the mechanisms to word that had the best potential to get the job done. >> the stimulus bill that not have republican support, so the president did not the republicans there. do you support the fact that he was republicans to support it and it was not likely to succeed, and you said at the time there was a good economic impact from that stimulus bill, which has not seem to have that impact. why do you think people should say this past -- why should people believe you now? >> people say to me it is hard argue that the eggs are better than they would have banned. what i just presented to you once they are way better than they were. you cannot make everything a
political argument. yet to digest the following facts -- our economy was shrinking at the rate of 8% a year when the president took office. 8%. we have not seen that since the great depression. we were losing jobs at 800,000 and month. expect your economy to add 2 million a year? we lost 2.3 million in three months. by the second half of 2009, just six months later, our economy was back to growth is not something you can take for granted. there was no guarantee that was going to happen. that happened because this president took a very bold politically different actions -- difficult actions, and the fact that we were creating jobs, albeit much too slowly a year later, in march of 2010, a year
earlier than took place after the previous recession, again did not happen by accident. so i totally agree that the deep financial crisis that we inherited was a very deep hole and that it is discouraging how long and tough it is to climb the way out, but i wholly refuted and disagree and to speak anyone who suggests that the recovery act did not have a major impact in helping ensure our country to not go into a great depression and instead went to growth. what was the stock market in march when we were doing the financial rescue plan 6400. one out of five people was betting it was going under 5000. you cannot take for granted what happened. the idea somebody would use the recovery act as an argument suggest he should not do this
type of demand injection for jobs is totally misguided. 2009,remember january where was the demand in the global economy to eur? europe? what industries when people were seeing their house values going down? had united states not go in and inject the man into the economy, had we not taken the type of action, the stress test, and the action on the automobile -- we could have faced an unforgettably painful economic. -- economic period. we understand our opponents are pretty is the fact that things are not as great as any of us would like to suggest. but nobody who is not political
is serious, nobody should buy into that. >> the and implement rate today is 9.1% as we count it. no president since fdr has been reelected and the rate was above 7.2%. where the you think the unemployment rate will be at the time of the next election? >> i will not make projections. whether or not we do something about job growth right now is calling to determine in part that outcome. i'm here making the case for a jobs act because i fear that if we just sit by and allow the standard economic forecast to take place that we're going to grow 1.5%, 2%, that we are going to be sitting by passively while we do serious harm to many of
our workers and our economy. remember, you expect that you need growth to be about 2.5% just to stabilize employment, just to handle the new workers who come into the workforce, just to stabilize. when you have 9.1% unemployment, you need growth to be much stronger than that to bring unemployment down, and as i just described, you need unemployment growth to be stronger than that to encourage workers, companies to look beyond the best young people coming out of college and the start giving those who have been unemployed a year or longer a second chance to get back in the workforce. rather than us handicapping or banking, the right thing we should be acting. we have a chance as a country to take action that would meaningfully affect -- moody's said with the jobs back
in the project for put two% scion growth. -- 4.2% growth. so whether or not we'd do something bold and immediate like what we have proposed, even if it has different elements or slightly different composition, is the single most crucial thing we can do to being able to answer that question in a way that suggests the chance that the unemployment rate coming down our but as opposed to bad. >> the president has said the economy is in worse shape than he thought was going to be when he was a candidate. and it is a problem is bigger. why do you not support eliminating all the bush tax cuts? that would pick up $500 billion
the year. why not get rid of all of them as opposed to people in the top 2%? >> because i think at this point that hit on working families struggling in this economy would just be too great. i am not convinced that we need to do that to achieve deficit sustainability. for example, we have already put $1 trillion into a deficit reduction agree to over july. the president then put forth his job -- his plan to the supercommittee. that plan does have a seat of that revenue portion, but it only $250,000.'s that plan together risks that down as a percentage of our economy. i do not believe that if we were to let all of the tax cuts
expire and have working families making $70,000, $80,000, suddenly facing a $3,000 higher tax increase that that would be good. and so i think we still believe that we can get our deficit under control, bring our debt down as a percentage of our economy, and do so by asking for sacrifice broadly, but by asking for revenues to come from those two had income of $250,000 and over. >> where would the president like to see the capital gains rate? >> i do not have anything any different to say than what was in our budget. i do think there are areas that
we think -- what the president has spoken of is the fact that we should be concerned when very, very well off people can take all their income under preferred rates so that somebody making $100 million, etc., is simply paying 13%, 14%, 15%, and you have a situation where the net or even the incremental taxes of people who are teachers, fire chiefs, firemen, are higher than those who are the very, very most fortunate. the idea of the buffet rule would be if we with the tax reform and bring down everyone's rates, if we were to reduce tax
expenditures, that it was important to be able to say to the public that this would not mean those who are the very most fortunate would be able to, in the fact, they effective rates that were dramatically lower than that. and that is what we put out. i think that is very reasonable. i think the public supports it largely, i just saw a poll saying those who make over a million dollars support that put the ball as well. >> under the buffet role heavyset that rate? >> were setting up a double for tax reform. right now one of the openings you have seen from at least a few of the republicans in the senate has spent -- has been to raise revenues through tax reform. we wanted to put out what our
principles work for tax reform, and one of the things we wanted to say was be supported the idea low ring expenditures, raising revenues, but luring everyone's rates. in doing that we wanted to have certain principles. when of the was we did not want the tax code to get less progressive than it would be today or in the absence of the sun setting of the bush high- income tax cuts, and the second one was going to be if you're going to be taking down rates and taking alkylates for those in the highest income brackets, it was the essential to say there would be a floor under which the rate would not go, and that was obviously something warren buffett had spoken about quite a lot, and the point there is that that is not even the principal that will affect most people who are very well off. it will only affect those who are somehow able to organize
their income so that all of their income or the overwhelming majority is at preferential rates. again that is a principle that has wide support, so because we do not know exactly the metrics of what tax reform will become we wanted to put that out and the progressivity principle out. you have worked for mario cuomo, obama, and bill clinton. >> that would be a great question to answer. [laughter] up there with who you love more, mom or dad? greta and your answer to that question is? >> my answer to that question is that i have lived a charmed life as a progressive policy wonk.
the privilege i have had to work for people who are of such intelligence and commitment. that is not to say that there are not other people who would be great leaders to work for, but all of them were so intelligent, so thoughtful, so interested in the details of public policy. when i was asked about ron barack's book about obama, i was so upset about the thesis that he was being dragged along by others. i sat in march in a six-hour meeting in the roosevelt room on whether we should go forward with our stress test. the fact that the economic team did not totally agree to meant that the president had to sit there at the most complex financial issues imaginable and
go back and forth quizzing some of the top economists and financial experts in the world and then making what ultimately proved to be a very wise call. that is not something you can do without both an enormous amount of intelligence, without you being the one who was running the show, often because you're economic advisers will be divided at times and you have to make the call. >> as you brief him every day, who sits in that meeting? >> we spent quite a bit of time with him, but sometimes it fluctuates. the budget negotiations with speaker baiting -- speaker boehner, it was almost a role in meeting.
if we send him for -- we send him economic update each and every day on quite a variety of issues. >> the does he handle the economic issues as well as or better than bill clinton? >> [laughter] rahn told me at the very beginning not to ever take clinton versus obama questions. there's nothing to be gained from those. they are both very smart policy people, trained as lawyers, who i think come to expect as i would, and probably you as well. who i think, added from a very discerning position. -- come at it from a very discerning position. they come at it from a year high
understanding of economics, but also -- a very high understanding of economics, but also with realism about what works and what will be perceived. you have to have a core of the guiding you when you make these decisions. when you are in that room and you have absolutely determined that the right thing to do is just going to be terrible politics and you decide to still go forward. when the decision it was made on chrysler, i was part of the team in advocating strong weight to that. you could not argue to the president that this was politically popular at this time. it was not. you could not argue that the stress test, the financial rescue stabilization were politically popular. but each and every moment he did the right thing. he did the right thing for the
economy knowing he would probably pay a political price for that, but it was the right thing to do. >> is the white house satisfied with the way the volcker role, as is proposed, are you in support of the regulatory proposal that is in front of the people? >> we obviously, in doing financial reform, we were very active in the legislation. obviously, we do not control all of the regulations put out by independent regulators because they are independent. that said, i think we looked at the ball rolled off, as he noted later, it was released 35 -- the volcker rule, as he noted later, it was really 35 pages. the rest was commentary. and i think the basic t, the basic purpose, the basic goals are in place. >> are you satisfied with the
occupied wall street movement? do you have any comments on that movement? >> i think the frustration those people face, i think they see what was historic effort to stabilize our financial system. they, like us, are still unsatisfied with the state of the economy and feel a sense of unfairness in how the economy has rewarded the different segments of the public, not just in the past couple of years, but in the last 10 or 12 years. i think we understand that. i cannot try to say that i can say much more, other than i think our goal always has to
focus on what the tangible elements that we can do. i feel bad i cannot any more than you -- i do not have any better insight than the people here as to the media and the exact composition and the exact issues are, but i will say that we are putting forward tangible, real choices for people. we are asking for a jobs out -- jobs act that does ask for compensation from the most fortunate among us. if jobs at that we feel will put people back to work and make them feel -- a jobs act that we feel will put people back to work and make them feel the economy is working again.
for mortgage refinancing and student loans, we're going to take up those issues, too. but what do you think the chances are there will be a sequestration? in other words, that the super committee will not come to any resolutions? >> as i say to people, i might know.ow -- i don't it was the joke about somebody that it's more educated they do not know, but at a higher level of sophistication i would say
that i am probably more informed than the average person. but i still think is very difficult to predict. i think the good news is that i think that particularly, you have seen many democratic leaders much more open to being part of a grand bargain. over the last year, a lot with the leadership of president obama, he has been much more open to taking on difficult issues on medicare and other entitlements from democrats if they can be part of a grand bargain. i think there are republicans who want to be part of the grand bargain, who understand intellectually that, of course, you can get serious, fair, sustainable agreement. but unfortunately, even those who feel that way, and i think
speaker brainard did for a time , -- speaker boehner did for a time, they are blocked. you have to hope that the public message, that that people still care about what the public says. they overwhelmingly support balance. they overwhelmingly want us to work together. they overwhelmingly do not want either of us to take absolutist positions. i just have to hope that over time, that will force an agreement. and i will say that having lived here and having been part of the white house in 1995, when things seemed pretty died in october and november of 1995 when we had to shut down. but three months later, president clinton and bob dole were sitting in the oval office at trying to balance out -- hammer out a balanced budget agreement. i still believe things can turn. i am still hopeful.
every day, i talked to -- not every day, but often enough i talk with rising republicans in positions of responsibility who want to be part of a solution. i think they have to be willing to overcome the opposition and their party in the same way that president obama was willing to help move his party to move toward a grand compromise. >> does the president support you in supporting operation twist? >> on the -- on that, the clinton economic team, the obama economic team, we respect them both, so we do not comment on whether we supported or not. and we think that is a hallmark of our system. we, as an economic team, often
talk to the federal reserve and to the chairman about policy issues. i meet with him once a month. tim geithner meet with him more often than that. he does come in and we have small meetings with him on the president. i think what we try to do is make sure we are using their expertise, make sure we are consulting with them on issues like housing, make sure that the chairman has a chance to speak to the president to tell him his views. but on the other hand, always make sure that we keep the line clear that they are independent and that we are not seeking to influence them in any way. >> what about the so-called belen chinese tariffs? with the president veto that bill or signing it becomes in its current form? -- or sign it if it comes in its
current form? >> i think we share the aspiration of that bill to try to create a more level playing field between us and china. there is little question that their currency is not determined by market forces. and that puts our workers and companies at an unfair disadvantage. we have said that if the bill is moving forward we want to make sure it is consistent with our international obligations. we had some concerns in those areas and would want them to be fixed. but i do not think there is any question that there are challenges in our relationship, economic relationship in terms of a level playing field. and within our international
obligations, that is something that we, as a country, need to address more. >> let me ask you a final question. if the president is reelected, would you expect to serve another four years, and you would be 16 years in democratic administrations -- do you have that much energy left? >> your questions to seem almost to be a seminar of what questions should not be asked. hypothetical and personal hypothetical. >> you are very good at avoiding the direct answer. [laughter] but hope springs eternal that you might slip. [laughter] >> i am obviously not going to answer the question. >> do you still enjoy what you are doing? >> i feel so privileged. i mean, to be able to have this position as national economic
adviser for two great presidents, two democratic presidents in my lifetime is one i take enormously seriously. i feel incredibly privilege, but also just in the enormous sense of the responsibility, knowing that you can be involved in choices that if done correctly, you can improve people's lives and choices that is done poorly, can have negative consequences. as a personal matter, it is a different experience. my last time i was there i was single. i could be there every day, seven days a week. i now have two kids at home. thank god for technology that allows you on weekends to stay home. but unquestionably, at 52 years old and two kids at home, you
have to keep a greater balance in your life at this point. i had to blow off a meeting today to go to a halloween parade with my 5-year-old. >> was that a meeting with the president? >> [laughter] it was not with the president. that would have been a tougher one, but i think he would have very much respected that choice. life is much happier being married with two children, but it does require constant choices and balance in a way that i think makes my life roger, but does not allow -- richer, but does not allow the 100 hour weeks that both you and i have done at different times in our lives. >> thank you very much for the interview. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]
>> the president's weekly address is delivered this week by vice president biden. speaking from the university of pittsburgh, he comments on yesterday's unemployment report. the refusal of republicans in congress to pass the president's jobs plan, and the executive actions president obama has taken to help grow the economy. jobs are also the focus of the republican address by massachusetts senator scott brown. he talks about his jobs bill that would repeal a 3% withholding mandate on payments to contractors who do business with the federal government. >> hi, this is joe biden. i'm speaking to you from the university of pittsburgh where i just spoke to students here about what we have done to help ease the burden on them when it comes to the rising costs of tuition and the accumulated student debt. and what we're going to do to help create jobs when they
graduate. you know, today we found out we had the 20th month in a row where we have increased private sector jobs. 104,000 this month. 104,000 private sector jobs. as all of you know, that is not nearly enough. nearly enough. we have to increase the pace. we have to act now to do everything in our power to keep this economy moving and to grow jobs. president obama is on his way back from france where he just met with the leaders of the 20 largest economies in the world. we urged our european friends to step up and stabilize their own economies. if they fail, it will affect the whole world. too many americans are still struggling. too many college students here at the university of pittsburgh and elsewhere are worrying about the rising cost of tuition and the increasing accumulation of debt and too many of your parents are in stagnant jobs or out of work wondering if they are able to send their child back to college the next semester. my dad used to have a saying. he said a job is about a lot
more than a paycheck. it's about dignity. it's about respect and too many americans have been stripped of their dignity through no fault of their own. so we can't wait to help them. the president and i believe we have to act now. that's why we have introduced the jobs bill which independent validators said would create 2 million new jobs. although 51 senators voted for that jobs bill, our republican colleagues in the senate used a procedural requirement to require us to have 60 votes, so it failed. and since then, we have taken every important piece of the jobs bill and demanded that we have a separate vote. but our republican colleagues in the senate have voted unanimously to vote down each and every part so far to restore 400,000 jobs for teachers, police officers, firefighters, putting them back in classrooms, on the streets, and in the firehouses. and then thursday, they unanimously voted down the second part of our program, to rebuild our crumbling roads and
bridges, which would have created more than 400,000 good paying jobs. these are all programs that the republicans in the past have supported, but once again, every republican voted no, blocking the majority will to put these folks back to work. i think the assumption is they're voting no because of the way we paid for these jobs and they are paid for. well, we think everybody should pay their fair share. that's why we added a small surtax on the first dollar after a person makes his first million dollars to pay for it. it seems fair to us. it's a small price to pay to put hundreds of thousands of people back to work. so we can't wait. we can't wait for the congress to start acting responsibly. and that's why the president has begun to use his executive power in making announcements like one that will put hundreds of thousands of people who will be able to go and refinance their homes from the 6% interest they're paying to 4% which is the rate now.
that would save them $2,000 a year. that's why the president announced that beginning next year, no student will have to pay back more than 10% of their discretionary income toward their student debt. he also announced new regulations regarding prescription drugs to prevent price gouging and there is more to come. if the republican congress won't join us, we're going to continue to act on our own, to make the changes that we can to bring relief to middle class families and those aspiring to get in the middle class. look, it's simple. we refuse to take no for an answer. we know these steps taken alone are not going to solve all of our problems, but they will make a difference in the lives of millions of american of millions of american families struggling to hold on. and you know and i know if the republicans would just let the congress do its job, let it step up and meet its responsibilities, we could do so much more and we would do it immediately. that's why the president and i need your help, to tell your
republican congressmen and senators to step up. tell them to stop worrying about their jobs and start worrying about yours because we're all in this together. and together is the way we're going to bring america back. even stronger than it was before. thank you. >> hello, i'm united states senator scott brown. when the citizens of massachusetts sent me to the united states senate last year, they expected me to work with anyone in any party for the good of our country. and that's what i do each and every day. with millions of americans looking for jobs, it's no mystery what our priorities should be here in washington. we should be doing all that we can to help this economy start creating jobs again and we should be doing it right now. working to create jobs is one of those challenges that tests us here in congress. it shows us who we really serve, the party leadership on capitol hill, or the people who elected us in the first place and my attitude is, i answer to
my conscience and to my constituents, period. that's my focus. and with the clock running down on 2011, focus is exactly what congress needs to revive our nation's economy. with the holidays approaching, listen, this should be a happy time spent with families, but unfortunately, too many americans have spent months looking for a job and still can't find one. the reality is that we should make a difference here and now with legislation that can be passed immediately. now, i know this can happen because both parties have already found some common ground in economic policy, for example. just a few weeks ago we passed free trade agreements with korea, and other countries. this shows what partisanship can accomplish. they were negotiated by president bush, passed by a republican house and a democratic senate and signed into law by president obama. yes, it took a lot longer than it should have, but after some
give and take, we finally got it done. just like that, we set in motion a big change that is going to create thousands of jobs in massachusetts and all across america. meanwhile another bipartisan opportunity is staring us right in the face. it's a jobs bill i introduced back in january and far from being just my idea, it's the only jobs bill on the table that has the support of the majority in the house and in the senate and also has been endorsed by the president. this bill would repeal the 3% withholding mandate. it's a stealth tax that will hit small businesses and contractors starting in 2013. if this mandate is not repealed, then all levels of government will suddenly start withholding 3% of payments to contractors that provide any product or service to the government. now, all the mandate will do is take more money out of our economy at a time when quite frankly, we can least afford it. as a result, businesses will have less money to hire and pay
new workers. the costs of enforcing this unfounded mandate will actually be higher than the revenue is raises by 8-1. only in washington does this make sense. listen, it's a jobs killer. here is where we stand right now on the bill. it was passed by the house last week with an overwhelming 405 votes. now it's come to the senate. so the decision pretty much rests with majority leader harry reid. are we going to do something for the american people, or are we going to let politics win out again? leader reed has come to me a few times and asked me to consider bills and their merits. i'm always willing to do so. i'm asking the same of my colleague, the majority leader. this jobs bill comes at the right time for the right reasons and it deserves a prompt vote on the senate floor without any gimmicks that will