be the result of more generation would be less environmentally friendly. but typically it doesn't get to that. it's a long settlement process where -- >> as the gentleman have a specific requirement you have to consider offsets for shutting down a plant? >> not that i'm aware of. >> that's one of the things we need to talk about more is when you don't approve a road improvement you should have to offset the pollution caused by the congestion rather than always we look at the emissions that happen for construction, but the no project option and the environmental and economic and social the impact of that need to be considered but the environmental impact is 1i find a real hypocrisy you want to have offsets for the emissions cost for building the project but nobody who's stopping the project has to account for the environmental pollution caused buy not finishing the project and i yield back. >> the gentleman from deily, mr. sculley says recognize. >> thank you mr. chairman. i appreciate you holding this hearing and all of the commissioners who come here to participate and talk about the cost of regulations especially how it impacts people and when you look at a lot of the intent which usually is said aboutqoqoo regulations that come out theqoo sound really good and usuallyq the name of a building can tell how bad itq is by how good the name sounds is an inverseqqq proportion. andq so, as i talk to people aç our economy is sluggish rightaçç now and of course in many cases when you talk to small business owners anda talk to american j creators as as many of us to th first thing they will tell youa the biggest impediment to joba creation in america are federal regulations.aaaaaaaa all of the other things they ge in their way theya can manage seems alike the federalaaa regulations have become theaa biggest burden to creating jobs in america today. so when you look at some of these regulations you definitel want to look and sqee what is e impact or the even achievingqq some of the results they wereq intended to and in many casesq you find out they are not and then you look at some of these agencies and we've had a numberw of hearings and i appreciate chairman having the hearingsqwqs we've had going through variousq agencies looking at the president's executive order and we have been pointed out aboutyy the people in implementing it, the shortcomings of theyyyy president's executive orderyy yich doesn't get it the cost o regulation and there is a repor recently done by the small business administration. it's titled the impact of regulatory costs on small firms. this really look at how will impact our small businesses.çñç the people that actually create the bulk of the jobs in our economy. and i guess it's not surprising for those of laws that have been to some of these hearings, but they talk about the cost of federal regulation and small businesses is over $1.7 trillion how does that break down? i broke it down profoundly. over $15,000 per family is the cost to small businesses of these regulations. and so when you look at the regulations and the impact our it's not only affecting jobs, it's a major impact that's costing jobs but also costs every american family over $15,000 you say where's the bang for the buck, and i want to ask commissioner northup, you touched on this in your opening testimony, about some of the things and you have seen businesses go under, actually go bankrupt because the regulations and in many cases had actually no health impact. bills that were sold in regulations that were sold as helping children that bachelet had nothing to do with health it just had to do with some kind of radical policy somebody had that didn't help anybody it just a company go bankrupt. can you expand upon some of the things you've seen how the regulations not only impact the businesses that you talked about, but also how in many cases there's not leave any relationship between health. >> i will give you two of them quickly. one is in the bill that you passed, you had exclusions with the limit for electrical products, and we have a hole cut out for that. you have an exclusion for and accessible parts, and we have addressed that. you also had an exclusion for lead that where it couldn't be observed. i assume you meant force some things to be included in that perhaps screws, nets and bolts that are holding the credit together, maybe the handlebars of a bike because handlebars unlike paint is trapped in that metal. you can't suck out the lead. but our agency, even though i proposed a de minimus standard where if you read the handlebars and the rest of the molecule could be gotten off of that it couldn't possibly change your blood lead content so that absorbable the exclusion that you wrote in the bill on the intended you meant to apply something. the rest of the commissioners decided no so basically they found that even though you wrote in the monsoor ability exclusion applies to nothing, that there's not one material that it applies to. if we had nuts, screws, bolts, things that can't be swallowed, things that have small amounts that are in her lead and excuse me, trapped in a steel but those would have been excluded from the law. it would have made a huge difference. >> i'm running out of time. how many people have read this report that cannot just a few months ago on the impact for small businesses of the regulations? not one person on the panel -- i think it should be required for all the regulators if i can ask unanimous consent to submit this into the record the final question if i can ask -- >> before we put the minority would like to look at it and >> there's a report published in september, 2010 that cites a number of sources that goes into a very good detail on the sector of breakdowns and also differential between large businesses and small having to fall higher on the small businesses on the commissioner. can you give an assessment on the things that the fcc did to take into consideration looking at both met neutrality and data chroming rules, did they look into a proper market analysis in your opinion to look at the impact how that would be on our job creators? specters no finding of market power in fact the order, the order says as much that there was no market analysis conducted with a lot of the regulations that come down the have dramatic impacts on job creators and the cost us jobs and run out of the country it seems like the regulators kind of going to their own michelle and are oblivious to the actual impact on the, uh, so hopefully we can shift that course and i appreciate chairman for having this hearing and more like it to get the economy back on track. >> the gentleman, the minority looked at this by unanimous consent this will be made part of the record some things you for bringing it. the gentle lady from tennessee is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you for your patience and being here. commissioner mcdonough will come on the net neutrality order, a no market analysis done, no look ahead at a cost benefit analysis is going to be. if there had been that analysis done, do you believe the commission would have gone ahead and issued that order? >> i think so. i think the proceeding was out come the stand out come driven. german leibowitz, i want to come to you. i'm concerned about some with the ftc that line, food marketing guidelines. i have two grandchildren aged three and age to come and so things of this nature really like a lot of attention to. you think about the unintended consequences that are going to you may see is an unintended consequence can be having a significant reduction one of the things i found recently is the food currently sold through the wic program that is designed to provide a healthy program could no longer the proposed marketing food marketing restrictions are voluntary, but aren't these government the ngo attacks and then also, talked about i think that you can see there should be concerned about shareholder actions. if you would address that >> thank you, a congresswoman. department, the cdc and the fda. we are obligated to do what it's voluntary. just say, and you recognized the obesity crisis and twice as many obese children as there were a generation ago, but from speaking only from myself i try to take a sort of pragmatic approach here. if my kids eat special k with yogurt in the morning which actually wouldn't quite meet the nutrition guidelines, i'm pretty happy because you know what, i so my understanding is that the food marketing companies are proposed standard restored uniform guidelines. that are good, and i think they will, then we ought to take that into account going forward, members of the working group, and we will. >> but me shift gears with you, i want to go back to the privacy issues that are out there, and engine in this country and the regulatory structure when it comes to proceed. do you believe the ftc should mandate on the internet >> the last thing we want to do. no. >> thank you. i appreciate that. i think just as i said with chairman mcdowell, if he were to look at the net neutral the issue, if there had been a robust preview, cost-benefit analysis, i think that it would have been determined that benet neutrality order especially 84 was going to be detrimental to our economy, and i think that a heavy hand of a privacy issue would likewise. i've got less than a minute. i want to ask each of you a show of hands how many of you have read the executive order that we are discussing and have been through the process of reviewing that. a show of hands. >> okay. so all of you have. all right. how many of you disagree with any part of that order? is there any part of that order that you have disagreed with? yes, sir, go ahead. >> i think a member of the provisions aren't well specified. if you could have benefited from a fuller discussion about how it intended specific trade offs that are implicit in the order, commentary. it's a nice start. >> anyone else? gration our? >> it could be broader, more comprehensive and more aggressive. have had joggling hearings this morning and we appreciate it. >> the gentlelady's time is expired. the gentleman from virginia is >> thank you, mr. chairman. but my eyeglasses on so i can see everybody better. commissioner mcdowell, it's nice for me to be able to say that in a formal setting in my new role. when i look at the fcc merger review process under republican and democrat administrations, i see a process that appears to be broken. xm and series merger took away too long, comcast in b.c. merger to wait too long. there's simply too much discretion for the commission to hold the timeline of the review, for the review of the transfer of control licenses in an expeditious manner. is their something we can do to provide applicants with certainty regarding the timing of the fcc review process? and congressman chris if it's good to say that on my first time saying that publicly so congratulations. >> yes. there's a 188 day clock in the breach and in the rule to get the mergers done. i read yesterday also that of the assistant attorney general for the antitrust christine varney is stepping down and there's a big merger in the at&t t-mobile merger that needs a thorough and expeditious review, and i would hope that her stepping down doesn't believe that. i think we could get that done by the end of the year in a fare, faeroe manor. but i have been in a dialogue with chairman genachowski about making sure that we move as quickly as we can on the merger review process as there are a lot of problems with how the commission under both republicans and democrats have conducted themselves in terms of taking too long or imposing conditions that have absolutely nothing to do with the substance of the merger itself. so congress could look at it and there could be a statutory provision certainly, but the best thing to do would be to honor its own 180 déjà clock. >> just to add something we from time to time work with the fcc on the merger views and from our perspective, you don't deserve a particular outcome, but to do preserve a sort of speedy resolution. sometimes it takes longer with documents but that's where you deserve, i think that's a reasonable point. >> i agree. >> most of us would agree as well. commissioner northup comedy think congressman waxman's proposed the legislation will likely ease any burdens under the consumer product safety and protect? >> no, i don't think it goes nearly far enough. in fact, you know, he has proposed previously a functional purpose exception, which i have to say is like picking winners and losers. if you think a part -- first of all that says it can't be harmful to children, and then it says if it serves a function, for example the bicycle, then we can extend it. well, if it doesn't harm a child, why don't we have to then extend it part by part? it means big companies that have lots of product or big expensive products can afford to get a functional exemption because it's a very complicated petition you would have to follow with us. they can afford to solve the petition and all the supporting work and everything and then we can expect them before small needs for the same exact materials that do not harm a child. and i think that, you know, they probably would be able to afford either the wait for us to act on it or the cost of the petition together, so that in particular to me is not a good way to go about easing this. mckelvie of sort of a bloody a useful exception would make a huge difference. >> and did you want to add on to that? >> wanted to disagree. >> let me -- somebody tells me give you time to do that but one more thing i want to say and if i could take back my time. >> i did hear from several of you as i was listening to the testimony that he will at least eight mentioned that perhaps the legislation create more of the problem than you and to come commissioner. the legislation created more of the problem in the agency created the we should be careful when we craft legislation that may be costing jobs as well as the regulation that ultimately were in some cases it maybe an agency that's pushing the envelope in some cases it's just the agency following with the congress told them to do. >> the gentleman from cholera was recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman for your time and testimony today. chairman wellinghoff come in developing energy policies, such as policies to support the integration of renewables, demand response or the deployment of smart grid technologies, thus ferc felipe the impact that the energy price -- evaluate the impact that increased energy prices resulting from the implementation of the policies will have on jobs? >> the policies we implement hour not direct to the specific technologies but rather directed to the integration of all technologies into competitive marketplace. i believe my colleague would agree we believe the competition is good for consumers and the extent we can maximize the competition we can increase, the types of markets available in the market with a be coal or nuclear or natural gas or solar, geothermal, hydroelectric or any of these resources and also to the extent that we can do things like incorporated in demand response and energy efficiency which are usually the lowest cost resources. the whole mix of those resources in the competitive environment allowed to compete fairly in that competitive environment will in fact produce the lowest cost for consumers. >> so do you do we and analyses these policies will have on jobs? >> stomach we don't do a specific impact. >> you don't do the analysis than? >> would want to specific analysis. >> you do not to be specific analysis on jobs? >> we do not, but in terms of -- >> reclaiming my time. the executive order, so you do not believe that it -- the executive order, which i think you said you believe in the spirit of, you do not believe it requires you to look at jobs and you are exempt, but you said you want to follow the spirit of it. do you think you will have to be concerned about jobs and looking at the job impact? >> i think we're always concerned about jobs to the extent we can drive down prices in the competitive atmosphere and allow for the economy to have access to low-cost power, to the extent that we can provide low-cost competitive power within the economy we are going to create jobs and maintain jobs. ischemic but you don't do an analysis to know that or not? >> my basic economics is what i know of basic economics tells me if we can lower cost through electricity we are going to have the ability to increase jobs. >> would you commit to beginning a jobs analysis when you make decisions? >> i certainly have no problem looking at jobs. i believe, for a simple -- >> shouldn't it be -- >> a call from louisiana for example was talking give up this issue with respect to jobs, and regarding that, in turkey which is one of the utilities in louisianan, has chosen to julian a competitive market and the analysis was done that showed by joining that competitive market something over $700 million could be saved. i think there's a lot of money if you can take that money and save it or louisianan consumers and others throughout the region it wasn't just louisiana that spread through the region that a marginal money in the pockets of consumers is going to help them create jobs and invest back in the economies in ways more jobs will be created, so i think that's a very valid example of the types of things that ferc is doing to the regulations and the competitive structures that we are putting in place to insure that in fact we can create more jobs. >> and then saw what you're telling the committee and believe what you just said when it comes to developing energy policies like integration of renewables, demand response for smart grade technologies, then you are saying today that you will do a jobs analysis on these decisions? >> i am saying that to the extent that it's possible to do so, we certainly will in fact look at the impact on jobs. estimates that the we ought to be looking at the impact on jobs no matter what we do so we have an idea. >> i absolutely agree. >> do you wish to comment on this? >> i want to associate my remarks with the chairman because we believe that there's to become believers in competitive wholesale marketers and the benefit most about the resources to provide think we should always be cognizant of the impact we have on the rising energy prices as it can be substantial. >> thank you, commissioner moeller. my time is expired and i yield questions and we are completed with first round and the chairlady in light, the ranking member and i talked that we are going to ask a few questions and then wrap up. i don't think it's ever in my experience in such a distinguished group of people that could make an impact on the deregulation in america as you folks today. so we are here with a certain humility asking you what is the best way for us to move forward. as pointed out with a small business administration report, every u.s. household paid an equal share of the federal regulatory burden, each household will pay $15,586. that was in 2008. when you compare that with what we spent on health care costs in 2008, the federal regulatory burden exceeded by 50% the private spending on health care which equaled 10,500, so it's within your power to do regulate and get rid of the burdensome regulations which would spur the economy so we are not talking about something insignificant. so i guess the larger question as we passed the 1980 regulatory flexibility act. obviously that is not applicable today. and it's not working. so the question is for you as a sort of wrap up understanding theory. the president reached out and execute order and did not apply to the agencies and some of your opinions we think