Transcripts For CSPAN3 Politics Public Policy Today 2014080

epa is prepared to report summarizing the small entity outreach to date. the results of this outreach and how these results have been formed in the development of the proposed rule. since publishing the rule, most recently the agencies participated in an epa-sponsored round table on september 4. we look forward to continuing these efforts in the future and before we finalize the rule and during the remainder of the public comment period as we write the final rule. thank you, again, and i'll be happy to answer your questions, mr. chairman. >> thank you, i appreciate it. congresswoman mccarthy recently visited my state and she was talking about the waters in her state and she made this statement about concerned farmers and others -- i want to make sure i say it right -- that the proposed rules and the concerns about the proposed rules are silly and ludicrous, which i will submit the concerns of farmers and small businesses and everybody out there are certainly not silly and ludicrous. i think a lot of these concerns may have been identified if the epa had complied with the rfa, and that is my basic question here today, is why the epa did not convene small business advocacy review panels. that's what it requires. they are formal panels, and you said in your statement that you had gotten input from the ag community. i'd like to know what that is. when you say small enemy outreach, what does that mean is this and why didn't you do what the epa does require? informal outreach is not small business review panels. >> i'm sorry. thank you. i'll get the hang of that in a second here, mr. chairman. under the rfa, whatever the regulatory agency is, not just epa, is required to look at the small entities subjected to the rule. this is the interesting thing about the waters of the united states rule. it is a definitional law. it defines where the other parts of the clean water act will actually apply. so it doesn't directly impose any requirement on anybody if they're not discharging pollution. so it doesn't directly impact large businesses or small businesses in any direct way. so the jurisdictional determinations of whether the clean water act would apply or not and whether a state agency who is implementing the clean water act under the arrangements of the law would have to require an entity, small or large, to get any kind of permit would only be related to whether or not they were going to discharge pollution. and this regulation does not regulate discharges of pollution, just where the existing permit programs would have to work. but also more importantly, we are reducing the scope of where the clean water act applies from the current on-the-books regulations that the supreme court was acting on in the last decade, so we're not expanding where permits would be required. and so when we looked at all of that together, we didn't see the applicability under the regulatory flexibility act. however, we did see a desire, as we almost always have, of being able to engage all stakeholders, including small entities, and we've had a process under way to do that and we'll continue. we're planning more roundtables as well. >> when you say no discharge, discharge can include dirt and sand, runoff, rain water. >> rain water is not a pollutant. >> when it interacts with dirt and sand and you're carrying dirt and sand, that's considered a pollutant by the epa. >> it would have to be -- let me just be clear. the jurisdiction of the clean water act is where the existing laws and regulations would apply, not any new requirement. so if you have to get a permit now, you would have to get a permit under this. but if you don't have to get a permit now, most likely you would not need a permit under this. if you plow, plant and harvest, walk cows across a field, all these other things that you do in normal conduct of agriculture, if you do that now, you will be able to do that under this rule without any additional requirements from epa or the corps of engineers. >> i'll go back to my original question. you did say you are reducing the scope in terms of the clean water act, didn't you? >> reducing. >> in your epa analysis, you say there is a 3% increase in jurisdiction. >> the jurisdictional regulations were done in the 1970s and modified in the 1980s, and they have a very broad definition of what waters in the united states are. essentially we're asking field biologists to go out and determine whether anyplace on the landscape where water may be running has some impact downstream on interstate commerce. that's what -- the supreme court says we cannot use interstate commerce as a way to do this, it has to be based on some scientific basis. i think they used the term of art of significant nexxus. so when we went back and looked at 20,000 different determinations that were done in the last five years and we applied it as strictly as we could, we saw some where the applicability would go away, and we saw some where they had made the wrong call on the ground, even with the old regulation. so we were being conservative and said this looks like it could increase the amount of positive determinations for jurisdiction by 3%. but the existing regulation is much more expansive than that and hasn't been applied completely uniformly around the country. this will actually constrict that. >> why didn't the epa do small business -- the formal small business advisory review or advocacy review? >> well, we didn't do it because -- and it isn't that we didn't want to talk to small business, but we didn't have the formal panel because the panel is for the direct impact on a significant number of -- a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. the direct impact does not adhere from this rule. the impact, we think, that will be not much if any, is from the existing regulations that would apply. >> what you're saying is you determined or the epa determined there wasn't going to be an impact, so you didn't have to comply with the rfa, which is the process of determining if there is an impact? it's up to small businesses to help make that determination. >> i believe we're required to lay out our rationale for what i just said in more detail in the proposed rule. >> well, i think this is, you know, far hreaching. in fact, the term navigable waters is used 80 times in the clean water act. when you come back and do something so far reaching and we use terms like significant nexxus, and another expansion of this, too, is a jurisdictional or a water that's adjacent to a jurisdictional water, which i don't even know what that means in terms of how expansive that could be. that could include anything. and it comes back to as well when you're making that determination on -- you know, on discharge or what that significant nexxus is, that's an extraordinarily subjective determination obviously going to be made by the epa. i think with the impact that's out there with this, it really bothers me that you all determined that this isn't going to have an impact. because we believe it does. you know, in a big way. and to say that we don't have to comply with the rfa because we don't think there is an impact, i think, is wrong. i've called you on all to withdraw this rule. you know, i'm asking again. i think the epa needs to withdraw this rule and go through the process the way it should be gone through and follow the law, and i'm very disturbed by that and very disturbed by some of the things that have been brought out just now. i wasn't expecting some of your answers. with that i'll have some other questions later, but i'll turn to ranking member velasquez. >> thank you, mr. chairman. deputy administrator, the clean power plant provides states with some flexibility to meet emissions reduction goals as they see fit. what happens if states fail to submit their plan by the deadline or epa concludes a plan is not satisfactory? >> it is our full hope and aspiration that that won't happen. that's why we are spending a lot of time with every state. we tailored this rule so it's tailored with every state and we're meeting with every state to try to work through how they can make their plan successful. so the law has provisions in it that when states fail to do plans under the clean air act, the epa has the authority to propose a plan. we do not want to do that, and that would not be our objective. >> in your testimony you highlighted that many industries, including agriculture and forestry, will continue to be exempt from most of this. do you think the new rule will necessitate additional industry exemptions? >> you're talking about the water rule? >> yes. >> most are exempt from the rule in the jurisdiction of the clean water act. so even if a water is jurisdictional under the proposal, if you're doing agricultural activities, you're exempt. you do not need to comply with any permitting processes and we're not changing any of that. one thing we've tried to do is clarify issues that farmers have brought up to us concerning ditches, where they may do some ditching to drain some upland areas when it rains, or maybe an industry will do it on their industrial lot, or some ditches on highways. for the first time we've made it clear that those are not jurisdictional. those would not be under the jurisdiction of the clean water act. >> deputy administrator, i guess that you understand by now that there is frustration in this committee regarding the fact that we have the regulatory act that would allow for agencies to compel or create a panel review process so that it will give a voice to small businesses. and i think that if you do that, the agency wins and small businesses also will win, because you will issue a better regulation when you have input from small businesses. and small businesses will be more satisfied because they feel that you have been able to listen to them. i don't know why the reluctance or -- i just do not understand how do you conclude or come to the conclusion that there is not direct impact on small entities? because you haven't provided us the process in which you arrive to that conclusion. >> well, certainly i want to be able to provide that to the committee, and we will endeavor to do that. but whenever we do a rule making and we make a decision in our proposal that the direct impact -- there may be indirect impacts, but the direct impact is not from the epa rule making, then the law prescribes that that does not require a panel to be set up. but i want to be clear, that doesn't mean we shouldn't reach out to small businesses and work with them. >> i understand you did, right? but my understanding is that the outreach took place three years ago and the language now is different? >> on the water? >> yes. >> yes. we had a whole bunch of sessions a couple years ago when we were working on guidance. people told us not to do a guidance, do regulation. we proposed a regulation which is built on some of the work we did back at that point. but since that time, we've been working with spa to do roundtable discussions, and as i mentioned, we had one on july 21st and we were hoping to have more before we finalized the rule, roundtable discussions with small businesses. >> would you share with us, what do you learn from that sba roundtable? >> on the water side, believe it or not, we're learning that small businesses really want clean water. and that's becoming clear. in fact, there was a recent poll done by the american sustainable business council that found that 80% of small business owners want protection similar to what we're talking about, and that 71% said clean water is necessary for their businesses. but we're also finding that they want it to be -- they want to be clear when they're in and when they're out of that jurisdiction. so one of our objectives is to take the existing regulations, which are -- one of the issues we have is people haven't looked at those old regulations back in the '70s and '80s for some time, so when we take out a new one and try to replace it, they're only looking at the new one and the old one is very vague. downstream interstate commerce. it's not a scientific principle. so we're trying to pull it back to a place to find that increased certainty. and that would be our objective and we're hoping to get more comment on that. >> thank you. >> to clarify real quick, because you keep bringing up the exemption and the ag exemption. there is no exemption for ag under 402. >> if they're discharging pollution, like a point source of pollution. >> that could include, again, rain water -- >> if it's runoff rain, it's non-source pollution and it would not covered under section 402. it would have to be in a pipe or something that is discharging. and congress in 1987 asked that large animal feed sources would be covered. that's in the 1987 clean water act amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. administrator perciasepe, i want to thank you first. one of the things i'm working on is the proposed rule that is out there with with regards to woodburning heaters. i've offered a bill to stop the nonsense of what you're trying to do, and i understand that there is some discussions going on between you and industry folks, which i'm very thankful for and hope that proceeds. i think this is -- i understand the need for conformity across the spectrum of this, but to go down the direction that we were going down there is problematic for me, so i thank you for the willingness to work with industry. with regards to the other issue before us today, it is stunning to me when you make your statement, sir, that you don't -- you didn't see the effect on small business from trying to define a word in the law. to redefine or clarify is going to have dramatic impact. when you say -- if you redefine the word customer, you are leaving it lout a lot of people. to use the word navigable is unheard of to me. to not do a report and analysis before this is extremely naive and incompetent, or it's arrogance at its highest to be able to flaunt your authority over the rules, the process, the procedure. this is unacceptable. absolutely unacceptable. especially when you look at in this law there is the words hyd hydrogenically connected. this is extremely porimportant, extremely important. i can't stress it enough, especially for rural parts of our community. i offer you the opportunity to discuss it. >> thank you, and you're getting at the crux of the issue under the clean water act, and we have to look at the body of everything that's been going on and not just old rule makings of the corps of engineers and the epa but also the supreme court rulings and what they've been telling us to do. they've been consistently clear that it is not just navigable in the traditional sense, but particularly when you're dealing with clean water, the stuff that flows into the navigable, if it's polluted, it will pollute the navigable. everyone from justice scalea to justice kennedy has made it clear. justice kennedy uses the word significant nexxus. and going back to your question, mr. chairman, as well, significant nexxus is a new thing the supreme court gave us. so we're trying to find out how -- the purpose of the executive branch putting out a proposed regulation is trying to -- i have dicda from chief justice roberts telling us to do this. so nexxus is definitely hydrology, as you just pointed out. what is the connection? you could make the argument as the chairman made that rain falling is connected somehow. and so one of our jobs in this rule making, one of the things we're most interested in to trying to get more input on is how do we define "significant"? everything might be connected but it's not all significant. so back in the old regulation it said if it had any impact for probable or any impact on downstream interstate commerce, we're trying to use the science of hydrology and say, well, it has to have certain characteristics that are identifiable by a hydrologist, that there is enough flow in that water course that it's frequent enough and enough that it creates these characteristics on the landscape. otherwise it's not significant. so we've tried to do that in this rule. >> you just made my point, though, sir. why didn't you have -- why didn't you go through the rule-making process you're required to? because you just admitted, it's a tremendously impactful situation you're discussing here, and you don't think it's going to impact small businesses when you just said it's huge, you have the supreme court involved in trying to define things and direct you in some of your activities and it's not worthy of going through the process that you're required to do, to go through and figure out the impact on small businesses? that's what the chairman was talking about. that's what this hearing is all about today. >> and we're working with small businesses and the small business administration. >> you just talked about how important it is and how big a problem it was, and now we didn't go back and do what we were supposed to do, and that is to determine the impacts based on the effects of it. i see my time is over, but stunning. absolutely stunning. >> mr. tipid? >> thank you, mr. chairman, and i'd like to be able to submit for the record a letter from the waters advocacy coalition. it is signed by 39 different organizations, among those the american farm bureau rgs the american gas association, foundation for environmental and economic progress, national association of home builders, national pork producers council, many others. the basic content of the letter is objecting to the insufficient analysis offered by the epa on the impacts this rule will have. >> no objection. submitted. >> thank you. mr. perciasepe. >> call me bob. >> okay, bob. as the letter that i'm just referencing from the waters advocacy coalition is noting, the agency certified the waters of the united states rule as one that will not have significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. yet the agency did not provide any factual basis for that certification as required under the rfas. did the epa simply fail to do this because a factual basis didn't actually exist? >> we provided an analysis to make the determination that the rule itself, looking at direct impacts, which is what we're required to do under the rfa, would not have a significant impact on the substantial number of small entities. >> what do you qualify as a substantial number? >> well, it's more the direct impact than the number. >> so we don't even know what the number is when we're talking about who is going to be impacted? >> well, we are not expanding the jurisdiction of the clean water act, so any small entity that is currently covered by the clean water act will continue to be covered by the clean water act. we're not making more of them covered. >> actually, you're saying not making more covered, but in your testimony you stated people wanted to be clear whether they're in or out of jurisdiction, but under the determinations you're making, you clearly can't expand jurisdiction. >> but that's not what we're proposing. we're proposing to not add any new waters to these -- to what is covered in jurisdictional. we're trying to exclude certain things. >> is there connectivity between all waters? >> there is, but -- >> sdoedoesn't that give you complete control? >> they're not all considered significant. >> what defines significant? >> we've made it clear what waters define significant. >> what are they? >> in a hydrology area, if water is flowing intermittently -- >> what's intermittently? >> not all year round. >> so it could be 10 minutes? >> well, let me -- it could be enough to -- that water flows there frequently enough -- >> what's frequently? >> you're not going to let me answer? >> i'm just trying to get down to the actual definition, because the arbitrary nature of this rule is expansive. >> it's not arbitrary, and if you let me answer, i can give you some clarity. in the science of hydrology, you can look at a depressed area where water would flow. whether it flows full-time or part-time, let's use plain english words, it will exhibit characteristics on the ground. there will be a bed, there will be banks, there will be a normal high water mark. these are things identifiable to hydrologists, and if you don't have those characteristics, there is not enough frequency of flow or flow that will make it limiting to anything downstream to interstate commerce. >> what you just described to me -- i work in the southwestern united states in colorado. we get one rainstorm. and with the lay of our land, you could have a high water mark caused by a 10-minute flow that then disappears. so under what you're describing to me, a 10-minute flow that happens once a year becomes -- >> a water mark is not something that gets wet 10 minutes ago, it can be seen on the rock or the debris or discoloration. >> or a cut in the bank of dirt? >> erosional features are not covered. >> you excluded those. i'd like to move on here and move in a different direction. if you put out a rule under epa, do you expect it to be followed? >> yes. >> should you comply with the rfa and with mika? >> yes, we do. >> so is it appropriate right now under section 104 of the existing clean water act that both retroactively and preemptively you're shutting down projects before determination is made under the rf a&ma sk arka and mika? >> i don't -- >> are you shutting off projects saying you can't proceed? >> they have an issue of the rule. >> but we have a proposed rule. >> but we have existing regulations that are more expansive than the proposed rule. >> i just read that in alaska, the pebble mine, is that right? >> crystal bay. >> crystal bay. have you shut that down before the analysis has been done? >> our regional administrator made a finding that is out for public comment. there's been no action taken on that. >> no action, so it's not allowed to move forward until the action takes place? >> they can do whatever they want while that action is under consideration. that action is to look at an area of water that we would not want to see discharge into. >> thank you, sir. i don't know if we're going to have a second round. i'm way over time, mr. chairman. >> we can. mr. collins? >> thaunk you, mr. chairman. i have to give you credit. i think you knew you were coming into the lions' den today, and i give you credit. for full disclosure, mr. perciasepe and i attended a hearing a week or so ago on the same issue. i concluded that hearing by saying to bob that the public doesn't trust the epa, farmers don't trust the epa not to overreach, congress doesn't trust the epa. and at that point in time, i pointed out the rule should be withdrawn, plain and simple. and the epa should start over. what we had in our committee hearing in science was we kept hearing words like confusion, uncertainty, misunderstanding, clarification throughout that hearing. and this was democrats and republicans alike. i would also like to point out we all know about gridlock in washington. there is only one agency that unites democrats and republicans, and that is distrust of the epa. your agency has united us where it's very hard to do so. >> please don't talk -- don't represent me, okay? >> well, here's what i can say factually to our rarnking membe. a majority of congress, a majority of congress. 240-plus members, republicans and democrats, signed a letter that i authored to the epa saying we don't trust you, withdraw the rule. that was a majority of the members of congress. and your agency has continued to disrespect congress to go down your own road, and again, continuing this rule making when a majority of congress, democrats and republicans, and on the science committee, the harshest questioning came from the democrat side about this particular rule. and i just came from a hearing in science on the clean air act in the war on coal. and a former obama administrative official from the department of energy summed up the epa this way. to paraphrase, the arrogance of the epa is beyond pale. the department of energy was not legitimately asked to participate in some of this rule making, and in fact, he called it a political agenda by the administration and the epa. this is a former obama administrative official less than two hours ago. so my question is very simple. given the facts, the majority of congress has asked you to withdraw this rule. why won't the epa withdraw the rule and start over? there is no rush, you're not under a deadline, there's no judicial deadline. what is the harm in listening to congress and withdrawing this rule, clarifying all the misunderstandings and confusion and everything else, and come out with a clean rule? why won't the epa do that? or will you do that? let me start with, will you withdraw the rule? yes or no? >> the agency -- >> yes or no? >> no. >> why not? given that congress has asked you to do so. >> you all have put the agency in a very difficult situation. we're trying to improve the situation out there given the supreme court constantly telling us -- >> why won't you withdraw the rule and start over? what harm is there in withdrawing the rule ask stand starting over when a majority of congress is on the record asking you to do so, republicans and democrats? what is the harm of doing that to the rfa? is there something we don't see? >> we continue with the uncertainty that everybody -- >> what is the harm in withdrawing the rule? >> the harm would be in maintaining the uncertainty that currently exists, and we are going to continue to try to solve that problem. this is just a proposal. >> let's just be clear. you don't care that a majority of congress -- >> i do care. >> -- sets the laws -- >> i do care -- >> -- and asked you to withdraw the rule? why don't do you it? you just said there is no legitimate rule, there is no timing, there is nothing but the arrogance of the epa. mr. chairman, i yield back. >> you know -- >> go ahead. >> i have a supreme court chief -- >> that was my question. >> -- who is saying, why don't the agencies do this? i have one branch who wrote me when i was the acting administrator saying, please do a rule making. now i have that branch saying maybe we should withdraw it. i have another branch of the federal government saying, when are the agencies going to get their act together and do a rule making? >> you just need to do it the right way. >> i think it would be in everybody's interest to take the comment -- >> it's kind of cynical. and look, i am a member of this committee for 22 years. i've been fighting the administration, whether it's a republican or a democrat, when i feel that things are not done right on behalf of small businesses. but i have to say that when it comes to repealing obamacare, the supreme court is the law of the land. when it comes to the issue of the water, the supreme court is telling them that they have to address the issue. so we don't win in this house. >> just to clarify, was there a judicial deadline? i just asked to clarify. was there a judicial deadline? >> no, sir. >> mr. schweigert. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and i'd like to submit to the record from a roundtable we held in arizona about a month and a half ago the transcript. >> without objection. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. perciasepe, and in the future known as administrator bob. >> deputy administrator bob. >> excuse me, deputy administrator bob. there is a rumor going around that you will be leaving us in a few weeks, is that correct? >> that is correct. >> this is how you celebrate your departure, by hanging out with us? >> i'm trying to represent my position in the agency correctly here, but i view this as my solemn duty to do so. >> you were in front of the science committee a couple weeks ago, and as i even shared with both my staff and even some of the members on the other side, i thought you treated me particularly fairly, because some of the discussion, having spent a lot of time digging into this waters of the u.s. rule, it's complicated. but you do understand our stress level, particularly for those of us from the arid southwest, what some of these rules mean. i am going to ask a favor of you before you -- the rumor is you're leaving in about three weeks. in the science committee, there was a request from mr. weber from texas specifically asking for any of the maps that fish and wildlife -- and i know you provided some of the maps, but we would like to get our hands on any of the mapping that was provided by fish and wildlife in helping sort of design the impacts and the calculations, particularly economic impacts, of this rule. >> i think we may have provided those maps earlier this week, but if not, i will absolutely make sure they go in there. >> if you have, my notes may be a little bit -- >> that's fine. there is always a running back and forth between all of us. but let me just say that when i did look into that, i did discover that the maps were created as far back as 2005, and they've been updated since then. and they were not for regulatory purposes. but i think all the maps that i think we had, if they're not at the committee now, they are going to be there this week. >> deputy administrator bob, one of the concerns is the mapping was used also in doing some of the economic analysis and trying to understand its impact of the rules. there was one scenario that i left from last week and i really wanted to sort of walk through because you have personal experience on this. when you were with -- was it sierra club before? >> no, sir. it was at the national autobohn. bird conservation. >> one of the projects was in our dry salt river. >> yes. >> it's a beautiful project, the rehabilitation using the gray water. under this updated waters of the u.s. rule, do you believe you would have to get a permit to do that project today? >> the actual restoration? >> the actual retention, the movement, the capturing of the water, the actual project. would that project from beginning to end today require a permit? there was also some environmental damage, old batteries and other things. >> there was a brown fill site across there, and i think you mentioned that i worked with the former mayor to do that project. it may have gotten a 404 permit. i think it was the corps of engineers that did that restoration, wasn't it? >> i think they did some of the water channelling. i think the project was separate but i'm reaching back in my mind. >> down in the stream bed where i've actually gone birding and looked at the -- where there's been some water brought into there and some vegetation is now growing to attract -- in that stream bed, if lthere was a disturbance of the stream bed -- >> there's two mechanics and i only have about 45 seconds to run this through. one was in many occasions where we've actually tried to do good acts, my fear is if this gets an expansive interpretation, all of a sudden the good acts are going to require to get a 404 permit and go through those hoops. is there a potential we're creating a barrier to there? i'm going to sort of leap unless you combine the answers. last week i walked through a scenario of, okay, this isn't about the water, it's about anything that's a pollutant in the water. so our little scenario of the dry wash behind my home, and i put fertilizer and plant and sediment in that 14 inches of rainy get a year that all come on a tuesday, it's running down the wash and hits the verdi river and the verdi river hits the salt river. i move dirt. it potentially gets washed down into that drew wash into a running river. did i potentially need a 404 permit in planting my tree, and what's my exposure that may not be your intent today, but the way this is drafted, there is a whole new cause of action and future litigation that's coming at us that the lawyers now get to spend the next decade moving that direction. >> well, the quick answer is, without -- and i want to put the asterisks next to this. i'd love to go to your house and look at this project myself, but i would say it's highly unlikely that's significant under the way we prepared this rule, whereas the existing regulation, the law on the books that the supreme court has been opining about, has no such clarity of what's significant. it just simply says anything the field biologist thinks might have an impact downstream. >> because i'm way over time, a litigation exposure. >> i think it would be less than what currently exists. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> mr. bate? >> thank you, mr. chairman. and i will follow mr. schweigert and call you deputy administrator bob. also hearing that you're going to be looeaving, probably after today you figure you should have left three weeks and a day earlier. we're going to try to just get some questions answered. there's been a lot of discussion about how the epa's new rule can negatively affect small business. can you just list or describe ways it can affect small business? >> on the water definitional rule, or the waters of the united states, we firmly believe, and we heard this from the discussions we've had with small businesses, that a, they want to make sure the law is interpreted correctly because they want clean water. but second, they want to be able to have the clarity or the certainty of what's in and what's out. we are struggling to do that. and that is our intent to try to do that. and we will continue to endeavor in that. on the clean power plan rule that we've talked about a little bit here, one of the things that epa has laid out there is that we want states to really seriously consider energy conservation as an important part of what their plan might be, and i know for sure that the whole sector of energy conservation, whether it be smart grids or how to make things better in your house, is going to be very oriented to small business opportunities. >> as a matter of fact, through homeland security and the cyber security bill, i have a piece of legislation that was amended into that bill to do a smart grid study for upgrading the grid across the country and benefiting areas that tend to have natural disasters and also looking at manmade, so that's right up my alley. now, why are you having such a hard time getting small business to understand these issues? >> well, i think that we are spending a lot of time with small business. i know that one of the issues the committee has is why not do that under the regulatory flexibility act, and it's because a lot of the impacts that may or may not accrue, and a lot of the benefits that may or may not accrue, depending how these proposals unfold, will be indirect impacts or indirect opportunities. and the regulatory flexibility act deals with direct impacts. so we're not regulating somebody that does an energy conservation project with a new kind of thermostat. we're not regulating those people, but they may have an opportunity to provide more business. so we have reached out to small businesses, we have roundtables under way with the sba on the water rule, we are in the process of finishing up our formal hearings this week on the clean power plan, and then we plan between now and when the rule is finalized and even way before that to spend even more time with small businesses, whether it's small co-ops or the small mondays or even the directly impacted small businesses. >> over the holidays and the complexity of all this, the clean water act increases the amount of time it takes to make jurisdictional determinations. in your estimation, how much shorter time will these jurisdictional determinations take with the proposed rules as opposed to the old ones? >> the current one, because of the way it's written, requires almost every request for -- or any project that might be near water for them to go through a process on a case-by-case basis with the corps of engineers. the other thing we're trying to do here, and the intent, is to have enough definition along the lines we were talking about earlier, congressman, that it would reduce the number of case-by-case determinations and therefore make it more quickly apparent whether they have a jurisdictional issue or not. but i also want to point out, if you're not going to discharge pollution or put fill into the water, it wouldn't matter one way or the other. >> okay. thank you very much, and i yield back. >> mr. hanna? >> hello, how are you? >> i'm fine. >> good. if you're trying to prove that you're trying to make things easier, you're not really doing it, as you can sense. the cynicism in this room, at least on our side of the aisle, is profound. i don't think it's borne out of some disinterest in the environment or anything like that. i think for one thing, your former administrator, lisa jackson, her comment that it wasn't her job, to paraphrase, to worry about the economy, if you remember that, was, i think, a scary thing to hear for everyone in the country. and the subjective nature of the conversation here today and the notion that so much about this has the potential to be arbitrary and capricious and the concern that the farmers and builders and contractors that i deal with daily -- i was in construction for many years -- it's not in any way, and i'm not surprised that you said that businesses are concerned they have clean water. who isn't? that's really not much of a statement, with all due respect, or surprise. the problem your organization has is nobody believes you. you have no credibility here because, frankly, people feel put upon. and the burden -- i just went through almost 13 years in our community to get a 404 permit through the army corps of engineers for something that was a relatively simple process, and it would appear to a lot of people i know, and i'm sure you hear this, too, that the epa is now our enemy, not our friend. that somehow everything has become so burdensome, so complicated, so drawn out that the growth that we look for in our economy, the opportunities that lie in front of people, that you're an obstructionist organization and not someone who ushers them through the process. and for people in business, you know, every bureaucrat that walks through the door feels like they're throwing an obstacle at their feet. here you are one more but yet you're bigger than all the rest. and people assume that you can in some way interfere in everything everywhere all the time. and when they hear the definition of navigable waterways and people are inclined to believe that it means the water off their roof. so when you explain that it doesn't -- and i'm just telling you the way the people i work for feel -- they don't believe you, and they're concerned. and if the concern seems disproportionate to your intent, which, you know, i'm listening to you and i believe you're ernest in what you're saying, you up. because, frankly, the outcome that you desire is going to be pushed back by this entire country. not because it isn't an outcome that we might all want and even agree on, but because, frankly, nobody believes you. i wonder how you feel about that or if he even agree. >> well, i haven't, and more does epa, do polling to determine who believes and who doesn't believe us. >> but you don't have to. >> let me just say what i believe, okay? i don't believe most people don't trust epa. the polling i have seen, for what it's worth back in the past by others show that people prefer epa to be setting standards. and, you know, but i don't have enough data on what every person in the united states thinks about -- >> preferring to have a sense of standards is not the same as being -- as trusting. >> yes. >> so this trust thing is a problem, particularly if congress has it. i'm here today to try and explain what our intent is and trying to build a bridge. >> i appreciate that. but you're not going anywhere with the presentation i see today. packing up and blaming the supreme court or using them as a crutch, that also isn't helpful. at the end of the day, this place has the ability to do -- to do what it would like to see done. we have the capacity to make mistakes here. to undo what you might regard as good work and may very well be good work, but if you can't make us trust you in that regard, you're going to have an outcome that you don't like and potentially we may not like. my time is up. thank you, chairman. >> mr. shieldscamp. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i asked that questions that has been asked before. if you could restate the answer, i would appreciate that. but one thing that many of my constituents are asking, and they share the same concerns as my other colleagues here, but trying to understand that the claim from the e.p.a. administrator in kansas city a couple of weeks here and here, this would provide more certainty compared to your current regulation. can you tell me if this regulation would allow the federal control or regulation of ephemerol streams? >> it would make ee femoral streams jurisdictional if they would be an indicator of frequent and enough flow. >> would that increase or decrease the amount of clean water act jurisdiction compared to current law? >> we believe it would reduce. >> have any states suggested otherwise in their comments? >> i haven't read the state comments yet. >> have you read any comments? >> they're not due until september. >> have you peeked at them? i'll give you a clue, in the state of kansas, the estimates are from our state, it increases the jurisdiction by 400%. 400% more jurisdiction under the proposed rule. instead of regulating 32,000 miles of stream aisles, it would increase that to 134,000 miles. how can they be that wrong? you're claiming jurisdiction goes down the state of kansas and lives there and we worry about our environment. as a farmer myself, i consider myself the first environmentalist. how could they be so long in the misunderstanding of your role? >> i don't -- i would love to see their analysis and i'd love to get our staff to sit down with them and understand why they see such a different situation. i know that more than half the states already cover ephemeral streams themselves. >> including kansas. >> not under the clean water act, sir. the issue here is navigalbe. can you define that, please. >> in the clean water act, navigable has been defined as waters in the united states. and the supreme court -- >> no, navigable is an adjective, not describing the waters of the u.s. it's a limit on the jurisdiction of the clean water act. it doesn't describe every water in the u.s., sir. you are clearly wrong. >> well, can you define navigable. that limits on the power -- >> navigable waters include waters that flow into traditionally navigable waters that can have an impact on the biological, chemical and physical integrity of those navigable waters. so navigable waters are -- non-navigable waters become -- waters of the united states -- waters of the u.s. do include n non-navigable waters, correct? >> that's correct. >> the clean water act is about controlling water pollution. and the authority of the federal government is limited to navigable waters. >> and controlling water pollution that can enter it. >> navigable waters -- >> do you believe this is going to bring some certainty. here is a body of water in western kansas. it actually rained once upon a time. this was a few weeks ago. is this a navigable stream? >> it is neither navigable or jurisdictional under the clean water act. >> you can guarantee me that this will not be under the jurisdiction of the epa? >> i'm not going to go any further than what i said because that's unfair. i have to go out and look at that. but it looks like wet in a field, which would not be navigable -- it might flow down to a road to a navigable stream -- >> doesn't matter. >> it doesn't have the soils or the vegetation. that is a puddle in a field and it cannot be covered. >> you can guarantee me a puddle in a field, a road ditch in western kansas will not be covered under this new regulation? >> a road ditch that's not a channelized stream would not be covered. a road ditch is channelizing a stream. but putting that aside, road ditches, the vast majority of them are not going to be covered and wet fields are not going to be jurisdictional. >> mr. chairman, i would like to ask unanimous consent to review for the record the business council that found that small business owners are concerned about climate change, 57% are concerned about carbon pollution. 53% are concerned about climate change and 53% believe climate change will adversely affect their business. >> without objection. >> mr. luke meyer. >> thank you, mr. chairman. just a couple of questions, sir. with regard to power plant oversight, i know that apparently -- correct me if i am wrong, here. the agency, when they figure the costs of the rules and regulations and power plant rules, that they consider it on a global scale. is that correct? the cost benefit on a global scale? >> well, i'm not exactly sure of that term there, but when we look at -- you take other factors besides what will be we consider domestic things, do you take into effect what other cost savings or costs otherwise may be affecting other areas of the world, our neighbors to the north, south, east, west? >> i don't know the answer to that. i'm going to say generally no. but there have been instances where we cooperate with our governments like canada on acid rain out where we've done joint work together, but i would generally say we were looking at the impact in the united states. >> well, what i've been told is that this -- you do take into account the chakting benefits on a global scale for coal referenced rules, which have a dramatic impact on coal fired electrical generation plants, which i've got a couple in my district. in fact, one closed up as a result partially of the roles that have come down. and i'm just kind of curious why you included the costs of savings or the benefits of other countries over what should be, i would think, only the cost benefits that would be first. >> i really apologize. i should know what you're asking, but i don't want to guess, so if it's okay with the committee and the chair, i would like to -- >> sure. we can -- >> research that. >> other than that, i'm -- it's more of a concern, when you go down the rules with these different rules and regulations, basically the president seems to be trying to implement carbon tax rules around the congress by implementing some of the rules through your agency. i think it's very, very concerning. i think, you know, again, when you do this, you need to go through the rfa process. and it's very concerning to me that you go down this road when you look at what australia just did. australia implemented the carbon tax two years ago and found it affects thousands and thousands of jobs and increased costs and now they've rescinded that. we need to make sure we continue to adhere to process and procedures that are in place. today we're talking about the regulatory flexibility act. it's a very, very important tool for analysis and not only for you, but for us, to make sure that the rules that you're putting in place are something that we could go along with, that we believe our constituents, our small businesses are having to live under and would be beneficial to them, rather than costing them. again, when you see what's coming out of other country with regards to the power plant rule and regulation that is being proposed and they're backing off, it should give us pause. i would like to make sure that you add here to the process and procedures. if you want to respond, sir. >> sure. just a couple of quick comments. first of all, i want to be clear to the committee, we believe that we should be looking at the impact of all the segments that are small business or large business. i want to be really clear about that. and somebody at epa did make the statement earlier that it's not in our job description, but it was not lisa jackson, i can assure you that. it was a lower epa employee who made a mistake. that's all i'm going to say, made a mistake. now, on the -- >> let me follow up on that, sir. that's why it's important that you do these because that affects the economic concerns that we have. and when you have a comment like that, that gives us pause. i'm sorry. go ahead. >> so there are two things where if i want to make it clear that we're not trying to implement a carbon tax or anything like that here. the clean air act gives us very specific authority to look at sectors. and so last -- in the last term, we did a right to a vehicle regulation to reduce the greenhouse gases from light duty vehicles. we worked with the department of transportation on that to make sure it aligns so that the automobile manufacturers only have one thing to implement between the cafe and carbon rules. we reached consensus with the automobile manufacturers. we had a process with the small automobile manufacturers. we exempted them from the rule completely. and then they came back to us and said, you know, we want to be able to opt in if we're making really efficient cars because we want to sell our credit to the other automobile manufacturers. so we have an opt in for small businesses in that rule. so i don't want you to think we don't think about this. that's the two big carbon rules that epa has worked on. one is the rules that are in the process of being implemented now. and the other one, which is a -- except the power plants which we haven't implemented yet which is going on be something we have to work out with the states which is where we are going to be continually looking for ways that we can incorporate ideas and opportunities like that to be able to deal with small businesses. and we hope that many small businesses will capitalize on some of the business opportunities, as well. but we do look at this. i want you to believe that and not trust us. >> thank you for your comments. i yield back. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to associate myself with many of the comments and questions because one issue the deputy administrator, does it disturb you a little bit when you were just talking about that's admirable that they were able to achieve this, the small car companies going to be able to sell their carbon credits back, does it disturb you when we talked about the congress which created the epa, by the way, had rejected cap and trade? and effectively now we're seeing it being -- moving forward in a regulatory action. i'm just quoting you. you were just saying that they wanted to be able to use their credit in regards to -- >> oh, this is just between the -- we always -- in all of our automobile rules, if one automobile manufacturer does a better job of pollution control than another, they can move those credits around between the automobiles, but they can't sell it to, you know, a power plant or -- it's inside -- market mechanisms has been something epa has used in rule making going back to the early 1980s. >> yes, sir. and i understand that. but i guess my point is congress had rejected under a democratic administration cap & trade. this is not a cap & trade program. this is the ability to trade credits in between. again, we've been doing it since the '80s. and i think that's really part of the concern, we see steppingstones to movement. if we go back to water -- secretary salizar, the secretary of the interior was initiating were you familiar with the blue ways program? >> no, sir. >> blue ways was seen coming out of the department of the interior, which is effectively a precursor to the waters of the u.s. i'd invite you or your successor to make sure that they read the reports that were coming out, that is the blue ways program effectively exciting pollutants coming from far away farmlands in the midwest. in terms of once water is put on the picture mr. holzcamp is showing you, we may not define that as navigable, it goes down and effectively that backflow becomes all manageable waters. that's really the concern that people have, once you start regulating, it doesn't have impact and those costs are going to be associated with it through this committee we actually have the empirical evidence that through regulatory costs in this country right now, americans are paying $1.8 trillion in regulatory costs and no one is suggesting we get rid of all regulation. but those are real costs. we sent two letters to the director requesting that the hearing actually be held and the impact to dairy over in quake, colorado, my district. we received no response from the epa. would it be appropriate when we're holding these hearings, and i think you heard loud and clear the importance of these rfas to go to the impacting communities rather than by itself going to urban areas for hearings? >> well, we are -- the hearings are just one aspect of our outreach. we've tried to distribute them around the country into different parts of the country so people have an opportunity. but we -- let me just say this categorically. the epa will meet with anybody who wants to meet with us and we are going to reach out to virtually every state and the constituencies in each one of those states and we're in the process of doing that 37. >> greg, can we get ahold of you and you will help facilitate for us to come to colorado and we will meet with them? >> well, tell me who it is you're meeting and i'll try to figure out -- >> we're going to be able to meet with community members, state legislators, private entities in rural colorado that's going to be impacted by proposed epa rules. so we would want to work with the state of colorado because they're the ones that are going to have to implement it. >> and you will be willing to come -- >> i'm willing to get on the phone and get with the governor and try to figure out how we do that. >> great. we would love to be able to have you come in. and i think when we're talking a little bit about how to have a meeting here, i don't know where the meeting will be, but we'll have a meeting. i think that is part of the problem. we just had rural coloradoans had to drive four to six hours to get to the meeting in denver, colorado. it is important when we're talking about outreach not to discard rural america because these are the real impacts. do you share with me any concerns when we're looking at some of the carbon credits, that if you want to see blue skies and coal fired power plants coming to crate, colorado, with me. we'll be able to see that. but the concern that we are hearing, these are out avenue senior citizens that are at a fixed income. young families that just starting to get started. they're seeing taxation, regulation to where those utility bills continue to climb. is this taking into consideration at all by the epa? >> our economic analysis shows that energy bills will decline. >> when? >> through the -- between now and 2030. >> if i'm paying $100, it's actually going to go down? national estimates is that energy bills will decline 8% to 9%. i'd love to see that. point that out. the committee would need to have that. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> i'll be brief here. just in through some of the rules and use of terminology, i think what seems to be bothering a lot of people, words like significant and here in the proposed rules, it says for an effect to be significant, it must be more than speculative. or insubstantial. so when we use that word, is there any data behind that that would suggest what that means? >> that's one of the things we're trying to deal with. i believe, and somebody may correct me, i believe that's the language the supreme court used and what we're trying to do now is put a boundary on that. >> this is out of the relatory text. >> so that -- we were writing that in there, but that is justjus justice kennedy's opinion. but we get back to trying to do it on a scientific basis and -- and the problem is, in small business trying to adhere to something and reading through this, they're not going to know where to take some things using a word like significant. >> right. >> i guess i could conclude -- well, let me ask another point today. too many times in congress was public, it looks like the epa has a, quote, solution looking for a problem. so today in our science here on coal plants, a data point that came out that said if the united states central complex and power generation xlengs produced no co2 whatsoever, how many days that impact the amount of co2 going into the atmosphere in the world? and the answer was 2%. so we could shut down all the power plants, we could stop ought of our production that missed any co2, the impact in the world is quite insignificant, negligible, deminimus, 2% is not going to have an impact, not given what we're doing. so that is part of the issue and i say the frustration on our side is the need for jobs, the economy, and having the epa overreach for something that's not needed. a solution looking for problems, it's a problem that doesn't exist, certainly not that we can have any impact on. so it was just interesting, i believe you admitted there's a trust factor between the epa and congress. clearly. this is a trust factor between our farmers. and i always have this saying, don't bring me a problem without a solution. the epa has a real problem. congress doesn't trust you. farmers don't trust you. the public doesn't trust you. don't bring me a problem without a solution. it's a simple solution. withdraw the rules. start over. understand what you've done wrong. reach out. study the small businesses. go to the rfa. that would mean so much to i think this congress and the country for the epa to say we were wrong, we got ahead of ourselves, we admit this is a misunderstanding. we're going to withdraw the rules, take all this into account. since there's no judicial deadline, we'll move forward on another day, you know, we screwed up. do you know what that would do for your trust factor in congress? it would take you a long way. i know you're leaving, but for my two cents worth, if you could convince your superiors to withdraw this rule, your chrisbility would skyrocket in the epa. i yield back. >> thank you, mr. chairman. sort of a continuation here, significant nexus. ultimately, i believe in your testimony the discussion was this rewrite, this update of waters in the u.s. has been driven because of multiple supreme court rulings? >> it's detyping something. we had it defined in the '80s and the '70s in a broad way. the supreme court has several times said you can't use that approach, you need to come up with -- >> and some of the significant language came out of the supreme court. >> that's right. i'm going to ask you for your personal opinion instead of your path as the deputy administrator. but you're leaving in three weeks so you're allowed to have a personal opinion. >> i am a citizen of the united states. >> over the next decade, your personal opinion, how much litigation is ultimately going to take place in defining significant nexus? because the regional differentiation of that is incredible. if you think about our lives out in the desert southwest compared to other parts of the country. so where i'm hitting on this is your personal opinion, how much litigation are we going to look at once again, as if rule goes into effect as written in fixing these definitions or tightening them up, what do we expect to see? >> you know, maybe it's sort of a -- also a little bit towards mr. collins who just had to leave, answer, you know, i can tell you that mccathy and bob perseppi as long as i'm here, but certainly my immediate supervisor or boss, geno mccarthy, want nothing more than to build confident and credibility in the congress. so from a personal perspective, we would hope that we would be able to get out of the situation we've been in for 40 years with everything continuing to go to the supreme court and trying to get that to stop. and at some point -- you know, if we do nothing, it will continue to keep going up there and -- >> but if you also do this, you know, in many ways, the term significant nexus is a new term of art. now we have to define it. >> right. >> and is a significant nexus different in oregon compared to the desert southwest. is it different in -- >> yes. >> building that box? and where you're hearing a lot of stress in our voices is for places like mericopa county, arizona, one of the third fourth most populous county in the country, we recognize every dyc of water. is there going to be litigation being driven on another water -- the significant nexus of water in delaware and all of a sudden we find out the way we operate in our region, we're back in court having to redefine for a definition that works for us. in the 1:30 i have left, you just touched on something you've heard the credibility discussion, distrust discussion. could you share with administrator mccarthy two things for me. if you have the chance. one is stop giving speeches where you vilify us. where in your language you say you're going to go after those of us who have questions. where that only real scientist res worthy. and those are quotes from articles. you didn't say them, but the administrator did. and the second part of that is transparency. it's not good enough to tell us what your study says. we need the data set. it is unacceptable to have proprietary data saying, well, we hired a contractor to do it. if you're going to make public policy, public policy needs to be done by public data. the public deserves the right, left, right, activist, researcher to see the base data sets and modeling. because i think some of the distrust comes from the inability to see that baseline data and know you could stress it and reproduce it. that's more of an editorial comment but i think it would take us a long ways to open this transparency and rehabilitating the relationships between the agency and the public. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you for coming in. and it might suggest because you've said on several occasions today, you're seeking input and we've been talking about credibility and transparency and you want to hear from the business community, but i would suggest that you comply with the rfa and why not do it voluntarily? you know, why not go through the steps that are laid out? help your credibility out and do it through the process. that's what this hearing is really about, why the epa does not follow the regulatory flexibility which is what the regular tear committee is all about. it does require the epa to conduct outreach. hearing from those small businesses early in the role making process is going to identify this problem that comes up and hopefully as it's been pointed out, you know, produce better solutions and better rules. but, unfortunately, epa, you know, is not complying with what the rfa and the result. it's confusing. it ends up badly crafted regulations and you get into situations like you're in. but the committee is going to continue to engage with the epa and make sure it fully complies with the epa and the regulatory flexibility act. with that, without objection, that is so ordered and with that, the hearing is adjourned. thank you. >> announcer: well, the u.s. house was expected to wrap up their legislative work yesterday before heading to their five week off and three but members are in session considering a new border security bill. house republicans leaders offered a $694 million bill to address the surge of immigrants at the u.s.-mexico border to rank and file members hoping the changes would sway reluctant conservatives. gop leaders clarifying a provision on quickly returning unaccompanied minors from central america to their home countries. you can see today's debate on that bill from the house floor on our companion network c-span. it's under way right now. the senate will be in at 11:00 a.m. today. you can see today's senate session starting at 11:00 a.m. eastern on our companion network, c-span2. july job numbers were released showing 209,000 jobs were added last month, bringing the unemployment rate to 2.6%. it was at 6.1% in june. the white house released a state statement saying in part, this encouraging trend in the labor market is consistent with other economic regulators, including the strong second quarter gdp increase on tuesday. the president is making sure he can use his own executive authority to encourage investment in the u.s., boost the income of working families and ensure safe and fair treatment of american workers. coming up live here on c-span3 at noon eastern, the alliance on health we form can deliver to the population of inmates. you can see that live here starting at noon eastern on c-span3. sunday on book tv's "in-depth," ron paul. he has written more than a dozen books on politics and history with his latest, the school revolution on america's education many system. join the presentation as he takes your calls live sunday at noon eastern. book tv in prime time monday at 8:30 p.m. eastern and tuesday through friday at 8:00. featuring a wide range of topics including the middle east, immigration, marijuana, and covering book fairs and festivals from across the country. book tv, television for serious readers. author sylvia morris is our guest on this week's q&a. >> she was so beautiful and so smart and also so witty that she became -- she was almost always irresistible to men. even in old age, i gave her a 80th birthday party and richard cohen, a washington columnist, was at this party. they sat together after dinner having coffee and at one point she began to stroke his beard. afterwards heavens, he said, i've never met an 80-year-old that i've wanted to jump into bed with. she was this seductive quality all her life. >> sharing about their personal relationship during mrs. lutz's final years. sunday night at 8:00 a.m. and pacific, q&a. the atlantic council hosts thursday to discuss the current state of affairs in gaza between israel and hamas and other militant palestinian groups. he put forward his ideas for a permanent resolution to the tensions in the region and provided advice for all parties involved as to what they need to do in order to move forward peacefully and successfully. this is about 90 minutes. good afternoon. welcome. i'm fred kemp, president and ceo of the atlantic council. by the look of the size of this audience, and the buzz in the audience, you know two things are happening here today. one of them is we're dealing with an issue of great urgency. and we're about to hear someone of great wisdom and significance talk about this issue. and beyond. we're honored to welcome dr. fayad, former prime minister of the palestinian authority, to the atlantic council. beyond that, we are delighted to welcome him to the atlantic council center on international security as our new and really our first distinguished statesman at the atlantic council. we have the chairman of the skocross center, general jones. i'll make a couple of remarks before passing to the center chair. dr. fayad adds a much needed voice to the station on the future of israeli/palestinian relationes and what this means for the broader middle east. over the past three weeks, renewed conflicts between israel, hamas and other palestinian groups has resulted in over 1,000 casualties, more than 4,500 wounded and the displacement of tens of thousands. efforts by the secretary of state john kerry to forge a cease-fire have been insufficient thursday far as u.s. and international leaders seem unable to bring the conflict to a halt. now, more than ever, we need fresh thinking and fresh approaches and strong leadership to a solution to one of the world's most intractable conflicts. i think you'll hear a lot of that sort of thinking today. dr. fayad has a written statement, a little bit like congressional testimony, which will be outside at 5:00. he'll be speaking from that statement, but in an abridged form in his opening comments before i moderate q&a with the audience. he joins us today to build upon the important work that the middle east security initiative is doing to develop innovative strategies and analysis for a changing middle east. and i salute barry and his team for the good work that they're doing. this compliments the fantastic work of the turerri center on the middle east and i salute the acting director greenfield for the work that center has been doing on the related set of issues. dr. fayad will contribute to the critical work that the council has been doing on long-term regional trends, including the growth of nonstate actors in the middle east. as a respected and accomplished leader in the respect, he'll be an invaluable voice along with ambassador michael warren, the county's ambassador and resident as the council works to better understand the continued regulations between israelis and palestinians. i'm delighted that general jones is here who, along with steve hadley, won national security adviser, democratic president to republican president have played a central role in the ongoing strategy work of the council and the skocross center. but i also thanks them both for helping tr to bring dr. fayad as a distinguished statesman of the california. general jones t chairman of the skocross center, former national security adviser, marine comand comandant. it's been integral to the work of the skocross center over the past few years, but really, the work across the atlantic council on a wide set of issues. general jones, the podium is yours. thank you, fred. ladies and gentlemen, welcome. this is a high moment for the atlantic council and we are honored to be here today and it's especially exciting for me to be able to introduce dr. salem fiayd who i came to know as a highly respected leader, a statesman and a colleague while working with him on the peace process now six uses ago. when i several as special east envoy for middle east security during 2007, '8, and my friend steve hadley was the national security adviser and i think jane harmon was still in office and the world was a different place. i think of all the two years i spent working on this issue, one of the things i enjoyed the most during my time in the middle east was my regular visits with dr. fayad. without any fear of exaggeration, he's a man of courage. he's a man of commitment. and he's a man of peace. and i think he's above all a very wiseman and someone that we should concern you to listen to as we struggle to find a long-lasting solution in this very, very critical part of the world. with the current violence unfolding in the region underscores the importance of the middle east peace prob process, the regional stability and i would suggest global stability. and of leaders such as salem fiyad who have devoted their futures to the stakeholders of the area. he's a leader and a visionary, one who understands that human development and prosperity are impossible without good governance. and good governance is not possible without transparency and accountability. during his tenure as prime minister, dr. fayad championed law & order in the west bank, worked to build institutions that would meet the needs of the palestinian people and taught us all a lesson that the solution set is much broader than simply military activities. he was appointed as the minister of finance of the palestinian authority under yasser arafat from 2002 to 2005 and he won praise, high praise from the international for introducing extensive economic and financial reforms and cracking down on corruption. in late 200 5, he resigned from the cabinet to found and run the thirdway block, an independent party that would run and win in two seats in the palestinian parliamentary elections of january 2006. in march 2007, dr. fayad was appointed again as minister of finance. in a national unity government in june 2007 he was appointed prime minister, a position he held until he extent down in june 2013. dr. fayad will be a fantastic addition to the atlantic council team. i look forward to working closely with him as the center expands its work on security especially on the israeli/palestinian relations and the middle east process itself. i'm sure the center will become a leading voice on this issue. please join me in welcoming dr. fayad to the podium. >> thank you so much. >> thank you very much. i thank you for the kind introduction. i thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for attending this event which i had hoped or wished would happen. to what you all are looking at, completely tragic situation in terms of the -- that has been going on for a long 25 days. we're talking about the -- of more than 1400 people, more than 8,000 wounded, many today are in life threatening situations. made even more life threatening given the very poor conditions in the gaza threat in terms of medical care. in addition to, i'm told, damage to infrastructure, housing. this is the extent of the damage and tragedy that have been unfolding for the past 25 days and counting. unfortunately, without that being the prospect in the immediate future, of course, i hope i'm wrong on this. we've been all following this with a great deal of hope that the efforts under way, efforts that have been made towards reaching some kind of arrangement that would secure the cease-fire would be successful, hope and play that they would be. that is the most important thing, given the extent to which the situation has been the horror it has been. of course, what is really important, beyond the obvious, which is a secure cease-fire, that's the most important thing, is to see what needs to happen in the period following that in order to build on that cease-fire to ensure that it is durable, to ensure that as things begin to converse to a new normal of sorts, that that normal is a fulgdz different from the old ones who have been there before. meaning specifically that a way was found before then, before this turn around, where graem was reached, the agreement was not really much hope or expectations of what's going to be lasting or durable would -- for the next round beginning immediately after you see fireworks. the press has guessed that we need it, urgently need a cease-fire. this is maybe second part of sink and more like a medium term to longer term context is absolutely important. there is a dilemma here. any more you have a conflicted situation, it is very difficult to introduce nature or longer term implications. who wants to talk about that? who cares of the definition. tragedy and misery about long-te long-term. at the same time, unless those are factored into the discussion, unfortunately the situation will be one of crisis to the next one. this time, i think i happen to believe in the context of the current tragedy that we're looking at, unfolding, and continuing to unfold. thinking strategically, or seemingly longer terms is absolutely essential to make the cease-fire promise to be an investing one relative to previous efforts made in your direction. you think in a way the type suggested by my colleagues, thank you for the opportunity and i look forward to working with you and others in the period ahead to promote ideas related to this conflict, but also to the growth region which continues to be highly accessible going through a period of unprecedented turmoil with un -- violence, extremistes and proportions that have not been seen. it has to go back in history, a long, long time before one can find that. that violence has been taking place for a long time and, unfortunately, for us to continue to be the case and for the future. again, the path suggested for this conversation, which i'm eager to have, should show breaking the vicious cycle. the time, this conversation has just a little bit. what do we do to ensure it's different from the old one. if that's not different enough, i think at the words of woman in gaza sitting by -- and i make mention of this in my prepared remarks which would be made available to you at the conclusion of this conversation, sitting by the -- destroyed completely by an air strike, sitting there and pointing to it saying, you know, even before this, she said, we didn't have much to do. so much misery. we were alive simply because there was not enough death to go around. the most important significant words of this kind in addition to what we just talked about in terms of the defining, this is really as good a reason as any for us to engage in this kind of conversation. the discussion says what needs to happen to place this in the context that ensures the position of the tragedy. and as we do, there are some ideas that i have put forward, that involved certainly not, you know, rushing back to a political process that has come to yet another round of promise without adjustment. nor to focus on that exclusively to the point where the emphasis that needs to consider, an arrest now to secure a cease-fire, but rather to consider what it is that has to be done. in particular over the past 15. since the presumptive date of end of discussion or negotiation, what is it in light of that experience that should be taken into consideration to inform a process that could lead to introducing badly needed adjustment, to promise better delivery so that we would not end up doing this over and over again exacting differences and those cannot possibly be the odds. that is really the direction in which i decided to take this conversation. again, it will be made irrelevant to you. there, i suggest the importance of taking new look at some of the more important prefabs and components of the existing trim work. negotiation framework, peace-making framework, if you will. one relates to the fundamental question of palestine presentation. who represents the palestinians in this and what is it that that party actually represents? and the other one, the other element or the other area of possible adjustment i feel would be necessary to take a good look at is the design of the original framework of that, also. i would want to make it real to you. this is not going to be an argument for ditching the existing framework. this is not about the statement that says let us aband job the two-step solution contest. and thinking through the adjustment briefly well, actually, what i had in mind, what is necessary to be taken or undertaken, in order to ensure that viability of the states as absolutely necessary can be restored, in order for the framework to be successful, and very briefly on those two key areas of adjustment or possible adjustment that need to be examined thoroughly. on the question of palestinian representation, there is a issue, quandary, if you will, of there being essentially two camps the one that happens to have the power of representation, that is the -- but without much effective presence with one that has waned over time for brighter reasons, including as a questions of the political process. and another, another camp that does not have the power to represent or the privilege to represent but has real -- in ways that cannot. so far, then, it's what exists and the framework that does have the power to posses, each of these agreements and then plus the outcome would be transformative enough to really take us all to a successful end, if you will, a conclusion. that hasn't happened. it has not happened over the past 20 years. and i would say over the past 15 years, since may 1999 when it was supposed to have them concluded by agreement through negotiations and as well, if anything, to achieve the delivery out of this political process looks more distant today than it looked then back in may 1999. that is a really serious problem and one that really did contribute to all that. that is the point that needs to be considered as we move forward. both in terms of its implications for overall -- but also in items of its relationship with the question of national policy and government. how much longer can you keep on going with a country separated and with this time organization going on and without adequate representation and various fashions, having enough in the central partnership that goes on. so had international requirement, but the government. the second issue that needs adjustment, and that's the overall design, if you will, of the framework. once again, i'm emphasizing that i am not talking about forgetting about that framework. also, many people forget, was about an arrangement, not a permanent arrangement. it was supposed to have ended, it was supposed to have culminated in successful negotiations on so-called permanent issues. it was supposed to and implicit in that structure was the emergence of the state of palestine, smvs that was not elaborated with this before the united states june 2002 when the emergence of a viable set of palestinians living side by side with -- was put faurgd as the way forward as the solution concept and, thereby making it the works of former president george w. bush thereby making it universally accepted in terms of how to end this conflict. but, you know, a lot of things did not happen the way it's supposed to happen. and that is why i think we really need to go back. but also itself was supposed to be an arrangement. may 1990 it was supposed to be. it did want happen. the arrangement may have made sense or could have been understood to make sense because it was interim. because, actually, by virtual of signing the -- the palestinian side by virtually signing in a normal side by virtue of signing the accord in a formal sense accepted the occupation or continuation in a formal way for a maximum of five years beyond the 26-year period that had elapsed since then. that's the oslo accord and could be understood this way. but not forever. it was accepted as an interim period. that's the sense of it. may 1999, past that nothing made sense anymore. once that threshold was crossed, it became an open-ended agreement. and hence, degradation understanding of the plo in the eyes of the palestinian public. beginning with the signing of the accords hinged critically on its success in delivering life, freedom and dignity in a country for a percent of people. and that obviously has not worked out. and past 1999 it became open-ended. to put it bluntly, palestinians being told go on, continue to negotiate with israel. accept what israel has on offer for you or else except continued occupation. that doesn't make sense. and that's why i say, you know, this side, this part needs to be looked at again. that's not what oslo was supposed to be like. that needs to be reconsidered. how do we make sense out of both of these considerations? how do we put them together in order to come up with a concept that can, on the one hand, reinforce the effort under way to securities filed but then important to sustain it. with this introduction, i submit to the interrogation and to questions and answers, and thank you, ladies and gentlemen, very much. thank you. >> thank you for submitting to interrogation. thank you for those opening initial comments. i missed saying something that in these modern days you said there's in different times i was supposed to say at the top. and that is for those of you tweeting it's #acgaza. #acgaza. this is all on the record, obviously, and not only will the full comments be made available physically outside of 5:00 p.m., but we'll also have them on our website if i know our team right at the same time. so i think it should be at the same time. i do want to give a special greeting to steve hadley. i didn't see he was in the audience right at the beginning. he's been so much a part of bringing dr. fayyad here. it's good seeing jane harman and many board members throughout, thank you for being here. let me start by drilling down on what you were saying. you were essentially saying we don't have the representation, right, we don't have the framework right. essentially. >> yeah. >> could you tell us what should the representation be, what should the framework be? >> there's more than -- i hope this is okay. can you hear? >> yeah. >> there is really a very complicated problem here. on the one hand, you know, the oslo accords were signed on to by the plo acting on behalf of all palestinians. and those accords involved early on. and that was the declaration of mutual recognition presented to the palestinian people. and that defined the process. and that defined the palestinian counterpart. and as i said, that point in time onward, this is the criterion by which the plo was to be judged, the extent to it was not supposed to be successful in delivering freedom to the palestinian people and palestinian statehood. that didn't happen, as i alluded to in my opening remarks. and if anything, that appears to be more elusive today, more distant than it did then. not surprisingly, the standing of the plo has roded over time. consistent with an erosion in the terms of reference of the political process or the peace process. things that used to be taken as for granted in the past like, for example, discussions about 1967 being the presumptive boulder in negotiations. all of a sudden in more recent years, having become an issue of contention, whether or not it can be included in a policy document, including one put forward by the united states, not israel. this is a remarkable erosion in terms of the process. this is not something that is easy. thereby, i mean, this failure was very costly. it made the difference involved between the maximum offer by israel and the minimum acceptable palestinians progressively wider and wider. so you had a plo that had failed to deliver by the end of the five-year period, which was all of it was, but then stack on to that, going through the second end fadda, 2014, there's failure after failure after failure. one round of negotiations givine after failure after failure. one round of negotiations givtae after failure after failure. one round of negotiations givin failure after failure after failure. one round of negotiations givine after failure after failure. one round of negotiations giving way to the next. except that the next round of negotiations started with it having eroded even further. so the plo acting on behalf of all palestinians, having the power to represent, the privilege to represent, the responsibility to represent, but then looking at the situation, it's becoming more and more difficult to handle. at the same time, there were these other factions that never were part of the plo framework. from the very beginning. they did not accept oslo as a framework for resolving the palestinian/israeli issue, from the very beginning. and over time and in parallel with this decline or erosion in the standing of the plo, their power, even though, you know, field presence, if you will, strength, the extent to which their ideology resonated with people, you know, understanding the ups and downs of political cycles and sentiments and all but over time, one cannot really see there has been rise. and that happened to be enforced by federal diplomacy. and as a matter of fact, become even more pronounced, especially more pronounced at times like these when you have a most dangerous escalation. you have death and suffering and distraction and tragedy and all. with them really actually saying look at what this other faction has brought you or this other school or thought. it has brought you nothing, failure. so you have a situation where you have these non-plo factions standing on a platform of this kind, gaining strength over time. at the same time, the plo acting on behalf of palestinians losing ground. this is something that needs to be fixed. >> so you have to somehow bring these factions into the representations. is that what you're saying? >> you know, it's very important for two reasons. one, i said there were two dimensions to this. international in terms of engagement to israel and the international community, but then there is the governance issue. what do you do about, you know, government and about overall government framework when certain factions are excluded? when they have at the same time this much power and field presence, if you will. not to mention the arms and what have you. i'm talking about what appears to be -- again, perceptionwise. superior ideology. at the time when unfortunately it started to develop, that after all, violence pays off. who's going to really win in a situation like this? not the plo had had really committed to nonviolence to peace, but those all along said that's not really going to happen. and they would say -- and i think that's a really strong argument -- that where else in the history of national liberation movements, national liberation movements had to lay down their arms before they secured independence? it's difficult to argue against that. if you really look at the history. but you'd understand that in the palestinian context only to the extent that oslo was supposed to be an interim arrangement. promising delivery five years later, the commitments undertaken by the plo on behalf of all palestinians, the right of the state of israel. also denounce violence made sense in the context of it coming to an end and delivering. but once that happened, once we crossed that, it started to become difficult to really argue. additionally, the number of things that happened over this period of time that in a way validated that kind of thinking. and you can't ignore that in this day and age. it's not the 19th century, even 20th century. you have to make sense to people you govern. you can't ignore them. there are many things that happened over the course of the past 20 years that actually validated the theory that says violence pays off. many things. not only in an independent context. we were talking about lebanon, for example. and this all happened over the course of the oslo framework, has nothing to do with the oslo framework separately. and several instances of dealing between the palestinian authority and israel. take, for example, just one example, the prisoner exchange deal. where in one goal, israel traded the freedom of more than 1,000 palestinian prisoners to secure the release of -- contrast that with the experience that we and the plo authority had to go through on the same, trying to release palestinian prisoners.

Related Keywords

West Bank , Canada , Australia , Salem , Oregon , United States , Texas , Alaska , Delaware , California , Salt River , Arizona , Lebanon , Washington , District Of Columbia , Kansas City , Kansas , Denver , Colorado , Israel , Gaza , Israel General , Oslo , Norway , Americans , America , Israelis , Israeli , Palestinian , American , John Kerry , Sylvia Morris , Geno Mccarthy , Lisa Jackson , Jane Harman , Jane Harmon , Richard Cohen , Michael Warren , George W Bush , Ron Paul , Fred Kemp , Luke Meyer , Steve Hadley , Yasser Arafat ,