tv Politics and Public Policy Today CSPAN January 6, 2016 9:00am-11:01am EST
and yet 52%, 53%, 54% of people are opposed to the affordable care act. to me, the reason is, the individual mandate has changed the fundamental nature of the relationship between the government and the governed. i do still hold on to that romantic notion that we should only have government with the consent of the governed. now it is being forced upon us. so it is that coercive effect of the affordable care act that in fact provides the core row receive environment that has never allowed the affordable care act to enjoy significant popularity. i welcome a day like you, i look forward to it, i'm optimistic. i think the future is bright in the healthcare arena. i thank you for bringing this bill for us today. i will be happy to support you.
in getting it to the president's desk. i yield back the balance of my time. >> thank you very much. i do not see mr. polis here. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. dr. price, thank you for being here. thanks for your care for a lot of patients, thousands of patients over your time practicing medicine. thanks to the gentleman from kentucky for being here. i appreciate you both giving us your time today and your opinions. i was really struck by something you said earlier, dr. price, about the difference between health coverage and healthcare. we have told millions of americans that they have coverage, but they're not getting care. and they can't afford care. and when they get care, they are being chased -- something i don't remember you saying, being chased by bill collectors the rest of their life because of high deductibles they didn't have. we have confused coverage with care.
just because you have a piece of paper or a card that says you have insurance doesn't mean you will get care. it's a real problem that millions of americans are facing and paying the price for for these reforms that aren't working. i appreciate your willingness to take this head on and try to address it. and i think it's really important. you know, the one question nobody is asking in health care today, at least in traditional insurance covered treatments is, how much does it cost? when nobody asks how much it costs, there's never any downward pressure on price. price just spirals out of control. dr. price, i wonder -- you may or may not be familiar with the relative costs of these things. but can you talk about the inflation on insurance covered treatments versus the cost of elective treatments in the healthcare marketplace, things
like cosmetic surgery that are not covered, where the individual actually shops on things like price as one -- price and quality as their data points for making decisions? are you familiar with the price trends in those two different categories? >> it's a great point. because the areas where there is no control of prices and where the government is not involved, in fact, there is downward pressure. and we have seen huge decrease in the cost of those procedures themselves, whether it's cosmetic surgery or whether it's opthamalogic surgery, lasik surgery. there's evidence all across the spectrum, if you have a market, if you have a situation where individuals are actually able to select the kind of coverage, the kind of care, the individual that's caring for them, then there is much greater cost control. >> so it goes back to allocation
of resources and what republicans have said all along is, a free market system encourages innovation, inefficiencies that will ultimately reduce price and increase quality. dr. price, do you think that would work in healthcare? >> i have no doubt about it, and one of the things that's lost is the incredible importance of innovation. when you have a system that incentivizes innovation and incentivizes higher quality and greater efficiency and the kinds of decisions that reward those things, you get them. when you have a system that's controlled by the federal government and which is congratulations in its ability to move on anything, witness that the fact the previous majority party has been loath to even consider responsibility common sense changes to this law, what happens is that you don't get them. consequently, you don't get the highest quality and you don't get innovation. i am reminded from my colleagues all of the time in the area of
or the ped orthopedics, the other areas of the world that they go to to see what is cutting edge, because the technology in this country is losing to other countries because of the force of the federal government that it's disincentivizing higher quality. >> you have been a physician for how many years? >> 35, 36. >> in your 30 years as a physician, medicare and medicaid, government programs, how do they compensate physicians, on what basis? >> it's a great question as well, because it's hard to tell how they compensate. >> fee for service, right? >> it's a cost control. it's a dictated price to the individuals providing the care. >> this is probably controversial to talk about. but inside our government programs, they thought medicare worked great.
but shouldn't we change the way we compensate physicians a little bit to pay them for outcomes as opposed to procedures? if you pay for more procedures you get more. if we can shift the model to give physicians a bonus payment for outcomes, won't we get better outcomes? >> you may. the jury is still out on that. i would suggest they're not mutually exclusive. >> i agree. we probably have to find -- >> if you allow for the flexibility that exists and the innovation in the payment system as well and the payment models. what's right for one patient from a payment model may not be what's right for another patient. >> aren't we seeing private insurance companies move to some payments for quality over time? >> absolutely. >> is the federal government following that trend? >> they followed it in a way that is more dictatorial as opposed to expansive and flexible and innovative. consequently, i am certain they will not get to the right position.
>> does that kill innovation? >> kills choices, kills quality, all the things the american people want in health care are being harmed by the federal government's intervention. >> can i make two points? >> i would like to hear your perspective. >> i want to agree about the question of consumer concern about cost. years ago before i was in politics i was working for a healthcare company. spoke to the downtown rotary club in louisville, 600 people there, and i asked them, how many of you have asked what a medical procedure costs? three hands went up out of 600. i think that is definitely a factor. the problem with that is, when you are talking about cosmetic surgery or whatever you are talking about, voluntary procedures, you're not talking about when you are sick or injured where the demand -- supply and demand equation changes. you are less concerned about costs when you are sick or injured. in medicare, the affordable care act sets a number of things in play in terms of medicare reform to change the compensation
system to reward performance, institutions, hospitals and so forth and providers. fortunately, this bill would not change that. i think part of it recognizes that the medicare reforms that were put in place, affordable care act, have been successful because -- the jury is still out, as you said, about exactly what the cause and affect is. but the fact is that medicare prices -- medicare's budget costs were inflating 7% before the affordable care act went into place. it's down to 3% now. under the affordable care act, the rise in costs of medicare has -- the growth has improved dramatically. now, that's because of affordable care act or partially because of it. the coincidence is there. >> are you familiar with the way that obamacare treats hospital
owned physician practices? do you realize they get paid under obamacare a higher reimbursement rate than the physician owned practice did? before they were bought by a hope? >> oh, yes, i am. >> do you realize that is increasing the acceleration with which hospitals are buying physician practices and not only increasing the cost but also changing who controls the referral process and those doctor -- hospital owned physician practices are strongly encouraged, i will use with air quotes, to refer inside their own hospital in controlling. so it's not only driving up cost, it's taking away free choice. it is i believe a -- i have good friends in hospital industry. this is not their doing. the government made these choices to reimburse hospital owned physician practices at a higher rate. it's fundamentally change the relationship between the patient and the doctor. it is raising costs.
it's another one of the things i am scared about about the future of our healthcare system. because of what happens to referrals. when a hospital owned physician practice, which is encouraged under the payment system to be bought by the hospital, controls the referral, do you ever think they're going to send you to the best quality care or are they going to send you to the care they own? that's the problem with total control in one place. that's one of my concerns and why i like dr. price's alternative. i'm really concerned about that much power in one place. we are -- we, the government, we the people, have allowed that to happen by paying hospitals more when they own a physician practice. it's terrible. >> absolutely. >> i agree with you. >> and i didn't mean to go off on that rant. my friends -- i'm sure i will get calls from my friends in the
hospital industry now. i just think it's bad policy. and i know we have to fix that, too. we have a lot of work ahead of us. i hope we can all come together on those -- on some reforms to fix our healthcare system overall. it's too bad that this has to be so contentious. frankly, there's good ideas all around. although, it sounds like everybody on that side of the aisle is saying we need to move to single payer system, which causes me great concern, because it's more power in one place. and in the places that have a single payer system, canada, just to our north, people die waiting in line. they create a queueing system, and instead of giving everybody care and innovation, they create a line. if you wait too long in line, you happen to pass away, that just is part of the way the system works.
in europe and in canada. and that's why so many people come to the cleveland clinic in ohio, in my home state, and go to all other -- all the other great hospitals in america from all around the world because we have the best healthcare in the world. we need to make sure we get it to our people. i want to go back where i started, which is with dr. price. we should not confuse coverage with care. we need to get people good healthcare and coverage, saying you have a card that says you have health insurance, even though your deductible is $15,000, that you don't have anymore, is a problem. i just have one more question. you talked about the individual mandate and how great it was and it was saving everybody because now the people can't just get sick and get care. help me through this. i believe somebody could pay the penalty of $900 a year until they get sick and then take the coverage. couldn't they still do that? >> they can still do that.
i didn't say the individual mandate was a great thing. i said that the guaranteed issue provision, which again eliminates discrimination because of medical history, does not work unless there is a pre-existing condition -- i mean, an individual mandate. otherwise, people wait until they get sick and buy coverage. >> coverage costs $6,000 a year and a penalty of $900 a year, is there still an incentive to maybe not get coverage until you get sick? >> well, actually, the penalty is going up depending on what your income level is. i think it's $1,600 a year. >> okay, $1,600 instead of $6,000. is there still an incentive to wait and get coverage when you get sick? >> there could be. there could be.
>> it seems to me that we haven't really solved that problem with the way this system works. what i would rather do is make sure we make healthcare affordable for everyone through innovation and competition and then more people will actually opt in. we have 30 million people who have chosen not to take this system. that's too many. thank you. i took too long. thank you both for your time. i appreciate your willingness to answer our questions. and thank you for being here. >> thanks. >> mr. polis? mr. byrne? >> thank you. chairman, i wasn't here when the law was passed. it's my understanding that at the time the aca was passed, 80% of americans either had health insurance, medicare or medicaid. is that right? >> that's in the ballpark, 80% to 85%.
>> i think i heard the other day that as of the most recent signup, that 5% of the people in america have now gotten insurance or medicaid that didn't have it before as a result of the law. is that about right? >> yes, but it's tough to compare those figures, because, for example, those of us on the federal employee health benefits program are now on obamacare. we were forced to be on obamacare. they use those numbers to inflate the folks that have gotten coverage. >> let's give it 5%. >> that's fair. >> 5%. so we know that we changed the law that affects the healthcare for 85% of the people in america to help 5% of the people of america. the reason it's not the other complete uninsured people is that we know from a recent "new york times" article that a lot of the people that should be signing up have elected not to sign up and said, we're going to pay the penalty because the penalty costs me less than
paying the premiums and my deductible. have you heard that as well? >> absolutely. that's the financial incentive not to be covered. >> so the majority of the people that this should have been aimed at are electing to pay the penalty rather than get the insurance. so we're not going to even reach the majority of the uninsured people because they choose not to be insured. >> and i think that's accurate. and i think that's one of the reasons that we could look toward more positive solutions that would actually provide a financial incentive for folks to gain coverage as opposed to a disincentive. >> i want to agree with something that was said. i wrote it down because i thought it was so right. she said, i don't understand the great zeal to take healthcare aware from people. and i agree with you. i don't understand that either. i remember the president said when this law was being considered and afterwards, if you like your health insurance plan, you can keep it. and that turned out not to be true.
and he said it over and over and over again. i spent my christmas holidays -- i was out shopping a lot. there were a lot of people shopping at the last minute. i heard from those people that lost their healthcare because of this law. i don't understand the zeal for law that took healthcare away from my constituents. i don't understand that. if we have an opportunity to go back and try to fix this, not just for 85% -- it would be worth it to fix it for them. but for everybody in america, we come up with a common sense healthcare plan that helps everybody, that gets something where we are in control and not some bureaucracy in washington, one of the most difficult bureaucracies i have dealt with in my life. the most difficult people i have
had to deal with. why would we empower them instead of empowering our constituents to make their own decisions without us telling them what kind of health insurance you have to have, what kind of coverage you have to have. telling doctors how to provide healthcare to us. you knew a good friend of mine unfortunately died recently. jeff terry from my district. who took medicaid patients as a urologist, even though he lost money on them, because he knew without him there would be no urology care for people in my district who were medicaid eligible. and yet when he tried to come up here and get some relief from some of these regulations from the bureaucracy up here, he was pushed back. he was told no. somebody is trying to help has been told no by the bureaucracy that's supposed to be there to help us.
could you explain that to me? i don't understand how that's helping doctors or patients. >> you mentioned jeff terry who had an untimely death last fall who -- i don't know anybody who was -- who has been more passionate about providing care for his patients. and he would volunteer and donate his time to come to washington to try to help cms get it right. and was just rebuffed time after time after time. but a greater champion for patients i haven't met. >> thank you for that. i got to meet with his family before christmas and give them a little gift from those of us that knew and loved jeff. i want to say one final thing. i heard from mr. mcgovern this bill is going nowhere. this bill is going to the desk of the president of the united
states. and never in all the other attempts has a bill gone to the desk of the president of the united states. the president has the opportunity to do the right thing. and he hasn't had that opportunity since the law was passed. he can do the right thing, sign this bill, give us all an opportunity to work together as democrats and republicans and doctors and patients and insurance companies and everybody to come up with something that works for the american people. so i am pleased that you did this. i thank you for doing this. >> could you yield one second? >> when i'm finished. i'll be happy to yield to you, but at this point in time, i want to make sure that we're all aware that this bill is going somewhere. it's going to the desk of the president of the united states. and none of these bills have gone there before. and it's time for the president to do the right thing. i'd be happy to yield time. >> i was going to say that the president will veto the bill. if that satisfies your base, fine.
we have been here for two hours talking about a bill that's going to be vetoed. i think there are other people waiting. i'm not saying that you talk too long. i'm saying this has gone on for a long time. this is the 62nd time we've had this debate. if that's going some place and makes everybody happy, then fine, terrific, it's going some place. it's not going to become law. i'm happy about that. i know you are not. >> i reclaim my time. i understand what the gentleman is saying. he said it's going nowhere. it is going somewhere. may not be going far enough. but it's going somewhere. the american people get to see this. the american people, we know by all the polls, do not like this law. they get to decide, do i want somebody that's going to continue with this failed law that took my healthcare plan away from me where i'm going to go with somebody that's going to go somewhere different. i'm glad we're giving them that choice. i'm confident the outcome will be.
i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from washington is recognized. >> thank you, madam chair. one of the advantages in sitting at the end seat here is you can listen to what everybody says. many of the things that have been said today that i agree with, some i don't. you don't have to listen to me, because a lot of the things i was going to say has been said. i do think that this is an important debate to have. i think the people that elected us are glad we're having this debate. they want us to have this debate. this is one of the biggest issues that i hear about in my district. i'm sure that's true in many of your districts as well. concern of people that in my district especially that certainly i agree that there are some people better off now than they were before this law was passed. but there are a good number of
people that are not. their costs have gone up. insurance premiums have gone up. their choices are fewer than what they were before. this is certainly not the solution to the healthcare situation we have in this country. i applaud the efforts i think we're taking here and the important step to move us closer to giving the people in this country what they want in a patient centered kind of healthcare system. this is an important step. it is going somewhere. it's taking us down the road of coming -- getting to a place where we want to be. as far as the other provision in this legislation that has to do with the planned parenthood provision and funding, a lot has been said about that. and certainly i think that this
is a very important issue to people back home as well. i just had one question about that. like i said, i will keep my comments brief. but we're increasing the amount of money going to community health centers to be able to make up the difference for what may be an impact to the clinics that are not going to be funded. so the question that comes to mind is -- out of the -- it has to do with capacity. could you tell me a little bit, either one of you, the ability of the community health centers to take up the slack, so to speak, or fill whatever gap or void that might be created if we reduce the funding to planned parenthood? >> i appreciate the question. it's an important point. because we bent over backwards to make certain the resources were there and available to be able to provide a greater level of service than is currently being provided.
that's on top of about $3.6 billion to provide for services in the community health centers. again, ballpark figure, but instead of about 500 clinics that planned parenthood has, it's about 13,000 is my recollection and the community health centers and as i think mr. woodall or dr. burgess pointed out, those are by definition, in the areas that are lower served. and have to be in those area, so the rural areas and the areas where greater needs may exist. we have strived to make certain there was a higher level of resources available for care for women especially in the community health centers and this bill would address that. >> if i may comment on that, in my district, louisville,
kentucky, heavily urbanized area, we have three major public health care centers. they've all said there's no way they could accommodate 5,000 people a year. the other issue, i think it's going to vary from region to region and place to place. many do not have ob/gyn specialists on staff or capabilities. if they're looking for those services, they're not necessarily going to get them. >> with the increased funding, it does help build the infrastructure necessary to do that. sounded like the amount of health care provided has increased over time. that was a concern of mine i wanted to make clear. thank you very much for that. and again, appreciate you guys being here. bringing this important topic up and just to start 2016 on a good
note. i want to thank everybody for wonderful christmas cards that we received from each of us. look forward to a productive 2016. mr. chairman, i yield back my time. >> thank you very much, did you have an opportunity to participate? [ inaudible ] >> thank you very much. i went down to vote. is there any other member that seeks time from this panel? i want to thank both of you for taking time. we've called the floor to ask them to please hold on for a couple of minutes. you'll find you need to hustle. thank you very much. i appreciate your help. this closes the hearing portion on the senate amendment hr-3671. i would now like to call up hr 712, sunshine for regulatory decrees and settlement act of 2015. would welcome a panel that would include the gentleman, the
chairman of the committee on government oversight and reform, mr. chaffetz, the gentleman from the judiciary, mr. marino, mr. connolly from virginia as they are here or would be joining us and thank you very much is there any other member that would wish to be heard on this matter? seeing none at this point we will proceed accordingly. anything you have in writing will be entered into the record. without objection, we're going to do that. we've already before you were here, gave our opening statements, we're delighted you're here. we would defer refer to mr. chaffetz for any statement on this that he would like. the gentleman is recognized. >> i thank you for this opportunity to speak.
the sunshine for regulatory decr decrees. the past several years, we've witnessed a surge in the number of new regulations. dramatically impacting the lives of every day americans. the all economic transparent act or the alert act as authored by congressman john radcliffe. the committee and oversight reform favorably reported the alert act of may 29th of 2015. it's a simple transparency bill. requires administration to provide legislation before the regulations go into effect on a monthly basis, as opposed to the way the current structure is. on a monthly basis agencies will be required to list all the regulations expected to be proposed or finalized within the final year. it seems like an open suggestion that was offered by mr.
radcliffe. makes immense sense to us. if requires that each regulation list the objective of the regulation, legal basis and the current stage in the rule making process. if the agency expects to finalize the regulation within the following year, the agency is required to provide information such as cost, completion date and the economic effects and to make sure agencies are making a good faith effort, the act prohibits regulations from going into effect until they've been listed on the monthly reports no less than six months prior to the notification. in rare cases when the president determines the rule is necessary for national security enforcement of criminal law, protecting health and safety or compliance with international trade agreements, the six-month requirement can be waived, but i would hope that would be few and far between. by the administration's own estimates federal regulations promulgated over the last ten
years alone have imposed the cost of more than $100 billion a year annually. we're simply trying to offer transparency. i think that's why it saw a favorable support within the committee and we urge its adoption. with that, mr. chairman, i'm happy to answer questions and yield back. >> thank you very much. i'd now like to go to your counterpart, mr. connolly, who is here representing the government. the gentleman, mr. connolly, is recognized. >> thank you. and mr. chairman and ranking member, members of the rules committee, happy new year and i appreciate the opportunity to testify. i think we can all agree that the purported goal of hr 1155, the scrub act, agencies should eliminate double playly duplicative rules, however they're already required to do so under a series of executive orders issued by the president. 712. want me to do -- to finish this, too, or just go to 712?
>> this is your time to come up and talk with us. >> i'm talking about these two bills. >> yes, sir. >> executive order 13563 issued on january 11, 2011, requires agencies to develop plans for reviewing existing rules and requires agencies to engage in periodic review. of existing significant regulations. executive order 13610 issued by the president on may 10th, 2012, requires agencies to institutionalize regular assessment of significant regulations in public participation in retrospect to report twice a year to the office of information for regulatory affairs on their progress. in addition, congress has been engaged in obsessive oversight of agency rules such as the epa's clean power plan and rules prom you will gated under the affordable care act as the majority exercises
congressional authority to conduct oversight of agency regulatory activities. the scrub act would authorize $30 million to establish a nine-member commission. made up of unelected officials. to perform a function, agencies and congress already can and should be providing. this delegation of authority is almost unprecedented. this commission would wield enormous authority. for example, the commission would have virtually unlimited subpoena power, compelling testimony as well as document production. most agency inspectors general do not have the ability to compel witnesses to testify, yet this bill would provide the authority to a commission solely focused on rule making. and then impose a regulatory scheme in which agencies would have to impose eliminating an
existing regulation before promulgating a new one. that forces into an arbitrary position of preserving safety protections or responding to new situations and threats. actually, potentially, jeopardizing the very public health and safety that is their mission. this bill provides no safe harbor, exceptions for rules, no matter how important. title 4 also opens up agency compliance to endless court challenges by applying judicial review. i would note ranking member elijah cummings and myself submitted an amendment to strike that title. we also submitted an amendment to exempt independent agencies. the bill as currently drafted would require independent agencies such as the s.e.c. or the cfpb to obtain approval on
the accuracy of their regulatory cost calculations. these agencies are currently not required to submit rules for such reviews as it would threaten their independence. perhaps the real object of the provision itself. i'd like to briefly address hr-712. specifically title two which includes the text of the all economic regulations of transparent act. agencies are already required to provide status updates twice a year on their plans for proposing and finalizing rules pursuant to the regulatory flexibility act and executive order 12866. this legislation would require agencies to report not twice a year but monthly. the most egregious provision in title two would prohibit agency rules from taking effect until certain information has been posted online for at least six months. this moratorium can only be
avoided if the agency claims an exception from the notice and comment requirements of the administrative procedure act or if the president issues an executive order. under this bill an agency would post information about the cost of a proposed rule for a year. but if that information isn't posted for at least six months, the agency would be prohibited from moving forward. mr. chairman, ranking member cummings and i submitted an amendment for consideration that would strike the six-month moratorium. striking that provision would keep important agency rules from being needlessly delayed but delays also seem to be the objective here. we also submitted an amendment that would exempt independent agencies from the requirements of title two. i would ask the amendments offered by ranking member cummings and myself along with the amendment offered by representative steven lynch that would require agencies to consider the benefits of
regulations as well as the costs be made in order and i thank the committee for its attention. >> thank you very much, mr. connolly. we're glad that you're here and your suggestions for the committee's product would be as welcome and i thank you very much. i would next like to go to mr. marino on regulatory reform, commercial and antitrust law. the gentleman is now recognized. mr. marino. >> thank you, chairman sessions, and ranking member ms. slaughter, for giving me the opportunity to testify regarding hr-712. i will address that bill first and then when we get through with that, if you have no objections, i can go to the next bill. >> certainly. >> so you don't have to listen to me speak for 15 minutes straight. you get a break between that. this is the sunshine regulation for regulatory decrease and settlement act. hr-712 was introduced by mr. collins of georgia.
the judiciary committee ordered hr hr-712 favorably. the rules committee print of hr-712 also includes two other pieces of regulatory reform legislation reported favorably by the judiciary committee. title two of the bill includes the, quote, alert act, unquote, introduced as hr-1759 by mr. radcliffe of texas and ordered to be reported on april 15, 2015. title 3 includes the quote, providing accountability through transparency. introduced by as hr 690 by mr. liukinmeier of missouri and ordered to be reported on the same day at hr 712. mr. chairman, the need for this legislation to help create jobs and achieve full economic recovery is clear. despite claims that the great recession has ended, small
business owners and mainstream families know the truth. america is still struggling to create enough new jobs and economic growth to produce the prosperity americans need and deserve. to reserve the situation, congress must stay focused on enacting reforms that will stop the losses. regulatory reform is essential to this effort. federal regulations already impose the nearly $2 trillion. in annual costs on our economy. under that burden, simply cannot create the jobs needed to produce a better future for americans. today's bill contains measures that will help remedy the situation. title one, sunshine for regulatory decrees and settlement act offers strong reforms for regulation that is lie behind many of the costliest floo regulations issued by washington each year. time and again new high cost
regulations are issued under consent decrees and settlement agreements that force federal agencies to issue new rules. in this fashion an agency wanting to enact new regulations strikes a deal with pro regulation manufactures. the deal leads to a lawsuit from the plaintiffs. and the ultimate result is a settlement that carries the force of law and results in new oppressive regulations. these occur in secret, regulated entities, our nation's job creators often do not know about these deals until court documents become public. but then it's too late. title two, the alert act, rests on the same principle of transparency. even when new regulations are not forced upon them but judicial decree, americans deserve to know what new regulations agencies plan to
send their way. they deserve to know what those will look like, how much they will cost and when they may be imposed. the executive branch to disclose some of this information on a semiannual or annual basis. the obama administration has gained and abuse this had process by denying information. the alert act requires disclosure requirements by requiring more details to be disclosed. it also requires the publication of monthly online updates of information on the rules schedules, cost, and economic effects including jobs impacts. finally title 3 of the bill helps to fix one of the most maddening things confronted by main street americans and small business owners. not only do federal regulators issue too many regulations that cost too much, too often those
regulations are impossible for an ordinary citizen to understand. title 3 offers a welcome remedy by requiring each agency to publish an online 100 word plain language summary of any new proposed regulation. the provisions in this bill are sure to help americans who are besieged and bewildered by the new flood of regulations flowing from washington's regulatory bureaucracy. i thank representative collins, cad cliff for introducing each piece of legislation the bill contains. i request an appropriate rule that allows for expeditious consideration of hr-427. thank you and i yield back. >> mr. marino, thank you very much. very succinct and i appreciate it very much. you taking your time to wait the number of hours you had this afternoon. i want to thank the gentleman. mr. johnson? >> thank you, mr. chairman. it is great to be back with you.
happy new year to everyone. i rise or i speak in opposition to hr-712, the sunshine for regulatory decrees and settlements act of 2017. rather than bringing sunshine into the rulemaking process what this does is throw dark side of the moon shade on the process. in fact, the sunshine for regulatory decrees and settlements act turns the lights out on regulations in place to protect the safety and well-being of the people. this should be renamed the lights out for consent decrees and settlement act of 2015. title i of hr-712 imposes numerous burdensome procedural requirements on agencies and courts that are designed to
hamstring and outright discourage the use of consent decrees and settlements that ensures the enforcement of the law. proponents of this provision argue that it is necessary because federal agencies collude with plaintiffs to advance a mutually agreed upon regulatory agenda through the use of c consent decrees and settlement agreements. but according to my republican colleagues, this so-called sue and settle legislation specifically allows agencies to skirt the requirements of the administrative procedure act to dictate the contents of an agency rulemaking or buying the agency action. simply put the majority has not put forth a shred of credible evidence to support this claim. to the contrary, consent decrees and settlement agreements are an important tool to ensuring the timely compliance with statutory
deadlines established by congress to protect the environment and the public's health and safety. in fact, the government accountability office gao reported in december 2014 that there is zero evidence indicating that agencies collude with public interest groups in bringing these consent decrees as the majority has often claimed. in its report the gao referred to these lawsuits as deadline suits because they simply compel agencies to take stat torely required actions within a designated time frame. found little evidence that deadline suits determine the substantive outcome of agency action because officials, quote, stated that they have not and would not agree to settlements in a deadline suit that finalized the substantive outcome of the rulemaking or
declare the substance of the rule, unquote. earlier this year a regulatory policy advocate for public citizen also clarified during the legislative hearing on hr-712 that, quote, all of the settlements scrutinized by gao by the epa's rulemaking authority under the clean air act went through the public notice and comment process allowing all members of the public an opportunity to comment on the rule before it is finalized. end quote. this finding confirms that there is little evidence supporting the proposition that federal agencies engage in back room deals with pro regulatory groups to circumvent the apa or substantively bind the agency in a subsequent rulemaking. in the absence of evidence of collusion between federal agencies and plaintiffs, hr-712
addresses a nonexistent problem through a series designed to undermine the rule of law by preventing the enforcement of statutes passed by congress to protect the public to slow down agency action, and bust the door wide open to almost anyone who wants to impede agency action by intervening in these actions. for example, hr-712 would allow for nearly any private party to intervene in a consent decree revealing the legislation's true purpose of stacking the deck in industry's favor to avoid the enforcement of the law. this intervention right is drafted so broadly that if the regulatory action at issue involved the clean water act in theory, any person who uses water would have the right to intervene in the negotiations on a potential consent decree or
settlement agreement. certainly any industry interest would not hesitate to intervene. title 2 of hr-712 imposes a six-month moratorium on all rules ranging from the mundane but necessary rules such as numerous u.s. coast guard bridges closing regulations to rules that ensure our health and safety. the only reason for this unprecedented delay in agency rulemaking, the so-called diminishing transparency of the regulatory process. some of my republican colleagues have argued that regulatory transparency, which is important to public participation in the rulemaking process requires timely notice of proposed rules. and yet, notwithstanding this claim by republicans, millions of americans have recently commented on a single proposed rulemakinging representing the largest public response to any request for public comment in a
federal rulemaking in the history of this nation. this extensive activity in the past year alone hardly suggests an agency process shrouded in secrecy and in need of reform. in addition to this moratorium, this provision would saddle every federal agency including independent agencies that are primarily independent because they aren't subject to the centralized review of rulemaking by the white house through the office. requirements built into the rulemaking process. this reporting requirement would drown these agencies and waste taxpayer dollars every month. these requirements would apply to every rule within the administrative procedure act about 6,000 rules per year, many of which simply involve bridge openings and closings by the
coast guard. in addition to wasting agency resources and by extension taxpayer dollars, this bill would have the ironic and unintended consequence of decreasing regulatory transparen transparency. these reporting requirements would inundate the public with monthly waves of data that would be largely useless and undermine the public's ability to identify regulations that actually matter in public debate. further more, this arbitrary regulatory delay would have the effect of undermining transparency in the regulatory process by specifically prohibiting the office of information and regulatory affairs from taking into account the benefits of rules when providing total cost estimates for proposed and final rules. thus, a regulation that costs only $1 but results in $1 billion in benefits would only be reported as costing $1. so much for the short title of
the big, the so-called sunshine act. finally, title 3 of hr-712 would require a notice of proposed rule making that is published in the federal register to include an internet link to a plain lank 100 word summary of the rule. while i am sympathetic to that goal of making rule making more easily understandable, i have several concerns with this bill as just feel good legislation that does little to improve the rule making process. first, the code of federal regulations already requires agencies to include short, comprehensive summaries as part of a notice of proposed rule making. additionally, section 553 outlines a series of r requirements for rules requiring notice and comment to explain the substance of the proposed rule and the issues involved in addition to other requirements. second, i have concerns that
although this summary requirement may be benign on its face, it could form the basis for vacating a rule under section 706 of the apa. is there no generally accepted definition of the term plain language which would require courts to determine whether a summary was adequately plain. i plan to offer an amendment to address this concern. finally, many administrative law experts have repeatedly called on congress to avoid legislating additional requirements in the rule making process, which is already slow and inflexible in responding to public health and safety threats. as i noted earlier, this legislation is potentially duplicative of existing law and does little to address the overarching concerns with rule making. in closing, i strongly oppose this legislation and urge my colleagues to do the same. and before i close, however, i
would ask that the statement and amendment of my colleague sheila jackson-lee who could not be here tonight to testify personally be made a part of this record. >> we will enter that into the record. thank you very much. i assume all four members have had an opportunity to address the committee on their concerns that they came here for. thank you very much. rarely do i find that any piece of legislation nails exactly everything the way it should be done off everybody's evaluation. what i will say is that this is being presented to the rules committee because as an example, president obama's first five years in office, the annual
regulatory burden on americans has increased by nearly $73 billion with a total of 157 new major regulations being imposed. and i think it's awesome to have people run for president. and i think it's great to have people come up with new and great ideas. but i think there has to be some sort of a process that is imposed. and i think that what has been talked about today could have some unintended consequences, perhaps. but i would say that i think that what we're trying to go here has to put an end to this $73 billion in six years of 157 new major projects. regulations on the american people. i think that one group of
unelected bureaucrats should not put off on the american people something without being held accountable. thank you very much. mrs. fox? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate your comments about this legislation being right on target. but i know you meant to say that it would be really, really great legislation if it included my amendments. >> i will revise and extend my remarks accordingly. >> i'm going to use my brief time to mention my amendments, if you don't mind. try to speed the process up just a little bit. i'm very much in favor of these two pieces of legislation. and i do want to say that my amendment to title 2 of hr-712, the alert act, would require agencies to include in their monthly report whether rules in the pipeline impose unfunded
mandates on state or local governments or on the private sector. in 1995, congress passed with strong bipartisan support the unfunded mandates bill. but the bureaucrats you talked about have found many ways to get around those. it also requires it to include a total cost of unfunded mandates. and as you point out, the cost of the regulations coming out of not just this president but certainly they are really egregious under this president, but of any administration is burdensome but particularly when we put them on other -- when state and local governments and even on the private sector.
so i want to say i support this legislation very much. and i hope that the committee will support my two amendments. and with that, i would yield back the balance of my time. >> thank you very much. mrs. slaughter. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i ask unanimous consent to put the statement of administrative policy -- >> without objection. >> i yield back my time. >> thank you very much. the gentleman -- does any republican seek time? does any democrat seek time? let me look at all four of you and tell you, you have done an excellent job. you've given us today a presentation of an understanding of important activities that go on that impact america, that impacts our judicial system and that you've brought forth good
arguments i believe on both sides of that. the rules committee, as you know, handles legislation where we're here for hours and hours. and you've caught us at the end of a few of those hours. i appreciate all four of you being precise. if you remember we have our top stenographer here. and for her to properly prepare the reports that are necessary, she would love to have you leave anything that you brought in writing for her to complete that task. i want to thank all four of you for your time. i know that a good number of you hung out for a lot of time this afternoon. and i want to welcome you back, and we appreciate you taking time to be with us today. thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> there were two pieces of legislation -- >> we're going to put that all together. did you give your testimony that you chose -- i thought i had
asked if -- >> we did not. but i would be glad to submit it for the record. >> that would be awesome. that would be awesome. everybody agree? >> i knew some of you did. that's why i ask did everyone give the full presentation that they would choose to give? thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. chairman for your time. >> yes, sir. thank you very much. is there any other member that would wish to seek recognition to be heard on an amendment or any other piece of business related to these provisions that we have spoken about, hr-712 and hr-1155? seeing none, the hearing portion of this is now closed. and the chairman would be in receipt of a motion from the gentle woman from grandfather community, north carolina, the vice chairman of the company, dr. fox. >> thank you, mr. chairman.
i move the committee grant a rule providing for the consideration of the senate amendment to hr-3762, the restoring americans healthcare freedom reconciliation act of 2015. the rule makes an order or motion offered by the chair of the committee on the budget or his designee that the house concur, the rule waves points of order against consideration of the motion. the rule provides senate amendment and motion shall be considered as read. it provides one hour debate on the motion equally dividing control bit chair and ranking minority member. the committee on the budget or their respective designees. section 2 provides as section 3b1 is amended by striking, quote, the first session of, end quote. >> you have heard the motion from the gentle woman from north carolina.
in her motion to hr-3762, what is known as reconciliation, is there amendment or discussion to that? >> yes, mr. chairman, i would like to be heard on the provision. >> the gentlewoman is recognized. >> the provision that renews the staff deposition authority for a handful of house committees. i ask unanimous consent to insert in the record two letters. one is a letter from financial services ranking member waters and the other is from all four ranking members expressing their strong opposition to the renewal of staff deposition authority. i join the ranking members of energy and commerce, financial services, science and ways and means in opposing the reauthorization and also ask unanimous consent to insert in the record our views on why. given such unrestrained blanket powers to such a large number of committees is unprecedented in the history of the house.
there are certain times when congress must use the awesome power to compel american citizens to provide testimony under oath, subpoena power is an important tool in the oversight responsibilities of the house of representatives. there are even rare occasions when such questioning should be conducted by staff instead of members of the house. and when democrats were in charge, for example, we gave the education and labor committee this sort of authority for the limited purpose of investigating mine health and safety following the upper big branch disaster that killed 29 miners in west virginia. those instances should be rare. they should be clearly and specifically authorized, and they should be title focused on a particular investigation. today's resolution continues the process begun last year by the majority of turning what should be a targeted and exceptional power into a routine blanket
authority without reference to a specific investigation. absent a clearly identified investigation that merits the use of this power, we should follow the usual practice of taking witness testimony in open, public proceedings where questions are asked by elected members of congress. as far as i'm aware, no committee, other than the oversight committee, whose sole purpose is to conduct investigations, has been given this sort of blanket deposition authority prior to this congress. we have done without it for hundreds of years. and we should do so again. as our ranking members have written in their letters to our committee and to speaker ryan, some committees have barely used this staff deposition authority over the past year, raising the question of why it should be extended. and when committees have used this authority over the last year, it has often been abused with the threat of subpoena held over people's heads.
i ask my colleagues to reconsider giving this extraordinary power for another year. there are few things that the federal government can do that are more invasive than compelling ordinary citizens to appear and be intear gated behind closed doors by a government official. and it must be done with great care. the authority in this resolution is unprecedented, unnecessary, unwise and in all the years of the house of representative's history, it's never been done. we should not renew this authority. i ask unanimous consent to insert into the record the letters from the four ranking members and also from the minority members on the committee. >> thank you very much. without objection, those are in the record. i appreciate the gentlewoman giving me these letters. is there further discussion? >> yes, mr. chairman. >> the gentleman is recognized. >> consent to include in the
record with reference to 3762 a letter that was directed to leader mcconnell and speaker boehner with copies to minority leader reed and pelosi. and it's from the american college of nurse, midwives, american college of about slejo obstetricians and gynecologists, american women association, american public health association, american society for reproductive medicine and several others. in the interest of time, i won't read them all. but i would like to lift one pa paragraph from the letter. it says, policies that would exclude planned parenthood from public health funding would hurt millions of women and undermine healthcare access in communities across the country. approximately 60% of planned parenthood patients access
through medicaid and title 10. in addition to those who rely on other essential programs including maternal and child health programs and centers for disease and prevention, breast and cervical cancer screening programs. in some states planned parenthood is the only provider participating in title 10. and more than 50% of planned parenthood health centers are located in a medically underserved or health professional shortage area. because federal law already requires healthcare providers to demonstrate that no federal funds are used for abortion, prohibitions on funding for preventative care at planned parenthood health centers will only devastate access to these life saving services. and i ask unanimous consent for the full letter and the
supporters of the letter be put in the record, mr. chair. >> without objection, that will be included into the record. thank you very much. further discussion? as to the discussion that the gentlewoman had concerning the deposition and the rules package, several years ago -- first of all, i'm very sensitive about that. i've looked at it many iseyself. i've tried to pay attention. i've been in a number of -- though not numerous -- conversations with what i would say committee chairman and investigators who are interested in constitutionally living up to their exercise of oversight, just as i -- when i entered this congress was aware of the honorable john dingel and his oversight and need to make sure as in his role of the things
that he had done, i too have been engaged in and was a member of the government reform and oversight committee when i first came to congress. the nature by which i have agreed to bring this here is on a recommendation because of the -- what i consider to be an ongoing and continued administrative insistence that they not, i think, follow the rules. of not only providing information, how they provide the information, what they do. we even held the attorney general of the united states in contempt. we have had very vigorous fights. we continue to disagree with this administration. and they continue to disagree with us. and i have believed that it was in the best interest to continue this provision, and thus, i did
allow it also. if this administration can find a way to work better, i think we should find a way to work better. and that's been unresolved. second, i know and you know that there have been a number of members of congress, including mr. cummings, who i have had numbers of discussions with about proper protocol, proper information that would be shared, things that were done. and a few members, including mr. cummings, have publically addressed this issue. i think that those times have resulted in both sides re-evaluating what they were doing. so it's my hope that we can continue to work together. i will continue to watch this. and i will continue to have a strong opinion also. >> for goodness sakes. it sounds like -- >> it does sound like that --
>> let me just reiterate that this is a very serious -- >> yes, ma'am. >> we are giving to unelected people the ability to bring a citizen of the united states in, keep them behind doors for eight -- whatever they want. i continue to believe that those hearings should be held in public and questions should be asked by the people who are representatives of the constituencies. and i was -- there are times when we do that and we are capable of at that time rising to that occasion when it's necessary to have that kind of deposition authority. but to blanket give it i think will be tremendous abuse of power. i'm glad you are going to watch it very carefully. but i do think it's important that the ranking members of those committees show great concern from the experiences that they have had that this is not a good idea. >> yes, ma'am. >> does anybody else want to speak on that on our side? >> thank you very much. i appreciate you addressing this
issue forthrightly. i will -- as i was looking at judge hastings as i was saying this, will continue. he knows i have had discussions with members. he is aware of those discussions also. further discussions? seeing none, the vote will now be on the motion, excuse me, the amendment fromle ge lthe gentle from -- excuse me, yours was a discussion. further discussion -- >> we would like to have it out of the rule. why don't i make an amendment to do that? >> if that's what you choose. we have had a long discussion. i took it that way. >> that's fine. i will make and mendment. move to strike reauthorization. >> thank you very much. those in favor signify by saying aye. >> roll call, please. >> ms. fox, no, mr. woodall, no.
mr. bir mr. collins, no. mr. byrne, no. mr. newhouse, no. miss slaughter aye. mr. hastings eye. mr. polis aye. mr. chairman, no. >> four aye. >> the vote will be on the motion from the gentlewoman from north carolina. those in favor signify by saying aye. those opposed no. the eayes, please. >> miss fox aye. mr. woodall aye. mr. burgess aye. mr. collins aye. mr. byrne aye.
mr. newhouse aye. miss slaughter no. mr. mcgovern no. mr. hastings no. mr. polis no. mr. chairman aye. >> eight aye. >> this is mr. mcgovern. >> mr. mcgovern will for democrats. i will be in receipt of a motion from the gentlewoman from north carolina. >> i move the committee grant hr-712, the sunshine for regulatory decrees and settlements act of 2015. it provides one hour debate with 40 minutes equally dividing control by the chair. ranking minority member of the committee on judiciary and 20 minutes equally dividing control by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on oversight and government reform. the rule waves all points of
order. the rule makes an order as original text for the purpose of amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the texts of rules committee present and provides it shall be considered as read. the rule waves all points of order against that amendment in the nature of substitute. the rule makes an order only those further amendments printed in part a of the report each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report may be offered by a member designated in the report shall be debatable for the time specifies equally dividing control by the proponent and an opponent, not subject to amendme amendment. it waves all points of order against the amendment. the rule provides one motion to recommit. with or without instruction. section two of the rule provides for consideration of hr-1155, the scrub act of 2015 under
structured rule the rule provides one hour of again debate equally divided among and controlled by the chairs and ranking minority members of the committee on judiciary and the committee on oversight and government reform. the rule waves all points of order against consideration of the bill. the rule provides that the bill shall be considered as read. the rule waves all points of order against provisions of the bill. the rule makes an order only those amendments printed in the rule report, each may be offered in the order printed in the report may be offered only by a member designated, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally dividing control by the proponent and an opponent. shall not be subject to amendment and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question. rule waves all points of order against the amendments printed in part b. the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without instruction. >> thank you very much.
you have heard the motion concerning hr-1155, scrub act. is there any discussion or amendment? >> i have an amendment. i move the committee grant hr-712 and hr-1155 each an open rule so that all members have the opportunity to offer amendments to the bills on the floor. >> thank you very much. discussion? >> mr. chairman. >> the gentleman is recognized. >> i would like to say this rule provides for separate consideration of the rule with an hour of debate. one point following up on it. it makes an order every amendment submitted to each bill that complies with the rules of the house. i yield back. >> thank you very much. seeing no discussion, no further discussion, the vote is on amendment. those in favor say aye. those opposed no. nos have it.
>> roll call, please. >> miss fox no. mr. woodall no. mr. burgess no. mr. collins no. mr. byrne no. mr. newhouse, no. miss slaughter aye. mr. mcgovern aye. mr. hastings aye. mr. polis aye. mr. chairman no. >> total? >> eight ney. >> not agreed to. discussion? vote on the moment from the gent gent gentlewoman from north carolina. ayes have it. >> roll call. >> miss fox aye. mr. woodall aye. mr. burgess aye.
mr. collins aye. mr. byrne aye. mr. newhouse aye. miss slaughter no. mr. mcgovern no. mr. hastings no. mr. polis no. mr. chairman aye. >> total? >> motion is agreed to. mr. collins will be handling this for republicans. mr. polis fo democrr democrats. i want to thank our members for coming back. i know this was a long session. i would like to remind us that we will meet tomorrow at 3:00 on the litigation reform bill. this budget -- this subcommittee that will meet will also meet tomorrow morning for a hearing. i think at 11:00. 10:30 for a hearing on
budgeting. so 10:30 and 3:00 for rules committee time. thank you very much. this finishes our work for the day. we have a busy day ahead on the c-span networks. coming up in 40 minutes or so on c-span2, the house small business committee will hold a hearing on a report that identified deficiencies in management of the small business administration. that starts live at 11:00 a.m. eastern. that's on c-span2. a little later today, the u.s. institute of peace is hosting a panel discussion on how iraqi citizens view their government. a recent survey on the same issue. that's live at 1:00 p.m. eastern on c-span3. we have for you an event here in
washington mashing t imarking tn the "charlie hebdo" attack. that will be live at 2:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2. finally, road to the white house coverage this afternoon. it's a jeb bush town hall meeting in new hampshire. he will speak with supporters. you will see the remarks live at 6:30 p.m. eastern also on c-span2. here is a look at some of our feature programs this weekend on american history tv on c-span3. next tuesday, president obama will deliver his last state of the union address to a joint session of congress. this saturday and sunday at 1:00 p.m. eastern, four state of the union speeches by former presidents during their last year in office. on saturday, it's president jimmy carter followed by president ronald reagan. on sunday, president george h.w. bush's final state of the union
followed by president bill clinton. also, saturday morning at 10:30, playright and star of a musical "hamilton" accepts the special achievement award. sunday morning at 10:00, we will look back to the 1984 presidential campaign and a debate between eight democratic candidates in iowa. >> whom we elect to replace that man has to have the trust and confidence of the american people and it has to be on matters spoken in public and in private. private promises and public statements for the american people being the same. it has to be for all our people. >> for our complete weekend schedule, go to c-span.org. up next, american petroleum institute president jack gerard delivered statements.
this is 45 minutes. >> good afternoon, everyone. thank you for joining us at our annual state of american energy event at the reagan center. you just heard jack gerard talk about the opportunities from the american model for jobs, reducing our emissions, and strengthening our energy security, our national security. so let me now present jack gerard to take your questions, and let me just remind you if you could please identify yourself and your news organizations. we have about 80 folks from around the country and the top news organizations here in person and about 80 who are calling in from around the country. so with that, let me introduce jack gerard, api's president and ceo. >> thank you, eric. thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for joining us today.
my apologies for my voice. i'm not sure how much longer it is going to last, but we appreciate you being here today. let me just say as we begin let me open it up to questions. we believe as we talked about earlier in our vote for energy rollout we'll be doing this election cycle once again. we want to talk about facts. we want to talk about the future. we want to talk about the opportunities we have in this country. we like to refer to it as the u.s. model. we create jobs, we become energy secure as the nation while reducing carbon emissions. it's pretty significant what's taken place in this country. unpredictable just 10, 12 years ago. with that, let me open it up and take your questions. eric, i'll let you identify. >> penny. thank you for taking our questions. >> you bet. >> in paris when they had the climate change discussions, there were scientists there reported saying the only way to achieve the true goals of climate change is to eliminate
fossil fuels completely. can you comment on that, please? >> the experts will tell you by 2040 80% of the energy resource for the united states will continue to be fossil fuels. we lead the world in carbon reductions. i think you're all well aware of that, and we're doing that today because of fossil fuel production in vast quantities that's made it competitive. it's allowed it to be used and we're continuing to improve the environment. as we look around the world today, this won't happen overnight. we need to look at the science and the data. the science today shows us that natural gas is a key opportunity to further improve environment. i would suggest one of the things we should look at is how do we expedite and move lng export opportunities in the united states. we have a case study.
there are those who try to ignore the case study, some of who deny the case study. the reality is we are leading the world and how did we get there. that's the simple point we're trying to make. as you look and we build on the success we have to date, we believe we can deal with the challenge of carbon, but we can also do it in other ways other than those driven purely by political ideology. >> hi. i'm marilyn with npr. >> yes, marilyn. >> my question is about the conflicts in the middle east. your typical thinking is that when there's so much rising tension it should be driving oil prices higher and yet that really hasn't been the case. how do you explain how these problems between iran and saudi arabia and all the troubles in syria have not resulted in much higher prices? >> well, i think it's the american energy renaissance as the key driver in that. marilyn, as we talked about earlier, as you look around the
world today, the geopolitics of energy has changed significantly over the last decade. the united states is now the world's number one producer of oil and natural gas. so it's the fundamentals of the law of supply and demand taking out a lot of the risk we have seen historically. why? because what's happening is the market is looking at that situation at unrest and they're saying, well, it could have an impact within those producing nations, but there's alternatives today. the united states being one. our production in the united states today is around 9 million barrels a day. that's almost doubled over the last five or six years. so the global market today is very different. those who had significant influence over global pricing if you talk to analysts will tell you that dynamic has shifted and is changing. i think once again the market reflects that over the past
couple days as the unrest has continued to heighten, as the tensions increase. the market isn't moving. the market is basically showing that there are alternatives out there now for that energy. it's very significant what's happening. >> thanks for doing this. coral davenport. "the new york times." >> how are you? >> i'm good. what role do you anticipate playing in terms of talking to 2016 candidates? are you advising any of them? have they reached out to you? where are we going to see your voice in this campaign? >> this campaign i hope what you'll see is we'll be talking to all the candidates regardless of political party, regardless of energy conversation. we believe as i talked about earlier it's all about education. it's about science and it's all about data. we believe if everybody will talk from that perspective, the solutions to the challenges of our day are easier to drive at
if we base them in science and data. and that's why this u.s. model is so important is because what it shows us is we can reduce carbon emission. if that's the issue of our time, we can do that through cleaner burning natural gas. so we have not aligned with any campaign. we have not aligned with any political party. if questioned by any of them, we're open to all of them because we believe this energy issue, specifically oil and gas, is a common area where we should be able to come together. >> thank you. i'm with the ap. many thanks for the opportunity. i would like to ask you about the western hemisphere. what opportunities do you see and how important are they in the western hemisphere for the next year not only about the
deep water oil and gas operation in mexico, but also if you see any other -- if you can be conscious specific better. thank you. >> as you look at the western hemisphere, one of the big issues is mexico. as mexico emerges as a bigger player, the gulf of mexico, and the offshore activity. another issue on the agenda is the five-year plan of the outer continental shelf in the united states. we're hopeful the administration will provide many opportunities, including the atlantic coast, in this new proposal that should be coming out here soon. when we look at the western hemisphere, there's many opportunities. canada has been our number one energy partner for many, many years. the united states continues to emerge as a major player now leading the world and combined with mexico you see a three nation opportunity here that's really a chance in a lifetime to see a lot of that energy focus
shift back to this hemisphere. other opportunities, i mean you're all well aware of them. there's opportunities all around the globe. the difference is the united states is really emerging as the key player in the world. >> hi, jenny with energy wire. >> yes. >> lifting at the crude export ban, which was such a major accomplishment, can you reflect a little bit on how that is going to shape the u.s. oil and gas industries in the near term and in a decade or two? >> i think it is a good example as i mentioned in my prepared remarks of a long-term vision. when you think about the oil and gas industry, people forget that often times as our companies are making investments they don't look at first, second, third quarter. they're looking at 5, 10, 15, 20-year horizons. things like lifting the crude export ban allows the markets to
operate as they should. why? because now it's become a truer free market. you've seen how the opportunity for american producers not only in refined product in lng, but now in crude oil. that's why there's such benefits to american consumers is because it gets back to supply and demand. as i mentioned earlier, from our vantage point as an industry, we're just looking for the opportunity. don't overregulate. we can protect the environment. we can show environmental improvement at the same time we can produce the needed energy that the world needs. so lifting the crude export ban is a good example of a long-term energy policy. i think we should have a lot more focus and expedite the lng opportunities in the country. have a permitting process between doe and ferc that takes too long.
we should focus on that just like we have other energy sources to expedite the permitting. why? because it creates an opportunity for u.s. producers to compete with anybody in the world and ultimately, as all the data shows, it benefits american consumers. so there are other opportunities out there. lifting the crude oil export ban was a big one. as you know, that's been in place about four years. that's changed the energy dynamic as we know it. >> hi, jack. i'm with bloomberg news. >> yes. >> the other two factors that we've been hearing that are the reasons that prices -- the price rise has been blunted a little bit is because production hasn't -- there's no expectation that production is going to decline in saudi arabia and china is slowing down quite a bit. i'm wondering if you could look forward a little bit and tell us
what you expect to happen in the next couple of months in the middle east if you could look into a crystal ball and if there was some lack of production there, what would it mean for american producers? >> i probably don't have any more insights than you do, brian. it's probably very a variety of reasons that the tension which is occurring -- which historically would have had an historic impact. we don't predict the price. but the experts are saying today that price impact would have been significantly different than it is as a result of that unrest. i think that's the key to focus on from the u.s. perspective, which is who we represent, the american petroleum institute. our ability to compete in those global markets is a game changer.
the world we have known it for the last 30 to 40 years is evolving. it is realigning. while we'll have ups and downs, all we ask for is an opportunity. the companies we represent -- we don't want government intervention. we don't want government support. we just want opportunity to compete and the market will find its equilibrium. that's all we ask for. >> ben, climate wire. >> yeah, ben. >> i'm curious your thoughts on how u.s. oil and gas companies are ready for the administration's clean power plan and with paris happening a month ago, carbon pricing more broadly? how ready are u.s. energy companies for those two regulations? >> all of our companies -- some are across the continuum. some have supported a trade approach. some have supported a carbon tax. there's a variety of different
position amongst our member companies. the things we have focused on primarily is the science and the data. why? because we think that is the story that's not being told today. the reality is that the u.s. is the leader. the president should have gone to paris and said i have a case study in the united states. we're able to grow our economy, put people to work, at the same time our carbon emissions are at a 20-year low. we think that story should be told because we think it will help reorient other thinkers about the solutions of our time which is climate. rather than get into it whatever it should be, we believe we have a case study. we actually have data that shows how you continue to support a growing economy at the same time
the climate issue. natural gas should be a focus. we should think about how we can use it in other venues around the world. and that's why the production right here at home is so important to us, creating great jobs in pennsylvania, colorado, oklahoma, texas, ohio. at the same time we're dealing with the environmental challenges. >> jack, i'm jim at the voice of america. >> yeah, jim. >> low oil prices meaning lower investment in the energy industry. eventually that's going to mean lower production. how long do you think it will take before we see reduced production because of reduced investment? >> you can see today some of the production, of course, being curtailed. these are long lead time opportunities when you drill a well, when you eventually bring that well into production. but as you see today, our production is off slightly here in the united states. but again the market will drive that. all we're asking for is opportunity.
give us a chance to compete with everybody else around the world and the key beneficiary is the consumer. why? because the lowest class oil will find itself into the marketplace. it will be refined for less and it will be brought to the american consumers' doorstep for less. that's why i think american infrastructure is so important. if you look at those who live in new england today, you're paying 69% more than the national average. why is that? merely because we can't get that clean burning natural gas to you. if we could build pipelines and infrastructure, then we're allowed to compete and you'll see a huge benefit not only in the clean burning fuel being put into those regions, particularly in new england, but lower cost to the consumer. so there are a lot of benefits here. we just don't think those who take the simplistic approach of forgetting fossil fuels -- you can't forget about fossil fuels.
they're the foundation of our economy for many years to come. let's be smart, thoughtful. let's look at the data and the science surrounding them. >> two quick questions, the first one on climate change and in general what do you see as the biggest climate-change related issues affecting your member companies or your group from an advocacy standpoint in 2016? the second question is a quick question on the rfs. what do you see the prospects for pushing back for repeal or significant modification of that in an election year? thank you. >> doug, i think on the climate question the untold story, as we talked about earlier, is the u.s. model. i think there needs to be more conversation about what is working globally, where the united states is the leader. we don't need to apologize for where we are. we need to lead the world and
show them how we got here and what we can do in the future as we deal with this serious challenge called climate. so i think that's the first issue that we ought to focus on in the climate discussions. let's put all the science and all the data on the table. let's not drive the conversation based on pure ideology or a particularly dogma. let's focus on the science and on the data. we couldn't agree more. there are some who want to ignore the reality of the u.s. model. there are some who choose to deny the reality of the u.s. success in growing our economy, producing more energy at the same time bringing down carbon emissions. there's a lesson there for us to learn, and our hope is more will talk about this, more will learn from it, and we'll figure out collectively not only the united states, but globally how to address the issue. once we see the new congress assembled, we see who's in the white house, i think at that
point we better be able to judge the likelihood of change. i will say i believe there's a clear majority in both the house and senate today to make significant changes to the rfs. i think process has been the thing that's protected that old relic in the past, and i think we just need to mount an effort to educate the american consumer and call on congress to fix a problem that's not helping american consumers. >> let's turn to the phones. we have a question. >> caller: good afternoon. i'm from the financial times. >> yes. >> caller: i want to get back to the subject of the clean power plan. you're strongly critical of it, but not recognizing the significance and the valuable role that natural gas can play
in reducing emissions. just wondering what sort of policy conclusion you draw from that. does that mean you think the clean power plan should be scrapped, or is it possible there could be some reform or amendment to it or some sort of similar plan put in place but still has that same objective of driving down emissions, but does so by making more use of natural gas? >> i think, ed, where we are today i would hope there would be more consideration where we don't pick winners and losers, but we allow all energy sources to compete in a true all of the above energy strategy. the president has often commented or used to comment that he's for an all of the above energy strategy. we couldn't agree more with him. but the fuels that cost a lot we should tip the scale or put the finger on the scale and be half of one form or the other because it happens to be our favorite fuel. to allow consumers to benefit
should allow natural gas to compete on a level playing field with all other forms of energy. that's really all we're saying, ed, in our conversation. let's look at the facts. let's look at the reality. i remember not too many years ago where natural gas was selling for $13 or $14. that's a very different world than it is today. it's changed today because of our modern techniques and technologies. we've been able to produce vast amounts of it, so now it is competitive to come into the marketplace. we shouldn't put the finger on the scales for any particular fuels. just let them all compete. if our true objective is reduzing carbon emissions, let's allow those fuels that will reduce carbon emissions to compete in the marketplace. >> hi, chris. you devoted a lot of your talk today to talking about the success of what you call the u.s. model. i wonder if this is a conception part that the obama administration has been relatively accommodating to you
guys and you would like the next administration to sort of extend that. >> say that again, chris. the administration has been accommodating to us? >> relatively accommodating. >> can i take issue with your premise? >> go ahead. >> as an industry that has over 100 pending regulations, i wouldn't think it is accommodating. i think what the reality is is that they're looking at what it takes to fuel an economy like ours. if you remember on crude oil exports the administration spokesperson was commenting they didn't think it was the time to do it. we probably have some difference of opinions on how you should approach the regulatory regime. we look at methane. methane emissions are down in the united states, yet they're pursuing a methane regime in the
united states. fracturing is regulated by states. so i don't know if that's accommodating or helpful or whatever the word you used is as much as i believe we need to look at it on the basis of the science and the data. and the reality is that we're now a major producer of natural gas. it's cleaner burning, reduces carbon emissions, and i think that needs to be given due attention and i don't think it is in the current administration. >> i'm jim. i'm from ihs, the energy daily. you alluded to it in your speech, but given the administration's climate perspective, how concerned are you that the interior might start pulling back on oil and gas leasing as driven by the environmental movement? people driving to keep it in the ground. >> i think it's fair to say
we're always concerned about where the regulatory approach will go. we think it's unfortunate there's some who have taken in our view an irresponsible approach saying we ought to keep it all in the ground when the administration's data shows 80% of our energy will still be oil and gas. we think they are driven by a political ideology. they're not driven by science and data. those individuals deny the u.s. model that shows you can create jobs, you can produce energy, and you can also reduce carbon emissions. so we're always concerned about where the administration will go. we try to work with them every place we can. we've had some successes in working through some of these issues. we hope this last year if we can get the focus on what really benefits our society with job creation and environmental production, that we can find some common grounds to work on, but there's a lot of pending regulations out there that we
think are unnecessary that we wish that wouldn't be pursuing so aggressively. >> hi, jack. good afternoon. amy with "the wall street journal." i wanted to go back to carbon policy for a moment. you said a couple of minutes ago your members have various different positions on this issue. so i want to know what api's official position is on a carbon tax or some sort of price on carbon. i know you have a strong position on the rfs. you have a strong position on oil exports. as an official position, do you not have a position given the various positions of your member companies, or do you have one? >> we have a position. it's posted on our website. if anybody goes back, i think you'll see there a description -- we believe it is a serious concern, a challenge that needs to be dealt with, so we focus our time and attention on solutions. we ought to have a lot more conversation about what natural gas has done as a solution.
there are those that want to get into this conversation, well, are you for or against this or that or do you deny this or that? let's look at the data. the u.s. leads the world in carbon reductions. why is that? it didn't happen because of government mandate. it happened because of free market principles where a cleaner burning fuel was brought to the market. because we have been able to produce a lot more of it, it's now become cost competitive. what's it doing? it's further improving our environment. so we believe as scientists and engineers that what you do. you go back to the case study and look at the model and say what is the solution. that's why we take issue with some of the approaches being probused around the world. it's not an ideology. it's not based on theoretical foundations. we've demonstrated that right here at home.
we believe that's what's missing in the conversations. we can all agree climate is a challenge. if it needs to be addressed, the real discussion needs to be focused on solutions. ours is better for consumers. it's better for environment and longer term it doesn't unintentionally displace economic activity and hurt consumers in the process. we believe ours is a winning solution and that's why we want to be pushing it. >> let's go back to the phones. i've got a number of callers. >> your next question is from amy donohue. >> caller: thank you for taking my phone call. in your report you outlined the disparities related to oil and gas production when there is federal land ownership. you specifically note the huge difference between the utah experience and the pennsylvania experience. can you elaborate on that and is there something else going on here besides federal land ownership? the numbers are quite amazing.
>> thanks for the question, amy. the numbers are quite amazing. i would encourage you all to take a look at our report and some of the data because there is a dramatic difference between federal ownership and state ownership. that's one of the reasons this year in our report we focus on the role of the states. if you look in the state of pennsylvania, for example, in the past the governor has been very supportive of the development of the natural gas up there. you look in the state of ohio today where there's lots of conversation about ohio becoming a significant oil producer, driven primarily by innovation in technologies. you look at the state of utah where you have a lot of federal lands and you can see a stark contrast between what's going on on the federal land which is controlled by the federal government versus what governors are allowing to happen on the state land. that's the point we raise.
this is driven by ideology, not by geology. the oil and gas reserves don't go to that line of state and federal land and stop. they typically cover both basins, but there's a reason the dollars aren't being invested to drill on the federal land. stop. they typically cover both. it is generally because there is great uncertainty. the costs are much higher associated with it. so you see the capital investment dollar just like any other industry, it's going to go where it can get its best return or not lowest investment. that's what's happening in energy in the united states today. that's why, a i mentioned earlier in my comments, if you look at crude oil on the federal lands of the united states, it's tkphr flat at best. the cleaner burning is down on federal lands 35%. you get off the federal land, the state land, which adjoins the federal land, and the production is up 80% for crude
oil, 40% for natural gas. so, again, it's a function of policy and ideology and not science and energy. we think it should be focused on geology. ween the states and the feds to work together on these matters. it does make a long-term difference in the united states's ability to produce energy. >>. >> the house just passed an energy package. they are pushing to get the energy package to the floor sometime soon. would they be enough to address some of the infrastructure is and expert concerns and do you have any threats on pending legislation? >> there's always a good start on some of those. each of the packages are a little different in the house and the senate. we think there needs to be a lot more structure. permitting timelines, et cetera.
so is it enough? we think now is the time to go back and revisit it and look at it more specifically, particularly in light of the crude oil ban. now that we are given global opportunities we think you have to reassess where the opportunities are in the united states, not only for domestic market but now for the global market. we will be working with the house and the senate. the chairwoman makowsky said she hoped to move to the senate. we are supportive of inferring policy that gives us a chance to compete in the global patient place. >> energy outlook blog. looking ahead, can you talk about what the oil and gas could look like coming out of the current life cycle. when investment starts to ramp up again, do you think we will see an even bigger shift towards
shale, including finally the takeoff of global shale development? >> i think that's difficult to predict as we look down the next year or two. it is going to the marketplace factors of supply and demand. that's why i keep emphasizing we're not looking for government intervention. we're not looking for a government handout. we're looking for opportunity. treat us equitably and the investment dollars will find their way. the united states has great opportunity because our basins are rich. but at the same time we have this certainty of the rule of law. the court system, lots of factors go into where you invest the dollars. the united states has a chance to get its fair share about the policies are rate. when you look at keystone g l
pipeline driven by political considerations, that has a chilling effect on where those dollars go. we need certainty, predictability. eventually the market will sort it out it is difficult to predict ahead how far that will will go. i don't think anyone would have predicted oil is where it is today two years ago. we just want a chance to compete in that market. >> questions over here. >> hi. thanks for doing this again. >> you bet. >> "snl" energy. what changes to the u.s. regulatory scheme does api want to be advocated in this upcoming election cycle? >> we think there ought to be a serious look at the impact, particularly cost implications and the chilling effect on investment that regulatory activities have. if you look today, for example, as we have always argued, the states have historically
regulated things like hydraulic frac suring. for whatever reason, the federal government thought it had to go in and lay another layer on top of the states. what happened? a federal judge in wyoming said he isn't sure the federal government has the authority to do that. you can imagine the effect that has. they are not sure what impact it would have. we would suggest all regulations should be scrutinized on the basis of what is the cost benefit ratio, does it provide value. you look at the methane mission this year. the industry has led in methane emissions reductions. we are down in real terms. it is associated with hydraulic fractured wells. they are down 83%. and yet the administration chose to go ahead and regulate it yet again. i don't know if they are trying to catch up with success or innovation or technology or what
it is. but it is already unnecessary. if we are already moving down, therefore reducing carbon impacts, why have the need to go out and regulate it even more than it already is. if you look, last year was a record in terms of the number of pages in the federal register. the oil and gas space, we have close to 100 pending regulations, new regulations. it covers upstream, downstream, et cetera. we strongly encourage the administration to look at what are you doing, why are we doing that, and is there a better way to accomplish the stated objective without imposing all the costs, all the delay which makes us less competitive and discourages those cap investments dollars in the u.s. >> time for a few more questions over here. >> scott tom, public radio. >> yes. >> i want to ask you about the
epa's draft assessment on drinking water. came out -- the draft came out in june, as you know. scientists have raised several questions about the top line finding no widespread systemic effect on drinking water. first, do you think science has settled on drinking water well integrity. and seven months out, do you think it has september out any scientific or regulatory signal to global regulators? >> i think what it does is the epa first concluded -- and i'm glad you raised that. that's a perfect example where the science was concluded. the epa came out with a report saying there was no systematic impact. the epa worked with the state. they had gone back and looked at all the wells. the state has concluded no connection between hydraulic
fracturing, contaminants in the energy out there. we have two comprehensive studies down by government regulators. but there is a handful of people who are not happy with the outcome. right? so they continue to drive their agenda based on the ideology, not based on the on science. the science has shown, as epa concluded a year or so ago after five or six years of study, that there is no systematic widespread impact over hydraulic fracturing. they have agendas and they are advocating for a particular position. and i think that's very unfortunate. if you have government regulatory bodies that are subject to scientific conclusions being amended because you have a few activists trying to get that changed, it draws the entire process into question. and i hope they don't go there.
>>. >> we go to the phones. >> pittsburgh turbine review. >> caller: thanks for taking my call. you mentioned the discourse the election year of resolving around energy. do you expect to see the energy issue because more of an issue in the debate and congressional races and do you expect to do any expansion of that during the election year? >> good question. i do believe the energy debate will be part of the selection. the reason i say that is for a couple of reasons. number one, with the significant changes we have seen in the energy equation in the united states, it has significant impacts on job creation, consumer costs. consumers and voters are aware of this now. that is a key part of this that will be part of this national debate. the other part of it is you see very different views as to how
to handle the energy equation. clean power plant being one of them. as i understand it, the majority of the states of the united states have sued to turn over a clean power plant. that is significant. there will be discussions about that very issues in all of these jurisdictions around the country. so energy will be part of that debate. fund memories around oil exports and around l and g exports, producing natural gas and oil. our purpose to distinguish what the politicians are doing, ours is not driven by political philosophy or individual candidates or political parties. ours is driven by fundamental literacy to have an electorate to engage in the dialogue. that's our purpose, to talk about the facts and talk about the science, let voters make up their own mind. but to talk about the important role that energy plays surrounding our domestic economy. as i mentioned earlier, if you