announcement of further delay? >> we do want to make sure that there is a statement on the question of compensation for those who've developed peral parallax which can be material until which come on the people just on the work they've undertaken. we want to make sure they had proper compensation following the house of lourdes judgment we have to review the compensation system to make sure that it's fair to all. >> the last speaker, the last question, a lot of my colleagues as well as myself are disappointed about the pleral parallax victims have not got a compensation scheme in place. unfortunately, the scottish parliament are now on the verge of introducing the one. will my honorable friend drag them to the box -- >> i think my honorable friend

and other of my honorable friends have made the position absolutely clear. they think this is a question of fundamental justice. they want the government to get on with it and we must heed to what is being said. >> thank you. [laughter] >> at prime minister's question time about a year ago i said -- i reminded the prime minister that no labour government had left office with unemployment lower than when they started. his response was, that it wouldn't happen on his watch. is the government still holding to that view? >> i think no labour government has actually faced the global -- the global economic crisis that this government is ensuring that this country comes through. and i think that no labour government has done more to protect people from unemployment

and if he's concerned about unemployment, why doesn't he back the public sector investment which would create jobs? and why doesn't he back the investment in job centers which we are taking action on and his party would cut? >> hugh bailey? >> we have such a severe shortage of affordable housing that many young people are being priced out of their own city. i welcome the prime minister's announcement last week of an extra 1.5 billion pounds for affordable and energy-efficient homes. will my right honorable friend speak to the homes in community agency and ask them to meet me and counselors at york how this additional money could benefit our city? >> i will ask the head of the homes and communities agency to meet york counsel and my right honorable friend and isn't it telling, mr. speaker, across the house from the liberal democratic beverages and across the house on labour benches we

had people calling for more affordable house-building but we've got total silence from the conservatives because they would not be putting in this extra investment they would be cutting back on the investment which is so sorely needed and i can ensure all honorable members we will be taking the action to ensure that there is more affordable housing. >> order. statement, mr. chancellor of the exchequer. >> from london, you've been watching prime minister's question time aired live every wednesday while parliament is in session. at 7:00 am eastern. you can see this again sunday night at 9:00 pm eastern and pacific. for more information, check out our website, c-span.org. on the home page, you see the heading, international links, click on it for links to british parliament and legislatures around the world. you'll also see links to c-span programs dealing with other international issues. the address again is c-span.org.

>> now part of the senate hearing on clean energy where administration officials discussed climate change and energy legislation. they include energy secretary steven chu, lisa jackson of the environmental protection agency, agriculture secretary tom vilsack and interior secretary ken salazar. barbara boxer of california chairs the senate environment and public works committee. this is about two hours. >> historic connection of burning geological carbon to

drive industrialization that we can break and certainly our national insecurity that comes from dependence on just a few foreign nations for critical energy supplies. this status quo must change to strengthen our nation in this generation and the next. we need to end our dependence on foreign oil and foreign energy. we need to take and break the connection between burning geological carbon and turning it into carbon dioxide pollutant in the atmosphere to drive industrialization. we need to lead the world in renewable resources so that it can become a critical strength of our economy selling both the intellectual capital and products to the world. we certainly need to underwrite

in creating these products. we can do all of this by restructuring energy economy through this bill. if we fail to do that, we will continue to be dependent upon a few small nations for critical energy supply. we will continue to spend 1 to $2 billion or more everyday overseas rather than spending it here in the united states on clean energy creating jobs and we certainly will continue to contribute to a planetary catastrophe in the form of global warming. so it's a critical debate. i am honored to be here and i look forward to your testimony. i do apologize in advance. i'll be running back and forth to the healthcare markup. thank you. >> thank you, senator. before i call on senator alexander, if it's okay with the committee, senator inhofe and i thought as long as we have a quorum we could approve a couple of nominees that have been waiting to be approved. and why don't we hear from

senator alexander and then we can go to that process if it's okay. >> senator, madam chairman, thank you. senator bond has to leave and i was going to ask if he could -- if he could go before me, if that would be on all right. it would be all right with me if you wanted to go ahead -- well, now i need to go before. [laughter] [inaudible] >> thank you, madam chairman. thank you very much. >> thank you very much, madam chair. i'm indebted to my colleagues and i thank you for holding this hearing and i thank you very much for the commitment to hold additional hearings on the very important legislative matters that we will be marking up when we have an opportunity to learn about them. because i think the american people and certainly my missouri constituents deserve to know how the legislation we consider will impose new energy taxes on them,

kill their jobs, punish the midwest and south, help china and india and construct a new bureaucratic nightmare to implement a carbon cap-and-trade program. some say we should just look to the bill the house passed this month and to that i would have to say which one. we have the 648-page discussion draft and the 932-introduced bill. we have the 946-page committee substitute. we have the 1201 bill, we have the 500-page red line version. we have 743-page committee report. we have the 309-page managers amendment filed at 3:00 am the morning of the floor debate and we have the 1427-page house bill in total, 6,706 pages of legislative material. for those who say we should work on the house-passed bill we have a prominent advocate for the

environment here today who will testify that we should abandon the floor compromises benefiting agriculture and go back to the committee-passed version and we have the fresh experience of the most recent legislation the committee considered where the chair adopted a complete substitute the day of the markup and then berated members for not reading the substitute. we deserve people and the people of america deserve better. the american people in my missouri constituents deserve to know why it takes all these pages to address energy issues? this past week calls in my office ran 929 against cap-and-trade to 34. needle are trying to hide in the haystack, what provisions were added in the middle of the night, how a bureaucratic nightmare create work and what a nightmare it will be with epa at the center of a great web of government mandates, programs and taxes. epa will have help for nearly two dozen other federal agencies, the black boxes on the

bottom, some represented here today and many not implementing government programs it will tax and spend trillions of dollars. the gray, green, purple boxes on the side and the middle. all of this will focus on the costs to us on the power bills, cooling and heating bills, food prices, product prices, gasoline prices and other farmers with higher prices, drivers with higher prices and workers with lost jobs all of this is to ask what are our democratic colleagues afraid of? they're not afraid of us knowing what this will do to our families, why don't we get into the hearing on the legislation itself? i hope we'll get these answers soon and i certainly appreciate the opportunity to show the concerns i have. thank you, madam chair. >> thank you, senator. so we're just going to take a quick break if it's all right and go to the nominations at the u.s. environmental protection agency.

colin fulton to be general counsel and the nomination of paul to be assistant administrator for the office of research and development. i call up the nominations. i ask unanimous consent that they be considered enbloc. i support both nominations and my colleague does the same. anybody wish to be heard on niece nominations. if not i move that the nominations be recorded favorably on the senate. do i have a second. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed say no. the ayes do have it and the no, ma'am that'ses are recorded in the senate and i thank my colleagues very much for their cooperation. senator klobuchar? >> thank you very much, madam chairman. i know that our distinguished panel here, that new energy legislation is truly about creating jobs here in america and it's about developing home grown energy and breaking our reliance on foreign energy. i spent the fourth of july week up north in minnesota meeting with people everywhere.

but i will tell you up there the unemployment rate is at 20%. in minnesota, our people want good-paying jobs across the spectrum. miners to mine more iron ore, manufacturing workers to make wind turbines and workers to fill our barges with those turbines to ship them on lake superior to countries across the world and scientists to develop fuel cells and new sell lossic ethanol technologies. but an energy bill has to take account not just the captains of the energy industry but also the people who buy the energy. middle class families need protection from a jolt in their electricity rates and they also need an energy bill to provide job opportunities. i believe a new energy bill done right will mean new business like retooling and re-opening manufacturing facilities to make the nuts and bolts of new energy systems, electric car batteries, solar panels and geothermal heat pumps and it's about our farmers which i know secretary vilsack understands. a new energy bilk help our

farmers grow fuels right here in adopting methods that will capture carbon in our atmosphere. it's time we invest in the farmers in the midwest instead of the oil cartels in the mideast. i believe the opportunities here are enormous and we cannottñ l them go to waste. after decades of delay, it's time for action. we know what happened when gas prices went up last year. they approached $5 a gallon. it's not acceptable. our energy supply is extremely vulnerable to domestic disputes in africa or a broken pipeline in russia result in massive price spikes in heating bills in america. we need an energy bill that allows america to lead the rest of the world in the production of energy in the development of new technology including wind, solar, geothermal, hydro, new techniques for coal and new development of nuclear power. legislative priorities for me

with this bill is first does the legislation protect the middle class from higher energy costs resulting from putting a cap on carbon emissions? second, does the legislation take into account our agriculture and community which i know there was some good work done in the house to acknowledge their contributions to this? third, for traditional companies, industries that are not subject to the same carbon constraints to make sure that they don't have an unfair advantage. and finally does the legislation give a sufficient boost to renewable energy? i personally would like to see a more aggressive portfolio standard. i know that's being worked on in the energy committee than we saw in the house bill. but overall, i don't believe that we can stick with the status quo. i don't think we can just throw daggers at this bill. i think we have to work to improve it. i think the people of my state and the people of our country depend on it and i thank you very much for all of your work and contribution. >> senator, thank you.

senator alexander? >> thank you, madam chairman. and i look forward to the hearings and to participate in them. i'd like to take a little different tack on this. the chairman quoted tom friedman and the importance of a nation that hope to lead addressing clean energy. i think you left out an adjective and i'd put the word "cheap." incomprehensive -- inexpensive and that's true with the united states that uses 25% of all the energy in the world. and why is that? well, if we want to build cars and trucks in minnesota and tennessee and michigan and ohio instead of japan and mexico we got to have cheap electricity. i mean, the auto suppliers in my state are just like this. every little cost addition moves a job to mexico or to japan or to somewhere else.

and even the new polysilicon plant uses 120 megawatts and they are in tennessee because they have large amounts of cheap electricity so the choice is really between a high cost clean energy plan and a low cost clean energy plan so my question to the committee and it will be throughout all this, why are we ignoring the cheap energy solution that global warming which is nuclear power? i mean, this is really fairly simple. if what we're interested in is reducing carbon which is the principal greenhouse gases we can focus on smokestacks and say let's start building 100 new nuclear power plants, increase -- nuclear power is 30% of our carbon-free electricity. solar, wind and all of these other things are 6%. nuclear is 70%. so in the next 20 years we want

to do that we could built 100 more nuclear power plants and then as we did then we could begin to close dirty coal plants or find some new -- i said to dr. chu before let's reseefsh a noble prize for the scientist who finds carbon from existing coal plants and we could have clean coal plants or we could have much cleaner existing plants. a second thing to do is electrify our cars and trucks. that's the fastest way to reduce dependence on foreign oil. and the use of oil. the third thing we could do is to explore offshore for natural gas which is low carbon and oil which we should use less of but use our own and fourth, several mini manhattan projects much like the ones dr. chu is beginning to do to find a way to make some of these newer forms of energy cost-effective and more reliable. but for the next 20 years, if we

really want to deal with global warming we really only have one option and that is to double the number of nuclear power plants we have. there is no other technological way we have to have a large amount of reliable cheap electricity other than nuclear power. so if we're in the business of saying, yes, we can -- if the president would give the same kind of aggressive interest to building 100 new nuclear power plants, we could solve global warming in a generation. we keep beating around the bush and instead this house has come up with this contraption much like the one last year which senator bond had on the table and which is $100 billion a year in new costs, somebody is going to pay that. that works out to $900 per family the way my math figures it, and it will begin to suffocate large sections of our economy and drive jobs overseas.

high pricers want mandates and taxes. cheap energy advocates which include almost all republicans and a growing number of democrats say build nuclear plants and double research on efforts to make it cheaper and reliable. we must remember that high priced energy sends jobs overseas looking for cheap energy. cheap energy not only helps create jobs, madam chairman, it is the fastest way to reduce global warming. 100 new nuclear plants will reduce global warming faster than taxes and mandates so i intend during this debate to keep bringing this up. a low carbon fuel standard is a more effective way to deal with carbon from fuel than an economy wide cap-and-trade which only raises prices and for years it might not reduce the carbon. that's 30% of the carbon. 40% of the carbon is in smokestacks. we could begin to build nuclear

plants and as they come online, we can do something about the dirtiest coal plants so i thank the chair for her time and i urge our committee and the senate to look at the cheap energy clean solution if we really want to keep jobs in this country. thank you. >> senator, we look forward to working with you on that. senator cardin? >> well, thank you very much for this hearing. and let me start by saying there's much of what senator alexander said that i agree with although i reach a different conclusion. i think the bill that we marked up last year, the lieber-warner bill and i think much of the provisions included in the waxman-markey bill encourages the type of activities that senator alexander was talking about including the expansion of the nuclear power which i also support and believe is necessary for us to meet our energy needs and to accomplish our other goals. i think we can improve the bill that came over from the house but i think we need to act on legislation. i think it's critically

important for many reasons. the first of which is jobs. it's about keeping jobs here in america. it's about -- we have developed the technology. now let's use that technology. let's create the green jobs here in america that will not only help our economy, it will help our national security by less dependence on foreign energy sources and will certainly help our environment by dealing with the problems that we have on carbon emissions. i think we can accomplish all that. the bill we worked on last year and the bill that came over from the house will allow us to do exactly what i think senator alexander wants us to do. and that is to become less dependent upon foreign energy sources and to use more energy sources here in america and create jobs in this country. let me just mention -- yesterday, i was out in frederick county where bb solar is located. they strongly want to see the jobs created here in america. i went to fort dedrick and madam administrator thank you very much for the environmental

cleanup work and putting it on the national cleanup list but there can be a membrane on top of 14, 15 acres and one of the uses that you're looking at is put solar panels there which will create additional jobs. in frederick county. the largest part of our economy in maryland might surprise you is agriculture. and if there is just about a 2-degree increase in temperature in our state it will have a devastating impact on our agricultural industry including the spread of diseases so this bill is about keeping jobs and expanding jobs here in america. and i could go to every one of the sectors in my own state, and i hope that we can work together, senator alexander, and come up with a bipartisan bill which i think will be in the interest of the american public, but it needs to make us energy secure and keep jobs here in america, and i believe the bill we worked on last year, the bill that's come over from the house give us the framework in order to achieve those results. >> thank you, senator. senator barrasso.

>> as we begin debating climate change i believe we must first look at transparency 'cause we must have transparency. transparency on scientific data on climate change and transparency on economic data on climate change. madam chairman, you said we would hear fierce words of doubt and fear but that the president says yes we can and yes we will. but what i've seen so far is an administration which is saying yes, we can hide the truth, yes we can ignore the facts and yes, we will intimidate career government employees. this has become a culture of secrecy and suppression and you quote thomas friedman. i'd like to go to an article by kim in the weekend issue of the "wall street journal." the epa silences a climate skeptic. i'm going to read from this. one of president barack obama's first act was a memo to agencies demanding new transparency in government and science. the nominee to head did environmental protection agency,

lisa jackson, joined in exclaiming i will address the environmental concerns today are rooted in three fundamental values, science-based policies and programs, adherence to the rule of law, and overwhelming transparency. in case anyone missed the point mr. obama took shot vowing ideology is over. that when it comes to the senior analyst in the epa's national center for the environmental economics and a 35-year veteran of the agency. in march, the obama epa prepared to engage the global warming debate in an astounding new way by issuing an endangerment finding on carbon. it established carbon is a pollutant and thereby gives the epa the authority to regulate it. even if congress doesn't act. well, around this time mr. carlin and a colleague presented a 98-page analysis arguing the agency should take

another look at the science behind manmade global warming and they say it is unproven. it highlighted new research that contradicts apocalyptic scenarios. we believe our concerns and reservations are sufficiently important to warrant a serious review of the science by epa, the report read. the response to mr. carlin was an email from his boss forbidding, forbidding him from any direct communication with anyone outside his office with regard to his analysis. when mr. carlin tried again to disseminate his analysis, it was credit the administrator and the administration have decided to move forward on endangerment and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision.

i can only see one impact of your comments given where we are in the process and that would be a very negative impact on our office. he blasted yet another email. with the endangerment finding nearly final, you need to move on to other issues, move on to other issues and subjects. i don't want you to spend any additional epa time on climate change. no papers, no research, at least until we see what the epa is going to do with climate. ideology, nope, not here. just us science folks, honest. that's kim stossel in the "wall street journal." as the ranking member of this committee's oversight subcommittee, i believe we can no longer allow this type of behavior to go unchecked. behavior where the best advice and counsel is ignored, where it is blocked, and where it is kept hidden from the public. it is for this reason that i

visited with senator whitehouse this morning requesting that the epa subcommittee launch our own investigation into these recent troubling events. a culture of intimidation has no justification in any administration. this administration has publicly promised to hold itself to a standard of openness, transparency and accepting of opinions from individuals with differing opinions. the administration has so far failed to make the grade. thank you, madam chairman. >> thank you, senator. senator lautenberg. >> thank you, madam chairman. and welcome to this panel of experts and committed -- people to improving the quality of our environment and i thank you for taking the position, taking the -- let me call it the darts that might be thrown along the way and whatever we have to do we've got to do it because what we saw on the wall here or on

these plaques were no, no, no. saying no to the whole process, but at least we've come a long way because wasn't it not too long ago that we heard that this was all a hoax? that global warming was a hoax? that's no longer the case because our friends on the other side have finally agreed that things have to be changed. maybe the hoax issue went away. it was a bad joke and thank goodness that's disappeared. what we're seeing here is we're saying no, no to the fact that 26 million americans, 9 million of them children, are asthmatic. the rates have doubled since 1980. do we want to say, no, you really don't have asthma. here's a physician, a distinguished physician here. i'm sure he wouldn't say there is no longer any asthma to worry about. the fact of the matter is we

don't have an easy task but our children and grandchildren are depending upon us. we're taking the advice of a majority of the members of the union of concerned scientists. these folks are willing to say, no, carl isn't really dying. species are not really declining. no, things are really bad at all. well, they are terrible. they're terrible, and states across the country finally have the right to decide what they want to do in their own states, and i congratulate california for having done what it has. we are looking at legislation. it is pretty darned good. from over at the house, we have an opportunity to review at, to change it, to do what we want to do, and we cannot measure the volume of paper work that has gone in there, as indicative of whether it is good or bad. what we have got to do is not what we have got to do is not just use the trees but plant

more trees. my friends, this, unfortunately, has disintegrated in some ways to either you are for a cleaner environment or you are not. we talk about things like transparency. let's talk about what it is to protect our children in the future and look at the facts in front of us and not deny that they exist. thank you for holding this hearing. press on, we have got to work on it. hopefully we will convince our friends on the other side that this is a serious project that we have got to get on with. >> thank you, senator. senator crapo. >> i appreciate our witnesses being here today. this is a critical issue to our country and our people. i do have to take exception to the argument that either side is simply saying no. i can look back to the times when the republicans were in the majority, we had major energy legislation to try to move forward and the answer from the other side was no. what we have is a debate about

how we should best approach the national energy policy of our country, and we have very true and sincere and real concerns about how we should proceed on both sides. i think it is incumbent upon us in this committee to roll up our sleeves and get down to the kinds of solutions that will work for the american people and i believe these solutions can be found, and be found in a way that does not generate unbelievable high-cost or impacts to the american people and does not drive our industry off shore as. i want to share some of the concerns raised by senator alexander, in particular, as we look at the renewable energy alternatives that are discussed, the real energy standards that are being discussed in the house and senate, i realize the senate energy committee is the one dealing primarily with that. i am very concerned that one of the most obvious sources of

solution is largely untreated, and that is nuclear power. we're too dependent on petroleum and carbon base resources and we too dependent on foreign sources of energy and we as a nation need to become independent, much more independent in our own development of energy. i look at it similar to an investment portfolio. most people don't believe it is prudent to invest all of their assets or all of their energy or the largest portion in one asset. it is not prudent for america to have an energy policy that is so dependent on one type of energy. we need to diversify. we need to develop wind and solar and geothermal and hydro, we need to develop the opportunity for, frankly, expanded utilization of petroleum as we transition to these other sources of energy.

but we cannot ignore what is probably the biggest piece of the answer, and that is nuclear power. i don't believe there's that much disagreement across the aisle, except that we don't seem to see the kind of provisions in proposed legislation that will truly help us expedite and move forward on some of these very significant answers, like nuclear power. i simply want to say that as we move forward, there are very obvious solutions available and there is agreement on the issues that we must deal with with regard to our national security and our national energy independence. what we need to find our way is to get past the partisan differences and reach those solutions and i hope that committee will seriously get down to that business. thank you. >> thank you, i want to note for the record when we passed an energy act in 2005, 2006, and

2007, we did work across the aisle. i hope you are right that we can do it this time. >> very much tamed down but nevertheless -- >> absolutely. >> thank you for your leadership on this issue. i agree with you that we have an extraordinary opportunity and i want to thank the panelists for joining us, thank you for your testimony. the opportunity in front of us is to address this economic crisis. new energy markets are the greatest market opportunity of our generation and what this bill will be able to begin to address is how we can turn our economy around and create jobs in these new green sectors. we have enormous opportunity in new york state from wind, solar, biofuels to hydropower, an enormous amount of natural resources we can draw upon. we have a strong agricultural sector, strong manufacturing sultan and we have lost a lot of

manufacturing jobs. the potential for growth in these new sectors, whether it is through new technologies or all the manufacturing that follows a long for those technologies, whether we're building new cars or cellular, whether we are building new building materials with carbon neutral abilities in terms of conservation, that is opportunity for growth for our economy and new york. i want to thank you for your leadership. we have a number of issues we must address as we look at the global climate change legislation. we need to look at the carbon market and making sure we have a cap and trade policy that will be efficient, effective, have proper oversight and accountability, so we can have a vibrant market. but the resources we can create through those credits are extraordinary and the billions of dollars that will be generated that we can invest in this new economy and these new technologies can be transformational.

it is very significant as my colleague mentioned, for our national security. we have to wean ourselves from middle eastern oil in this new economy and we can do that with homegrown american industry. i want to thank my colleagues for their participation and for your leadership and i want to thank the participants to day. we have so much potential for the agricultural sector, the manufacturing sector, for innovation, that we can truly drive our new economy and create jobs for decades to come. >> thank you. we are still to hear from senators parker, sanders' and if senator whitehouse comes back, thank you for your patience. >> to our panelists, great to see each other. thank you not just for being here but serving our country in the roles that you now play. we miss you very much in the u.s. senate board, we're

delighted to see you. i want to reflect briefly on a couple comments that were made. senator crapo said a lot of things i agree with. gives me cause for some holt as we move forward. senator alexander and i often agree on things. i certainly agree with the importance of nuclear as we go forward. is not cheap, it costs billions of dollars to build a nuclear power plant but they're pretty good in terms of how much carbon dioxide they put out, very helpful in terms of what they don't consume in terms of energy. there's a lot to be said, 4,000 people build a nuclear power plant, 7,000 to running nuclear power plant, 17 applications to build 26 new plants, the nuclear regulatory commission is processing those and we are pleased, we appreciate dr. chu's

perspective on nuclear power and i hope as time goes by my colleagues in the senate can better understand your views and the advice you would give us. we just finished a recess for the last week or so, i love recess. as a kid in elementary school, i love recess. i learned a lot in recess and i want to share with you some of what i learned. i was reminded of this, the cleanest, most affordable form of energy is the energy we never use. my wife and i have been shopping for refrigerators this week. the nicest refrigerator i have ever seen in my life is going to use a lot less electricity than the 20-year-old refrigerator it is going to be replacing, spent part of the morning at a pharmacy in newcastle, delaware and in the back of the pharmacy they're putting on a new meter that will enable the folks in that pharmacy to actually use their a electricity more wisely, more efficiently, more cost

effectively, and through a smart approach, enable the utility to be a lot wiser in the way that they do their business too. i spent some time at the dupont co. they introduce a solar film makes, a thousand of the thickness of a human hair, it will allow us to put out solar panels that don't weigh 40 pounds, they may weigh a couple pounds. the secretary of the interior was helpful enough to move along regulations, actually allow ocean based wind power to go forward. we are grateful for that. we expect to harness that wind three years from now off of the coast of new jersey, maryland and other states of the northeast corridor. we will hopefully build the foundations for the windmills, steel mill in northern delaware, a lot of the components shipping out from delaware bay through 12

miles off of rohoboth beach. we will run electric cars up and down the east coast, partnering with electricity we harness from the wind off of our coast, that makes sense. the other thing that i learned is solar energy emitted by the sun in one hour is enough to provide the power that we use on this earth for one year. i will say that again. the solar energy emitted by the sun in one hour is enough to meet our power needs for energy needs on this planet for one year. einstein used to say in adversity live opportunity. god knows we have faced plenty of adversity in our lives in this country. there are some terrific opportunities. we have to be smart enough to capture it and make it happen and turn this adversity into not just cleaner air and less

dependence on foreign oil and so forth, but we have to turn it into jobs and we have a great opportunity. windmill farms, nuclear power plants, lightweight solar energy panels, building those refrigerators that are so much energy efficient than anything else we have ever seen before, it is a great opportunity here and we appreciate the path to that opportunity, thank you. >> we thank all of our guest panelists for being here. what is important is not that you are just listening to these brilliant speeches as important as that is. more important, that was a joke, actually, more important is your presence here together indicates your understanding about all these agencies that are going to work together, that has not always been the case as we attempt to go forward tackling these unborn tissues. i think the issue chairwoman boxer and others are bringing us

together on is the most important issue facing not only this country but the world. it has everything to do with energy independence and the war in iraq. we are finding our way out of that war which many people thought was involved in the need for oil. if we become energy independent, we don't need to be getting involved in wars like iraq. we are spending $350 billion every single year purchasing oil from abroad. do you know what we could do with $350 billion investing in energy in the united states? we transform our nation. in terms of global warming, some of my friends may not believe in the phenomenon of global warming and they may bring up an individual scientists to has doubt that the evidence is very clear. the overwhelming number of scientists who have studied this issue not only worry about global warming but tell us the situation today is far more dire

than they thought a few years ago. that is what the overwhelming scientific evidence seems to suggest. last but not least, is the issue of economics and jobs, as others suggested, we have the possibility over a period of years of creating millions and millions of good paying jobs as we transform our energy system. it seems to me that we want to focus on at least three areas. we need to enact strong near-term targets for emissions reductions, we have got to meet president obama's renewable energy goal which is passing legislation that produces 25% renewable energy by 2025, and very importantly, we must ensure rigorous and transparent market oversight. we need to ensure that we have legislation that does not simply

become a windfall for speculator is and traders and let's not underestimate the importance of that. senator carper talked about his vacation, this was like show and tell. i went to middlebury college, which fairly shortly, will be providing energy for they're fairly large campus for sustainable energy and energy efficiency virtually complete, 100%. i went to a plant that they have on campus which is using wood chips, replacing oil, they are saving $700,000 a year in creating local jobs and cutting that greenhouse gas emissions. they're doing an experiment to planned willow trees which will be used as part of that fuel. i think the potential of solar thermal in the southwest part of this country is extraordinary. there is evidence, madam chairman, that we can produce a

significant part of the election city from solar thermal plants and i congratulate secretary salazar beginning to move us in that direction. in terms of energy efficiency, vermont has been a leader, many of our major utilities are not producing any more electricity today than they did years ago despite normal economic growth. the fact that the rest of the country and california are doing in terms of energy efficiency, there will be huge sums in energy use in america. we are sitting on an enormous issue. the fate of the planet is at stake, we can transform our economy, we can break our dependence on foreign oil, now is the time to be bold and go forward and i think our panelists for their efforts in that direction. >> we have three more senators in order of appearance originally. whitehouse, udall and specter.

it shows the excitement on both sides of the aisle on this issue. sa last senator whitehouse at this time. >> i welcome administration officials with a particularly warm welcome. secretary salazar, deuce tenure was brief but marked by great achievement and immense good will on both sides of the aisle. is good to see you back. i would make four simple points that are the crux of what we have to do going forward. the first symbol point is the earth's climate is being changed by carbon pollution. if we don't do something, our children and grandchildren will bear that cost that promises to be very high cost and it is simply wrong not to act. the second point is the leaders are allowed to pollute for free.

as long as they're allowed to pollute for free and take the cost of their pollution and put it on everybody else in america, they are going to keep doing it. that is the american way. the american way of government is to set things up so those perverse incentives don't continue. the third point is behind that problem, a new economy beckons, with clean energy jobs, and a future of energy independence for this country. it is an enormously powerful strength that we can tap into if we do this right. we have the choice to be on the front end or the tail end of progress. i saw in the newspaper the other day that toyota has something like 2,000 patents that it has filed to protect its hybrid technology, keep people from competing. that is the privilege that you

get when you are the front runner. china and japan and europe, countries all over the place, are investing to put their industries at the front and i don't want to see american industry, the back of that parade with a broom, i want to see us at the front, a leading. you have the capacity to solve those four problems, those issues for our people, we look forward to supporting you, we know that this is along with the exxon mobile board room, last place in which people debate whether or not these problems are real, but we intend to work with you anyway and we intend to give you strong legislative support and we thank you for your efforts. >> senator udall followed by senator specter. >> i very much appreciate you holding this hearing today and appreciate you having these four brilliant witnesses.

i would like to put my opening statement on the record but i did want to answer something that seems to be said over and over again by the other side and i hope the panel will focus on this. when you put a price on carbon, you are, in fact helping the nuclear power industry, as has been said in this hearing and other places, nuclear power is not being held, nuclear power is eliminated from the equations. all of those kinds of things. that, in fact, is not true. you put a price on carbon. would you end up doing is sending a very strong signal in the marketplace, that carbon dioxide emissions, that these kinds of emissions are to be reduced in the future and you move in the direction of

technologies which you did not create carbon dioxide, nuclear is one of those. when we focus on the idea of having a cat and trade system, we focus on the idea that we are encouraging all sources, whether it is the renewables, wind and solar and biomass and geothermal, or whether it is nuclear power, we have to be really clear that our objective here is to do it all, increase all the sources that are not contributing, that is a very important point. those of you that are here today on this panel will cover is that side of it. >> thank you, senator specter,

welcome. >> thank you, i welcome this distinguished panel. and mayor john fetterman from pennsylvania, i complement you for your vigor in pursuing this issue with many hearings and determination to get a consensus. there is no doubt of the great importance of this issue in many directions, cleaning up the environment, stopping of the threat of carbon, reducing dependence on opec oil which has tremendous implications with iran being strengthened by its oil revenue, venezuela being strengthened. we have a mammoth bill from the house of representatives that has been together in the most extraordinary way, but that is

part of the legislative process, and we know the difficulties, in order to reconcile a lot of very difficult interest on cleaning up the atmosphere, a we have the important consideration of jobs and the ramifications from coal. it is a factor we have to take into account, along with concerns i have for my four granddaughters and the grandchildren, cleaning up the atmosphere but this committee is determined to do a job and the senate is determined to do the job and i am determined to end on time. thank you. >> thank you, senator.

we have heard from everybody, so it is time to called on our distinguished panel. among yourselves, have you decided any particular order? why don't we start with dr. chu. welcome, mr. secretary. >> thank you. chairman boxer, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify on moving america forward towards a clean energy economy. we face many serious and immediate challenges. american families and businesses are struggling in a recession in a competitive global economy. we have become deeply dependent on a single source of energy to power our cars, trucks and airplanes. we spend hundreds of billions of dollars a year to import 60% of the oil we use, and we face an unprecedented threat to our way of life from climate change. to solve these challenges the administration and congress need

to work together to spur a revolution in clean energy technology. the president and i applaud the start action in the house to pass a clean energy bill and look forward to working with the senate to pass comprehensive energy legislation. i want to speak today about the threat from climate change. overwhelming scientific evidence shows that carbon dioxide from human activity has increased the atmospherics level of carbon dioxide by roughly 40%, a level 1 third higher than any time in the last 800,000 years. there's also a strong consensus that human carbon dioxide emissions and other greenhouse gases that cause our planet change. we see the loss of half of the summer arctic polar ice caps, a dramatic accelerating rise in sea level, a loss of over 2,000 cubic miles of glacial ice and these changes are not occurring on a geological time scale, but in a time period of less than

the one hundred years. the intergovernmental panel on climate change projected that in 2007, if we continue on this course, there's a 50% chance of a global average temperature is increasing by more than 7 degrees fahrenheit in this century. a more recent 2009 and i see study found a 50% chance of a 9 degree rise, and a 17% chance of nearly 11 degree increase. eleven degrees may not sound like much but during the last ice age, canada and the united states were covered year round in a glacier, the world was only 11 degrees colder. a world 11 degrees warmer will be a very different place. is this the legacy we want to leave our children and grandchildren? denial of climate change will not change our destiny. a comprehensive energy and climate bill that caps and reduces carbon emissions will.

america has the opportunity to lead a new industrial revolution by creating sustainable, clean energy. we can sit on the sidelines and deny the scientific facts or get on the game and play to win. opponents of this effort claim the nation cannot afford this at this time. i disagree. so does the environmental protection agency and the congressional budget office. these organizations estimate meeting the greenhouse gas targets in the house bill can be achieved at an annual cost somewhere between 22, and $0.48 a day per household in 2020. this is the price of a postage stamp purvey. history suggests the actual cost could even be lower. the cost to save our ozone layer. this offer dioxide reduction being achieved are 1-fifth of

the original estimated cost. the right thing and incentives will rev up the american research and innovation machine. i am confident american ingenuity will lead to a better, cheaper energy solution. we can make significant near-term carbon reductions through energy efficiency. we use 40% of our energy in buildings and i firmly believe with today's technologies we can reduce our energy bills by 40% to 50% in new buildings, by delivering a system integration approach, i believe we can eventually build buildings that use 80% less energy with investments that pay for themselves in less than 15 years through reduced energy bills. similarly we can retrofit existing buildings to achieve 50% energy-saving with investments that pay for themselves. a comprehensive energy and climate bill will drive american innovation, development for electric vehicles, offering incentives to restart our

nuclear power industry and encourage utilities to invest in administration that will drive investments in wind and solar power, next-generation biofuels in agricultural waste. in addition to the technologies we have today, we must pursue transformative solutions. climate experts tell us we must reduce carbon emissions by 80% by mid century to stabilize atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations at a level that will avoid the worst consequences of climate change. to achieve long-term goals in the most cost-effective way we will need a sustained commitment to research and development, only research and development can deliver clean technology. let me close with a quote from martin luther king. his words, spoken in 1967, seems so fitting in today's energy and climate crisis. he said we are now faced with the fact, my friends, that tomorrow is to day. we are confronted with a fierce

urgency of now. in this unfolding conundrum of life and history, there is such a thing as being too late. now is the time to take a comprehensive and sustained action. the leadership of the president, the actions of this congress, the support and participation of the american people, i am confident we will succeed. day and, we will be glad to answer questions. eloquent words. administrative jackson, welcome again. you are a frequent visitor in this room. we welcome you again. >> it is good to be home. thank you for having me. members of the committee, thank you for the confirmation votes today. epa appreciates your support. thank you for inviting me to testify about new legislation to get america running on clean energy. let me begin by commending you for starting senate hearings on this, the second legislative day after the house of representatives passed the american clean energy and

security act. immediately after the historic vote on june 26, president obama called on the senate to demonstrate the same commitment. the same commitment we saw in in the house to build a clean energy foundation for a strong american economy. i'm grateful that this committee has wasted no time in answering that call. the house bill reflects the principles the president believes are essential for our nation's energy future, decreasing our dependency on foreign oil, creating millions of new jobs in emerging clean energy technologies and reducing the pollution that endangers our children. i know there are a variety of proposals pending in the senate that have the same goals. i look forward to working with all the committee members as you engage in this effort. clean energy is to this decade and the next what the space race was to the 1950s and '60s. and america is behind. governments in asia and europe are ahead of the united states

in making aggressive investments in clean energy technology. american businesses need strong incentives and investments now in order for this nation to lead the 21st century global economy. we are also coming late to the task of leading the world's major greenhouse gas emitters to reverse our collective emissions growth in times to avert catastrophic climatic changes that would severely harm america's economy and national security within our children's lifetimes. the necessary shared effort will not begin in ernest unless and until the united states leads the charge. the advantage of the kind of legislation the president has called for is that it ramps up investment in developing new clean energy technologies while giving companies an effective incentive to use those technologies to reduce greenhouse gas pollution. it does so without raising taxes or increasing the deficit. i do not mean to say that we can get something for nothing. but according to the

congressional budget offices analysis of the american clean energy and security act, the net cost to the average american household in 2020 would be less than 50 cents a day. for the wealthiest fifth of american households, the net cost would be less than 70 cents a day. the poorest fifth would actually see a net gain of more than 10 cents a day. that is what your economists have reported to you. people have pointed out that the per-household impact would not be uniformed across the country. that the cost would be higher in those states where people drive very long distances and rely almost exclusively on coal for electricity. yet, even if the cost bourne by a family was doubled it would still be just a dollar a day. that figure does not account for the economic benefits of saving our children from living from increased drought, fire, pest, disease. nor would it account on decreasing our dependency on

foreign oil. can anyone would say the head of a american household would not spend a dollar for their child's well-being and be back in the lead of the american marketplace and new american jobs that will pay well and cannot be outsourced. legislation will support this legislation because it will create new american high paying jobs that cannot be exported. manufacturing companies will support it because it will provide needed investment in research and development while creating markets for american clean energies technology bourne from that investment. electric utilteds support it because it will expand our reliable domestic sources of energy like wind, solar, geothermal and, yes, safer nuclear power and yes cleaner coal. consumer advocates support it because they know it will strengthen the long-term economic foundation for all americans without imposing

short-term economic hardship on any americans. environmental groups support it because they know it is our best chance of preventing catastrophic harm to public health in our natural environment. of course, there are still interest groups out there opposing this effort, but i think the tide is turning against the defenders of status quo who want more of the same policies that made us dependent on foreign oil and that caused america to for fit the lead in the global competition to sell clean energy technology. i think americans want reform that harnessing the country's can-do spirit. i think they want to fuel long-term economic recovery with a wise investment. which is what the president wants and what i want. i believe many senators want the same thing. please were the environmental protection agency as a partner to get america on clean energy and please keep up the moment and thank you and i look forward to questions. >> thank you. and so we turn to secretary of

agriculture vilsack. >> i want to thank you for in climate addressing change in building our nation's renewable energy capabilities. i'm pleased to be joined by my colleagues today and i commit to them and to you that the usda will maintain a close partnership in our work on climate change and renewable energy. climate change is indeed one of the great challenges facing the united states and the world. the science is clear that the planet is already warming. with climate change it will affect all of us there are particular vulnerabilities and challenges for farmers, ranchers and those who make a living off the land. i'd like to commend the house for its extraordinary efforts for developing climate legislation that creates the framework for u.s. leadership on climate change. i along with secretary ch your honor, salazar and administrator jackson i look forward to working with the senate as you begin your deliberations. our hope that congress isn't

that correct a bill that meets president obama's objective in creating a efficient, cost-effective and comprehensive approach thatj leverages on innovation, and protects our children and grandchildren from ills associated with pollution. i believe it is crucial that we engage the participation of farmers, ranchers and forest landowners. this issue is too important for agriculture and forestry to sit on the sidelines. a viable carbon offset market, one that rewards farmers, ranchers and forest landowners for stewardship activities has a potential to play a very important role in helping america wean itself2r from foren oil. it also represents a significant building block to revitalizing rural america. the potential for our working lands to generate greenhouse gas reductions is significant. in fact, today, our lands are

full of greenhouse gases. forest and agricultural lands in the u.s. take up more greenhouse gases in the form of carbon dioxide than is released from all of our agricultural operations. the situation is different in developing countries where agriculture and deforestation play a far greater role in emissions. land uses are responsible for over one-third of global greenhouse gas emissions. it's difficult to see how greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere can be stabilized without policies that target emissions and carbon sequestration on agriculture and forest lanz. as a result it's vital that america demonstrates how the inclusion of agriculture and forests in a domestic approach to climate change can, in fact, produce real and lasting benefits to both landowners and the climate.9y under climate change legislation the farm sector will experience both costs and benefits.

energy price increases can impact rural crop production and other agricultural activities. for example, fertilizer and fuel costs account for 50 to 60% of variable costs of the production of corn. because of the high personal transportation expenditures, rural households are more likely than urban households to feel the pinch of increased gas prices. but and this is an important but, i believe that there are significant opportunities for rural landowners in a cap-and-trade program that recognizes the contributions that farms, ranches and forests can make in addressing climate change. rural landowners can benefit from incentives and climate and energy legislation that reward production of renewable energy such as wind and bioenergy. a number of renewable energy technologies such as anaerobic digesters geothermal and wind power in particular can rouse farmers reliance on fossil fuels. in cooperation with the department of energy, usda will continue to promote these

technologies and our extension networks will help to make them available to farmers, ranchers and land managers. these technologies in the promotion of clean energy economy will also stimulate the creation of new jobs. as farmers and ranchers and land managers look to install these digesters or build a wind farm people will be needed to build the machines and install the systems. and because many of these technologies will be utilized in rural areas, many of these jobs will be created in rural america. these farmers, ranchers and forest owners can also benefit from legislation that creates markets for greenhouse gas offset credits. to be effective in addressing climate change, the offset market will need to accomplish two goals. first, the market will need to recognize the scale of changed needed and the infrastructure that will be required to deliver information, manage data and resources and maintain records and registries. second, ensuring the environmental integrity of agriculture and forest offsets is critical to addressing climate change in maintaining public confidence in the carbon

offset program. to produce meaningful emission reductions and offset program will likely require the participation of thousands of landowners. we look forward to partnering with our fellow energies in designing an incredible offsets program. usda is prepared with its managing over 750,000 contracts with landowners under the nrcs program, to meet this challenge. it's important that agriculture and forestry offsets have high standards of environmental integrity, quantification and reporting systems need to be vigorous, verifiable and transparent and review and auditing systems will need to be in place. uncertainties must be accounted for and reduced and greenhouse gas benefits accrued through carbon sequestration will need to be monitored to ensure benefits will be maintained and reversals should be accounted for. if these principles are followed the resulting offsets will be real, additional, verifiable and

lasting. usda is prepared to support this effort through its scientific expertise, technical capabilities specific to greenhouse gases, carbon sequestration and offsets. i'd like to close again for the committee in taking up this issue, agriculture, and rural environments. i believe agriculture and forestry can play a vital role in addressing climate change and if done properly, there are significant opportunities for landowners to profit from doing right by the environment. usda is ready to help make this happen and i'm ready to answer questions when appropriate. thank you, madam chair. >> thank you, senator salazar. is that wishful thinking on my part. secretary salazar. we miss you and we welcome you. >> i miss you as well and members of the committee on both sides of the aisle, i thank you for your distinguished service and for your -- the opportunity to come before you today and speak about the energy issues facing our country.

let me first say the energy and climate change legislation that is before you that you will be dealing with really in so many ways is a signature issue of the 21st century and for our world. and embedded in that legislation and the debate that you will have it, seems to me that there is huge agreement, frankly, between democrats and republicans on some of the key principles. and what those key principles are as president obama has often said is first of all, reducing our dangerous dependence on foreign oil, second of all, creating millions of new energy jobs here in the united states of america and third, safeguarding our children from the dangers of pollution. those are three areas where it seems to me there could be significant agreement between democrats and republicans in an effort to move legislation forward that really addresses one of the signature issues of our time. and so it is my hope that you will find ways of coming together and moving this legislation forward. let me say a word about the

department of the interior and our role with respect to energy independence and climate change. first, the department oversees about 20% of the land mass of the united states of america. we have thousands of units in our national park service, fish and wildlife, blm and bureau of indian affairs on reservations across the country. as stewards of the 20% of the land mass we have a significant role to play with respect to addressing the issue of energy as well as climate change. within the department, we have 6,000 scientists that work with usgs and other agencies as well as 14,000 land managers that can help us address the issues of climate change adaptation. it is my hope as we move forward, the expertise of the department of interior will be fully utilized in addressing the challenges that we face. now, as we look at energy, and moving forward with energy independence it's also important

to note that we are producers of a large part of the energy that america currently consumes. we produce over 50% of the coal that comes into electrical generation. it comes from the public lands of america overseen by the department. we also produce more than 25% of the oil and gas resources for the country including both onshore as well as offshore. and we have in very recent times opened up a new chapter for renewable energy and it is our hope that the renewable energy agenda will be one which we can participate fully on behalf of president obama. let me say just a word about renewable energy and its importance to our country. we have in the last several months opened up renewable energy permitting offices in places across the southwest and have ushered in what will hopefully be a new era of wind energy production off the atlantic and the outer continental shelf.

we can talk about a lot of statistics relative to the potential of renewable energy from the public lands but i would just like to point one just from the southwestern sun. it is our belief just on the pending applications with the bureau of land management that we can produce 29% of the nation's electrical energy needs just from the power of the sun. that goes to the point that both senator carper and senator sanders were referring to. and so i think that the whole effort on renewable energy is one that we are just beginning to get underway and there is huge potential there. let me finally say that within the department of interior in the u.s. geological survey they have produced through the national academy of sciences, and national academy of engineering, the institute of medicine and the national research council a booklet which i would ask to be entered as part of the record and it's on the ecological impacts of climate change. and in this booklet, madam chairman, as you go through that booklet, you will find why it is

this issue is so important to our country. first if you look at the impacts in alaska, we're looking at the fast defrosting arctic ice which is very important to ice-dependent animals. if you look at the western mountains from where i come and senator udall and senator crapos and others are looking at droughts and wildfires and the beetles and the wildfires and the problems we're having with fisheries if you look at the southwestern deserts the wildfire species issues, the pine devastation which we're seeing in places like new mexico and the central united states agricultural shifts that are being seen because of the warming of the temperature, the migratory waterways in places like the prairie potholes in the dakotas and the florida everglades and the northward movement of tropical species, those are all the kinds of

issues impacted by climate change. i would recommend this recommend this document that has looked at i look very much forward to working with the members of the committee the united states senate and with my colleagues steven chu, and ms. jackson and tom sill vak as we address with significant issues of our time and this is at reducing our dangerous dependence on foreign oil. it's about making sure that we save our children from the dangers of pollution and that we create jobs right here in america. >> thank you. senators, we need to make a decision and senator inhofe and i have conferred and see if you agree with this. because we took so long for opening statements, god bless everyone, us all, we're running quickly out of time to get to our second panel. we have some very good people we want to hear from. if it's okay with everyone else, senator inhofe and i are recommending that we have just 3 minutes each to ask questions of

this panel so we can at least hear from the next panel. is that all right with everyone? and i will be strict and so don't be angry. here we go. first let me respond. senator bond held up a chart. you can do that with any piece of legislation. he said that the waxman-markey bill was unusually long. well, we went back the energy policy act of 2005 that was brought to us by the bush administration, the republican congress, was 16 titles, the house bill waxman-markey was five titles so i think you can just do this with every piece of legislation. i want the record to reflect that. the next thing i just really wanted to see if i could get a yes or no. it's going to seem pretty obvious what the answer will be but i want to make sure i have you on the record. and we'll go down just yes or no. given the problem of global warming, as you see it, and the opportunity for clean energy jobs, if we address it correctly, do you agree that

this committee should do its job and move forward with a climate change clean jobs bill? >> yes. >> yes. >> yes. >> yes. >> thank you, i just wanted that to be clear. and, you know, i was very disturbed by senator barrasso's comments. he said the following. as we begin debating climate change we believe we must first look at transparency. transparency on the scientific data on climate change and transparency on economic data. madam chairman, you said we'd hear fierce words of doubt and fear but that the president says, yes we can, and yes, we will. and this is the part that disturbs me. but what i've seen so far, said senator barrasso, is an administration that is saying we can hide the truth. yes, we can ignore the facts and yes we can intimidate career government employees. now, i think that is a brutal charge to levy and i would like

to ask administrator jackson a question on this. would you discuss this charge of senator barrasso, i don't believe it but he's saying that epa has dismissed or suppressed scientific material relating to the endangerment finding. could you please address that. >> i'm happy to, madam chairman. and i will be brief because i do think this committee has more important and substantive i6q to deal with this morning with my colleagues and myself. i will say it again for this committee that transparency and scientific integrity will be the cornerstone principles of my time as epa and they will guide our actions. it occurs to me that that kind of change in openness did not sit easily or well with some special interests who just refuse to believe that i will ensure that science and the law guide our actions at epa.

recently, the competitive enterprise institute issued a press release and accused epa of preventing economists in our office whose name allen carlin from voicing his scientific opinions with respect to the endangerment finding that we issued back in april. but i think it's important to look at the facts because here the facts do not actually justify the release. in fact, they get in the way of the story and i think it's important to understand them. first, the economist in question was given permission and encouraged to speak his mind. he participated in conferences and symposiums around the country. he was encouraged to host brown bags for other epa staff on his views and he was encouraged to find peer-reviewed works that back up his perspective. his views are reflected in the endangerment finding. in the technical support document which is the synthesis of the science of global warming and public endangerment. and when i personally learned of

his feeling, justified or not, that his memo had not beenetç circulated widely enough, i immediately instructed my staff to inform him that he should feel free to circulate it to whomever he wished. those are the facts and as you can tell, they are anything but suppressive. i honestly do not believe that process debates like this are serving the american people. i believe the way to serve them is to find real solutions that will end our dependence on foreign oil, that will ensure a healthy climate for our children. and i'm sure that we will continue to have discussions like this but i hope that we'll move on to substantive issues. >> thank you for clearing the record. senator inhofe? >> thank you, madam chairman. if we had time i had a lot of responses to make also but there's not time. i would only say the article that senator barrasso1gw referr to i want to ask that be made part of the record. >> without objection. >> it lists several countries

who have been a part of the kyoto treaty who are having second thoughts. some are going to withdraw because the science is not there. and i think the article is an excellent article. now, i have a question for each of the members of the panel and i'll make this real quick. it's very obvious that china has said that they are not going to be involved in this thing. they are not going to -- in fact, they said in kyoto they g.d.p. of the developed nations to actually before they would play with us.=ñ that's $140 billion a year. we also know that china by the way is the largest emitter now. we also knowc closely behind them, india, will not do anything. i'm going to quote now the environmental minister. he said, quote, we will not accept any emission reduction targets,

look way back during the go back and look way back during the clinton administration, when it was tom really getting the responsibility of determining how much it would lower the temperature in 50 years if we had -- if all developed nations were to sign on to live by the key of the treaty. the results came out 0.07 of 1 degrees celsius, which is not even measurable. i would say that if the united states unilaterally adopt a climate degree bill, will it in terms of climate, of temperature. i'll start with secretary chu. >> yes, it would. >> so you disagree with all the others who -- >> i would say right now china and the united states, yes, you're quite right that china has succeeded the united states in its mission carbon dioxide but it's two countries are roughly of the half the carbon dioxide emissions of the world. >> i want to get on down there.

so you say, yes, it would. secretary jackson? >> i say yes. >> we don't have a choice. we're out of time. and by material, 5% or what percentage do you think, 5 degrees? would you like to quantify anything that would happen if we don't have the developing countries participating in this? if it's just the united states, unilaterally? hold that up. >> okay. okay. let me just say this is what we determined during the warner-lieberman bill last year. 13 months ago. and that was the epa that said this is the difference it would make and let's keep in mind the ipcc said they wanted to keep it down below 550 parts per million and this shows by the epa chart that with or without the developing nations, it makes -- it would be virtually no change. do you still agree with this chart? i'm sure you've seen it.

okay, dr. chu, the chairman wants me to direct that at you. >> no, i don't agree with that chart. >> secretary jackson? >> i believe essential parts of the chart are that the u.s. action alone will not impact world c02 levels but as we've all said and as many members of this committee said, the race is on for us to enter into a clean energy future. there is technology in this country that can be used to move markets not only here but abroad and that means jobs for americans. that we're currently losing. >> i appreciate your answer very much. thank you very much, madam chairman. >> thank you very much. let's see senator merkley is not here. senator klobuchar, senator cardin you're next. >> thank you, madam chair. following up to the last questions, if the united states were to act alone and no other country in the world were to

take action i personally believe it would be good for our economy and would create more jobs in america and keep jobs in america. but i must tell you that's not the issue. the issue is what's going to happen in copenhagen and i can tell you in my conversations with my colleagues and those around the world particularly in europe they are looking forward to america's leadership and they believe it will play a critical role in getting other nations to move and to set the bar high enough so we really can make an impact on global environment. so i think that's what we're all trying to do. but looking at the legislation we're considering, we're trying to improve quality of life here in america, trying to make it easier for people to deal with their everyday needs, make it healthier for americans and keep jobs and create jobs in our own country. i want to mention one area which seems to me as we're out of step with much of the world, the industrialized world, and that is the way that we transport people in public transportation.

i represent maryland and i know the stress that they are under. the second busiest system in the country. i've seen the stations and see the conditions that they need to be improved. and i know historically we have put a lot of federal funds into our highway system, which i support. i believe we need that. but public transit has not gotten the same attention in america. and i would just like to get from dr. chu or ms. jackson your view as to the advantages of public transportation from the energy and environment point of view. i know from quality of life getting people out of these traffic jams is going to be -- adding to the health styles of america. i know it adds to the productivity if people don't have to spend two or three hours a day in traffic but if you could just tell us from the point of view of energy savings

and on the environment and investment of public transportation what it would mean. >> sure, i'll go first. transportation from an environmental perspective is on average across the country about 20% of our greenhouse gas emissions. and so as you move people -- and that comes from people who primarily commute oftentimes because they have no choice by single family -- i mean, by single passenger in a car. and so any opportunities to change that or to revise that issue, deal with quality of life but also mean fewer cars on the road, which means fewer greenhouse gas emissions and not only greenhouse gases but other criteria, pollutants as well. you asked as well about energy and i'll let the secretary of energy answer that question, but clearly part of cracking the nut of greenhouse gas emissions and