stability, first of all. they want their world to stop turning upside down, as it has done two or three times. and they want what we all want -- prosperity for themselves and their children and grandchildren. like so many americans, things were getting better, it seems, now things have gotten very bad. and they just don't know what the future will bring. they lost their savings, as many of us have, and they are very worried. when a human level, it is a truism, but their concerns are our concerns. i think they want from the united states, i would say to be left alone. they are not really interested in any more american crusade in russia. putin is popular in there. not as popular as his people claim, but popular. they want respect just as -- i do not know if they want that much. we just have not given that minimal amount yet. host: tampa, florida.

on the independent line for stephen cohen in new york. caller: i have been in korea, and they are very paranoid and combative type of people. i would bet money that the chinese are sort of on the scared side of career because no one really knows what they are going to do because everything is so secretive. my question is do you think that it is possible that under the table that the united states and russia will get together and try to assist the chinese and trying to calm down the north koreans and the something to deal with them? guest: we sort of discussed that before. it makes sense to me -- i do not know if it is doable. but as we like to say, it is worth a try. host: what else are you looking for in the visit and the coming months ahead?

guest: atmospherically, so far the summit has been fine. the two presidents help each other a bit. both are young, both are new, relatively weak within their own political systems. they helped each other a bit. they came away looking statesmanlike. most of what they agreed abroad, we knew they were going to agree upon and they admitted they have not been able to come to agreement on the basic issue of nato expansion and missile defense. i take a rather alarmed viewed. i believe those two issues are time bombs and that it in this relationship. they could be set off buy anything, as one of your callers pointed out, the erratic regime in georgia or the ukraine, by the powerful pro-natal american lobby, which is very active in staring up excitement in ukraine for an anti-russian line. i am not optimistic. i would not even say cautiously

optimistic. i worry because i don't see the obama administration addressing reischea's primary concerns. they may feel they are not entitled to have those concerns addressed. i believe that is a wrong policy judgment call. i did not know if that struggle in washington is over yet. host: stephen cohen is a russian studies professor at new york university and author of "soviet fates and lost alternatives: from stalinism to the new cold war." thanks a lot for your time this morning. guest: thank you. host: "washington journal," it 7:00 a.m.. for now we take you to a hearing on the clean energy economy. that is what they are talking out, what i'm calling this hearing. senator boxer is share and several cabinet secretaries. .

>> we know that this premise is being borne out even in this recession. in california, which has been one of the hardest hit by the housing crisis, the financial crisis, by the state budget crisis, the area that is -- that has outperformed every other has been the creation of clean energy jobs and businesses. a recent report by the future of " trust found -- by a charitable

trust found that clean energy businesses were launched in california from 1998 to 2007. during that period, clean energy investment treated more than 125,000 jobs in california. and generated jobs 15% faster than our economy and our state as a whole. our committee has held more than 40 hearings and briefings on global warming since january of 2007. we are going to hold many more, as i stated before. we are well aware of the work done on the dangers of global warming by the bush administration and the obama administration. a few weeks ago, this administration released a sobering report on the impact of global warming across the united states, and the devastating effects that will come if we do not take action. droughts, floods, fires colossus' species, damage to agriculture, worsening --

fires, loss of species, damage to agriculture. to act on the heels of the passage of the waxman-markey bill in the house. today i expect you'll hear fierce words of doubt and fear from the other side of the aisle regarding our legislative efforts. this is consistent with a pattern of no -- no, we can't, no, we won't. i believe that when the vote is eventually taken on our bill, the committee will reflect the president's attitude which is, yes we can, yes, we will protect colleagues, this is a challenge to our generation that offers hope, not fear, anyway out of the environmental and economic challenges we face so that our children and our grandchildren will have a bright future. thank you very much. senator in hounhoffe.

>> thank you. despite the -- on june 26, by just one vote over the margin, in other words, the majority in the house is 218. she got 219 votes. against this backdrop, the senate will process another cap and trade bill. the senate is not new to this like the houses. we have debated this five times. we've had three votes in 2003, two dozen vote -- 2005, 2008, each time defeating it substantially, a little bit more each time. i understand you will hold a series of hearings. let me just say, madam chairman, i commend you for holding the hearings. the minority jointly issued the letter that you referred to, outlining our request for a series of legislative hearings that are based on legislation,

based on legislation. we have got to have something in front of us. as i look at the calendar, it appears we will be considering a massive bill in a narrow window of time, so the question arises, when will we see the bill that you intend to mark up? i hope we do not repeat the process of the house, and that is having a substitute appear at 3:00 in the morning on the very day that we are going to vote. that is totally unacceptable, it should be by everyone. the american people and their elected representatives deserve our review of any legislation, as "the washington post" describe it, will shape people's lives in the ways that most people did not realize once the american people realize that what this legislation will do to their wallets, they will resound the rejected. perhaps that explains why we are rushing cap and trade through the senate so fast. the public is already on record

rejecting energy taxes, and this, madam chairman, this just six days ago, in a poll, 56% of americans are not willing to pay anything to fight global warming. this includes higher utility costs, which come under cap and trade -- which, under captain trade, would skyrocket. however used in the debate, whenever we concoct, -- what ever we concoct, the public will find out. when they do, they will look instead for solutions to create jobs, strengthen energy security, and increase our global competitiveness. now, madam chairman, when it comes to a legislative tools, there is a better weapon to whether it is reducing dependence on foreign oil or increasing taxes to reliable sources of energy, we do have it. you stated that we are the party of no.

that is true. we say no to hire and to costs, no subsidizing the east and west coast at the expense of the heartland, and no to bureaucracy and red tape, no to the largest tax increase in american history, at no more sending jobs to china and india. we say yes to all the above energy proposals, including clean coal, natural gas, wind, geothermal. we say yes to greater access to all sources of clean and reliable energy. that we have right here at home. if we do this, we could stop all reliance on the middle east. i am most anxious to see what kind of a document we will have a chance to debate. thank you. the senator, thank you for your constructive word. -- >> senator, thank you for your constructive words. the markey bill, the portion of

which deals with the tax credit -- there are no new taxes, but there is a tax credit for consumers. >> let me make an inquiry here, madam chairman, because in the event that after each statement is made, since you want to refute them, i think we should have the chance to do the same thing. >> ok, that is fair enough. >i do not mind if you want to refute it. go ahead. >> ok. what we are dealing with here is going to be a large tax increase. i was interested in some of the cbo reports that said what we are going to do is take this large sum of money that comes in under cap and trade and return it to the people who are paying taxes. well, it is coming from them originally, so i would certainly not want to give any credibility to any kind of an evaluation as to the cost to the american people, if it is predicated on the assumption that we have a

cap and trade tax, raising huge amounts of money from the american people in the form of energy costs, >> i stand by my words. if there is any dispute, let me know. lundberg, barraso, alexander, voinovich. is there agreement on that? oh, senator gillibrand -- is sheet -- ok. >> this is indeed a critical conversation for the future of our nation. transforming our energy economy is essential to the status quo is unacceptable, whether the minister dollar, for dollar a gallon gas, fiasco in which we are spending $1 billion to $2 billion a day on foreign oil, a historic connection to burning

july to a carbon -- the geological carbon that we can break. and certainly our national insecurity that comes from dependence on a few foreign nations for critical energy supply. 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 -- we need to leave the world that 20 to lead the world and renewable resources so that -- we need to lead the world in renewable resources. we certainly need to underwrite the innovation of our capitalist economy and in surging ahead of

the world and creating these products. we can do all 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 supplies. we will continue to spend $1 billion to $2 billion or more every day overseas, and we certainly will continue to contribute to a planetary catastrophe in the form of global warming so it is a critical debate. i am honored to be here, and i look forward to your testimony. i apologize in advance. i will be running back and forth to the health care market. >> before i call senator alexander, if it is ok with the committee, senator inhofe and i said that if we had a form, we

could -- if we had a forum -- >> senator bond has to leave, and i was going to ask if he could go before me, if that would be all right. it would be all right with me if he wanted to go ahead. well, now, i need to go before -- >> [inaudible] >> thank you, madam chairman. thank you very much. >> thank you, madam chair. i am indebted to my colleague. thank you for holding this hearing and 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 the constituents need to know how the legislation we consider will impose new energy taxes on

them, kill their jobs, punish the midwest and the south, help china and india, and construct a new bureaucratic nightmare to and from a carbon cap and trade program. some say we should just look to build a house passed this month, and to that i would have to say which one? we have the 648-page construction draft, the 932-page introduce bill. we have the 946-page committee substitute. a heavy toll hundred one-page bill, the 500 page redline version to the 743-page committee report. the 39 page manages a moment -- the 309 pages managers' amendment. we have the house bill. in total, 6706 pages of material. we have a prominent advocate

for the environment here today who will testify that we should abandon the floor compromises, benefiting agriculture come and go back to the committee's passed a version. we have the -- benefiting agriculture, and going back to the committee's passed a version. we deserve better and the people of america deserve better. the american people and my misery constituents deserve to know why it takes all these pigeons -- might missouri deserve to know why it takes all these pages. what is the majority trying to hide in the haystack. how are the bureaucratic how will the bureaucratic nightmare create work? and what a nightmare it will be with the epa and a great center of my book-of public mandate to increase taxes.

the black box is on the bottom. some represented here today. implementing government programs that will tax and spend trillions of dollars. the gray, green, purple, and brown boxes on the side in the middle. all this will focus on heating bills, food prices, product prices, gasoline products, and jobs, threatening families with higher prices, farmers with higher prices, drivers with higher prices, and workers with lost jobs. all this just ask, what of -- what are our democratic colleagues afraid of? they're not afraid of what this will do to our families. why don't we get into the hearing on the legislation itself? i hope we will get to the answers soon, and i appreciate the opportunity to show the concerns i have. thank you, madam chair printer >> thank you, senator. -- thank you, madam chair. >> thank you senator.

the nomination of assistant administrator for the office of research and development. i call denominations, i ask unanimous consent that they be considered without objection. without objection, so ordered, my colleague does as well. i urge my colleagues to do the same. anybody wished to be heard on these nominations? if not, i urge that they be approved. do i have a second? >> second. >> second. all those in favor selling aye. >> aye. >> i thank my colleagues. senator klobuchar? >> i know the distinguished panel understands that new energy administration is -- new energy legislation is about creating jobs and developing homegrown energy and breaking our reliance on foreign energy. i spent the fourth of july 2 week up north in minnesota, meeting with people everywhere,

but i will tell you up there the upon rate is at 20%. in minnesota, our people want good paying jobs across the spectrum. to mine more iron ore, manufacturing turbines to ship them to the superior and countries across the world, and scientists to develop fuel cells and ethanol technology. but an energy bill has to take into account not just the captains of the energy industry, but also the people who buy the energy. middle-class families need protection in a jolt -- from a jolt in their energy rates, and the needed energy bill to provide job at attendees. i believe the new energy bill done right will mean new business to make the nuts and bolts of new energy systems. electric car batteries and solar panels, and geothermal heat pumps. i know that secretary vilsack understands that a new energy

bill can help our farmers grow -- create new farming members -- new farming methods. it is time we help the farmers in the midwest and said of the oil cartel's in the mideast. the opportunities are enormous -- instead of the oil cartel's in the mideast. after decades, it is time for action. we know what happened when gas prices went up last year. they approached $5 a gallon. it is not acceptable. our energy supply is extremely vulnerable to disruption,, broken pipeline in russia, resulting in massive price spikes to gas stations and heating bills in america. we need an energy bill that allows america to lead the rest of the world in the production of energy and the development of new technology, including wind, solar, geothermal, hydro, new techniques and new development of nuclear power. legislation priories for me with this bill is, first, does the

legislation protecting middle- class from high 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 there in the house to of knowledge their contribution to this. third, for traditional companies, industries that are not subject to the same carbon constraints, to make sure that they do not have an unfair advantage. finally, does the legislation give a sufficient boost to renewable energy? i would like to see a more aggressive portfolio standard. i know that is being worked on in the energy committee. overall, i do not believe we can stick with the status quo. i do not believe we can throw daggers at this bill. we have to work to improve it. the people of my state and our country depend on that, and i thank you very much for all of your work and contribution. >> senator, thank you.

senator alexander? >> thank you, madam chairman. i look forward to the hearings and to participate in them. i would like take a little different tack on this. the chairman quoted tom friedman and the importance of a nation that hoped to lead, addressing clean energy. i think you left out an adjective, and i would put the word "cheap" and there, "inexpensive," if you prefer. the united states accuses more than 24% of all the energy in the world. why is that? if we want to build cars and trucks in tennessee, michigan, ohio, we have to have cheap electricity. the auto suppliers in my state are just like this. every little cost addition

moves a job to mexico and some rough. and materials for solar uses 120 megawatts. in tennessee, have large amounts of cheap electricity. the choice is between a high- cost clean energy plan and a low-cost clean energy plan. my question to the committee, why are we ignoring the cheap energy solutions to global warming, which is nuclear power? this is really fairly simple. if what we are really interested in is reducing carbon, which is the principal greenhouse gases, we can focus first on smokestacks and say let's start building 100 new nuclear power plants. nuclear power is 70% are carbon-for electricity. solar, wind, and all these other things are 6%. nuclear is 70%. over the next 20 years, if we

want to do that, we could build 100 more nuclear power plant. as we did that, we could begin to close dirty coal plants or funds and new -- or let's reserve and nobel prize for the scientists to find a way to deal with carbon from ines -- from existing coal plant and we can have clean coal plants or much cleaner existing plants. the second thing to do is electrify half our cars and trucks. that is the fastest way to reduce dependence on foreign oil and the use of oil. the third thing we can do is to explore offshore or natural gas, which is low carbon and oil, which we should use -- which we should use less of. forcing several many manhattan progress, much of which dr. chu is beginning to do. for the next 20 years, if we

really want to deal with global warming, we only have one option. that is to double the number of nuclear power plants we have there is no other technological way that we have to have a large amount of reliable, cheap electricity other than nuclear power. so if we are 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 as he does to building windmills, we could solve global warning in a generation. we keep beating around the bush, and instead the 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 has got to pay that. and it works out to $900 per family, the way my math figures it. it will suffocate large sections of our economy and drive jobs

overseas. cheap energy advocates, which include all republicans -- almost all republicans and a growing number of democrats, say build nuclear plants, double research and renewable energy in the meantime, to make it cheaper and reliable. we must remember, at a time of 10% unemployment, high-price energy sens jobs overseas, looking for cheap energy. cheap energy not only creates 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 an executive with to do with carbon from fuel than the economy white cap and trade, which only braises prices every three years. it might not reduce carbon. that is 30% of carbon. 40% of carbon is in smokestacks.

we could build new plants, and as they come on line, we can do something about the dirtiest coal plants. i think the chair for the time, and i urge the committee and the senate to look at the cheap clean energy solutions if we want to keep jobs in this country. >> senator, we look forward to working with you on that. >> thank you very much for this hearing, and let me start by saying there is 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 lieberman- water bill, the provisions in the markey bill coming courage is the type of activity that senator alexander was talking about, including the expansion of nuclear power, which i also support and belief 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, though i think we need to act on legislation.

it is critically important for many reasons, the first of which is jobs. it is about keeping jobs here in america, about we have developed the technology. now let's use that technology to create green jobs here in america that will help our economy, our national security, less dependence on foreign energy sources, and it will help our environment by dealing with the problem that we have on carbon emissions. i think we can accomplish all that to the bill we worked on last year, the building came over from the house, will allow us to do exactly what senator alexander wants us to do, and that is to become less dependent on foreign energy sources and to use more energy sources here in america to create jobs in this country. let me mention, yesterday i was out in frederick county. they strongly want to see the jobs created here in america. i went to fort dietrich, and thank you for the clean-up work

and the party list to clean up fort dietrich. one of the uses that you're looking at is to put solar panels on there to create additional jobs in frederick county. the largest part of our economy, it might surprise you, is agriculture. 82-degree increase in our state, has had a devastating -- a 2-degree increase in our state has had a devastating impact on our economy. i could go to every one of the sectors of my own state, and i hope that we can work together, senator alexander, and come up with a bipartisan bill which i think would be in the interest to the american public. but it needs to be making less energy secure and keep jobs here in america, and i believe the bill we worked on last year, the billick came over from the house, gives us the framework to -- the bill that came over from the house, gives us the framework.

>> thank you, senator. senator barraso? >> i believe we need transparency. we must have transparency on scientific data on climate change and transparency on economic data on climate change. madam chairman, you talked about fierce words of doubt and fear, that the president said yes we can, yes we will. but what i have seen so far is, from this administration, yes, we can hide the truth, the facts, and intimidate government employees. this has become a culture of secrecy and repression. in "the wall street journal," "the epa silences a climate skeptic." one of president barack obama's first acts was a memo to agency is demanding new transparency in government science.

lisa jackson joined then come to the head of -- "i will insure epa's efforts to address the enormous crisis are rooted in three fundamental values -- signs paste policies and programs, but -- science- based policies and programs, adherence to the law, and transparency. mr. obama took another shot at his predecessor, saying that the days of science taking a backseat to ideology are over. but in march, the obama's epa issued endangerment finding on carbon. it established that carbon is a pollutant and gives the epa the authority to regulate it. even if congress does not act. around this time, mr. carlin, a colleague, presented in 98-page analysis arguing the agency

should take another look at the science behind manmade global warming, and they say it is inconclusive at best. the analysis noted that global temperatures were on a downward trend. he pointed out problems with the global model -- with global mateodels it shows and a pop -- -- it shows apocalyptic scenarios. the response to mr. carlin was an e-mail from his boss, alma carlin. forbidding him from any direct connection with anyone outside his office with regard to his analysis. when mr. karlan tried again, the disseminate it -- to disseminate analysis, the administrator and the administration had decided to move forward, and your comments cannot 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. mr. carlin blast and another e- mail, you need to move on to other issues, move on to other issues and subjects. i do not want you to send us any additional epa time on any more papers on climate change. ideology -- no, not here. just us science folks, honest. madam chairman, as the ranking member of this committee, the oversight subcommittee, i believe we can no longer allow this type of behavior to go unchecked. behavior were the best advice and counsel is ignored, where it is blocked, where is kept hidden from the public. it is for this reason that i visited with senator right house

this morning, requesting that the epa and launched its own investigation into these recent troubling events. a culture of intimidation is no justification in the administration. this administration is publicly promised to hold itself to a standard of openness, transparency, and excepting 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. this panel of experts and committed people to improving our environment. i think you for taking the -- let me call it, the darts that might be thrown along the way. fear not, stumble on because whenever we have to do we have to do it. what we saw on the wall here, on

these flags, were no, no, no. saying no to the whole process. but at least we have come a long way because wasn't it ought to long ago that we heard that this was all a hoax, that global warming was a hoax? that is no longer the case because our friends on the other side agree that things have to be changed. maybe the hoax issue when away. it was a bad joke, and thank goodness that has disappeared. what we are seeing here now -- what we're saying here now is 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 do not have as much? there is a distinguished physician here. i am sure you would say there is no longer any as much to worry about. the fact of the matter is we do

not have an easy task, but our children and grandchildren are depending on us. we are taking the advice of the majority of members of the union of concerned scientists. these folks are willing to say, no, 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 to use the trees, the plant more trees.

my friends, this unfortunately has disintegrated in some ways to either you are for a cleaner environment where 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. madam chairman, i think you for holding this hearing. press on. we are all going to work on it, and hopefully we will convince some of our friends on the other side of the aisle that this is a series project. >> thank you, senator. senator crapo? >> thank you, madam chair. this is a critical issue to our country and our people. i 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 and we had major energy legislation 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 on us in this committee to roll up our sleeves and get down to the kind of solutions that will work for the american people, and i believe these solutions can be found in a way that does not generate unbelievably high costs or impact to the american people and does not drive car industry offshore. i want to share some of the concerns that were raised by senator alexander. in particular, as we look at the renewable energy alternatives that are discussed, and the renewable energy standards that are discussed in the house and senate -- and i realize the senate energy committee deals primarily with that -- i am very concerned that one of the most obvious sources of solution is largely an treated in this

legislation, and that is nuclear power. i do not think there is much debate among any of us here on either side of the aisle that our nation is far too dependent on petroleum, carbon-based resources, for our energy. that we are far too dependent on foreign sources of energy. and that we as a nation need to become independent, much more independent in our own development of energy. i look at it similar to how one would look at an investment portfolio, that most people do not believe it is a prudent thing to invest all their assets for all their energy or the largest portion of them 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 , and we need to develop the opportunity for 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 do not believe there is that much disagreement across the aisle, except that we do not 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, very obvious solutions available, and there is agreement on the issues that we must deal with with regard to our national security in our national energy independence. what we have to find our way is to get past the partisan differences and reach those solutions, and i hope that this committee will seriously get down to that business. thank you very much. >> senator, thank you. i want to know for the record that we did pass an energy act in 2005, 2006, and 2007. we did work across the aisle, so

i hope that you are right, that we can do it this time. >> very much came down, but -- >> absolutely. senator gillibrand? >> thank you, madame chairwoman, for your leadership on this issue. i agree with you that we have an extraordinary opportunity here, and i want to thank the panelists for joining us, and i will thank you in advance for your testimony. the opportunity we have in front of us is to address this economic crisis, and new energy markets are the greatest economic market of our generation, and this bill will begin to address 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, biofuel, solar power. we have a strong agricultural sector, a strong manufacturing sector, and we have lost a lot of manufacturing jobs. we have lost over 150,000

manufacturing jobs in new york state alone. the potential growth -- the pitch for growth -- the potential for growth follows along with the new technology, whether we are billing new cars -- building new cars, new building materials that have carbon-neutral abilities in terms of conservation. that is opportunity for growth in our economy and for new york, so i want to thank you, madame chairwoman, for your leadership. we have a number of issues we must address as the look at global climate change legislation. we need to look at the carbon market and make sure we have a cap and trade policy that will be efficient so that we can have a vibrant market. but the resources that we create through those credits are extraordinary, and the billions of dollars that will be generated that we can then reinvest in this new economy and in these new technologies can be transformational. it is also very significant that my colleague mentioned our

national security. we very much have to wean ourselves from middle eastern oil in this new economy, and we can do that with homegrown american industry. i just want to thank my colleagues for their participation. i want to thank you, madame chairwoman, for your leadership, and i want to thank the participants today. i think we have so much potential, through the agriculture, manufacturing sectors, and through innovation all entrepreneurialism. >> senator, thank you. we are still to hear from senators carver, sanders, and then we will get to the panel and thank you for your patience. >> thanks very much to our panelists, it is great to see each of you. thank you for not just being here but serving our country in the roles you now play. we miss you very much here in the senate, and we are glad to see a contributing in this new

role. a couple of comments were made -- i thought senator crapo said a lot of things that i agree with. senator alexander and i often agree on things. i certainly agree with the importance of nuclear as we go forward. it is not cheap. it costs billions of dollars to build a nuclear power plant, but they are pretty good in terms of how much carbon dioxide they put out or how much of anything they put out. it is helpful in terms of what they do not consume in terms of energy. there is a lot to be said. it takes about 4000 people to build a new power plant, 500 people to run a power plant. the nuclear regulatory commission is processing those, and we are pleased. dr. drchu, we thank you for

your views, and i will -- we just finished a recess. for the last week or so. i love recess. as a kid in elementary school, and i still love recess. i want to review what i learned. i was reminded that this is the cleanest, most affordable form of energy, the energy we never used. my wife and i have been shopping for refrigerators this week. we found the gneisses refrigerator i have ever seen in my life, it will use a lot less electricity than the 20--year- old refrigerator. that will be replacing. we spent part of the morning in a pharmacy in new castle, delaware. in the back of the pharmacy, they were putting on a new meter that will enable the folks in that pharmacy to actually use their electricity more wisely, more efficiently, more cost effectively, and similarly

enable the utility to be a lot wiser in the way that they do their business, too. we spent some time at the dupont company. a new solar film is about 1/1 000 of a human hair. the secretary was good enough to help move along regulations that allow ocean-based wind power to go forward. we appreciate that. we expect a harness that wind starting three years from now off the coast of rehoboth beach, off the coast of new jersey, maryland, and other states up the northeast corridor. a lot of the components for the bill right there, shipping out from the delaware river, delaware bay, off rehoboth

beach. a lot of jobs will be involved in doing that as well. we will be running electric cars up and down the east coast before long, powering them with a maturity that will be hardest from wind off of our coast -- powering them with electricity that will be hardest from the wind off our coast. the energy from the sun in one hour is enough to power everything we use on this earth in one year. the solar energy emitted by the sun in one hour is enough to meet our power needs or energy needs on this planet for one year. einstein used to say, "in adversity, lies opportunity. boy, there are some terrific opportunities. we have to be smart enough to capture it and make it happen in turn is adversity not just in to clear air and less dependence on foreign oil and so forth, but we

have to turn it into jobs. we have a great opportunity to do that, whether building nuclear power plants, employing windmill farms, employing these new lightweight solar energy panels, building those refrigerators that are so energy efficient. it is a great opportunity, and we appreciate your helping us to find a path to that opportunity. thank you. >> thank you, madam chair to we think all of our guest panelists for being here. what is important is not just that you are listening to all these brilliant speeches. more important -- that was a joke, actually. more important is our presence here together, indicating your understanding that all of these agencies are working together, and that has not always been the case. i think the issue that chairwoman boxer and others are intended to bring us together on is in fact the most board

issue facing not only this country but the world. it has everything to do with the war in iraq. we are now whining away out of that war, which evoked -- we are now winding our way out of that war. we're spending $350 billion every single year purchasing oil. do you know we could do with $350 billion from investing in energy in the united states? we will transform our nation. in terms of global warming, i know some of our friends may not believe in the phenomenon of global warming, and they may back up an individual here or a scientist there. fair enough. but the evidence is very clear. the over number -- the overwhelming number of scientists who study this issue not only worry about global warming but tell us that the situation today is a lot more direct 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. i think others have suggested we have the possibility over a period of years of creating millions and millions of good paying jobs because we transformed our energy system. madam chairman, it just seems to me that we want to focus on at least three areas. number one, we need to enact strong near-term targets for efficient reductions. number two, we have got to meet president obama's renewable energy bill, which is passing legislation produces 25% renewable energy by 200025. -- by 2025. thirdly, we must ensure rigorous and transparent market oversight. we need to ensure that we have legislation that does not simply become a windfall for speculators and traders.

let's not underestimate the importance of that. the senator talk about his vacation. let me show you what i saw. at middlebury college, which very shortly will be providing energy for their fairly large campus from both sustainable energy and energy efficiency virtually 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 and creating local jobs, cutting back greenhouse gas emissions. they are now doing an experiment to plan willow trees, which will be used as part of that fuel. i think the potential, as i have mentioned to ken salazar and others, for geothermal in the southwest of this country is extraordinary. we can produce a significant

amount of electricity from solar plants. in terms of energy efficiency, vermont has been a leader in the country in that area. many of our major utilities are not producing any more electricity today than they did years ago, despite markham -- normal economic growth. in fact, if the rest of the country did what vermont and california are doing in terms of energy efficiency, there would be a huge drop in energy use in america. so we are sitting on an enormous issue. the fate of the plan at -- the fate of the planet, we can break our dependence on foreign oil. now is the time to be bold and go forward, and i think all of our panelists for their efforts in that direction. >> colleagues, we have three more senators, in order of appearance car originally. then -- in order of appearance,

originally. then we will get to you. thank you for your extreme patience. it just shows you the excitement on both sides of the aisle that there is on this issue. i will ask senator white house at this time. >> thank you, chairman. i welcome the administration officials, a particularly warm welcome to our former colleague, secretary salazar, whose tenure was brief but marked by great achievement and immense good will on both sides of the aisle. it is wonderful to see you back. i would just make four simple points that i think are the crux of what we have to do going forward to the first is that the earth's kleiman is being changed by carbon plant -- the earth's climate is being changed by, and pollution. if we do not do something about it, it is simply wrong not to act until the second point is that right now polluters are allowed to pollute for free. as long as they are 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. it is the american way of government to see that those perverse incentives do not continue. the third point is that behind that problem, a new economy beckons. with clean energy jobs in the future of energy independence for this country. it is an enormously powerful strength that we can tap into if we do this right. the last thing is we have the choice now to be on the front end or the tail end of progress. i saw in the newspaper the other day that toyota had something like 2000 patents to protect its hybrid technology to keep people from competing. that is the privilege that you get when you are the front runner, and china and japan and

europe, countries all over the place, are investing to put their industries at the front. i do not want to see american industries at the back of that parade, i want to see us at the front leading. the four of you have the capacity to make -- to solve those four problems, to solve those issues for the american people. we know that this is probably come along with the exxonmobil board room, the last place that sober people debate whether or not these problems are real, but we intend to work with you anyway, and we hope to give you strong legislative support if we can. thank you for your efforts. >> thank you, senator. senator iududall, followed by senator specter. >> thank you, madam chairman. i would like to put my opening

statement in the record, but i did want to -- >> without objection. >> i wanted to answer something that seems to be said over and over again by the oversight, and i hope the panel will focus on this. -- by the other side, and i hope the panel's focus on this. when you put a price on carbon, you are in fact helping the nuclear power industry, as has been set in this hearing and other places. nuclear-powered is not being helped, nuclear-powered is being eliminated, all kinds of things. that in fact is not true. you put a price on carbon, what you end up doing is sending a very strong signal in the marketplace that carbon dioxide emissions, and that these kinds of emissions are to be reduced in the future, and that you move in the direction of technology

which you do not create carbon dioxide. nuclear is one of those. so i hope that when we focus on the idea of having a cap and trade system, we focus on the idea that we are encouraging all sources, whether it is the renewables -- wind, solar, geothermal -- or whether it is nuclear power. but we have to be really clear, i think, that our objective here is to do it all, to increase all the sources that are not contributing, and i think that is a very important point as part of all this. i hope that those of you that are here today on this panel will cover that side of it. thank you, madam chair. >> thank you. senator specter, welcome. >> thank you, madame chairwoman. i join my colleagues in welcoming this distinguished panel, and also mayor john

federman, hear from pennsylvania. i compliment you, madame chairwoman, on your vigor in pursuing this issue, in determinations that are yet to have a consensus. there is no doubt of the greater importance of this issue, in many directions -- cleaning up the in norman, stopping the spread of carmen, cleaning up the environment, stopping the spread of carbon, iran been strengthened by its oil revenues, venezuela being strengthened. we have a matter of bill -- we have a mammoth bill from the house of representatives which has been cobbled together in a 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 interests in cleaning up the atmosphere, we have the important consideration of jobs and the ramifications from coal. many of us have been trying for a long time to get clean coal technology duties that issue, but as a senator from a coal- producing state, that is a factor which i have to take into account, along with the concerns i have for my four granddaughters and their grandchildren in cleaning up the atmosphere. .

we spend hundreds of billions of dollars a year to import 60 percent of the oil we use, and we face an unprecedented threat to our way of life -- climate change. to solve these challenges, the administration and congress need to work together to spur a

revolution and clean energy technologies. the president and i applaud the historic action of the house to pass a clean energy bill and look forward to working with the senate to pass comprehensive clean energy legislation. i want to speak today about the threat of climate change. overwhelming scientific evidence shows that carbon dioxide from a human activity has increased the atmospheric level of carbon dioxide by roughly 40%, and level one-third higher than anytime in the last 800,000 years. -- a level one-third higher than anytime in the last 800,000 years. there's also evidence that greenhouse gases have caused our climate to change. already, we have seen the loss of about half the summer of the polar ice cap, a dramatic accelerating rise in sea level, a loss of over 2000 cubic miles of glacial ice, and these changes are not occurring on a geological time scale, but in the time of less than 100 years.

the intergovernmental panel on climate change projected that in 2007, if we continue on this course, there is a 50 percent chance of a global average temperatures increasing by more than seven degrees fahrenheit in this century. a more recent 2009 m.i.t. study found a 50 percent chance of a nine-degree rise in a 17 percent chance of a nearly 11-degree increase. 11 degrees may not sound like much, but during the last ice age, from cape -- when canada and the united states down to ohio and pennsylvania were covered year round in 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 problems will not change our destiny. a comprehensive bill that caps

the missions in reduces climate change will. america has the opportunity to lead a new industrial revolution by creating sustainability. opponents of this effort claim that the nation cannot afford to act at this time. i disagree, and so does the environmental protection agency and the congressional budget office. these organizations estimate that meeting the greenhouse gas targets in the house bill can be achieved at an annual cost somewhere between 22 cents and 48 cents per day per household. this is about the price of a postage stamp per day. history suggests the actual cost could even be lower. the cost to save our ozone layer, to reduce smog, to scrub the sulfur dioxide from power plants were all far less than estimated. for example, according to the epa, the sulfur dioxide reduction is 1/5 of the

original industry estimated costs. the right clean energy incentives will rev up the great american research and ingenuity machine, and i am confident it will lead to better and cheaper energy solutions. we can make significant near- term carbon reductions through energy efficiency. we used 40% of our energy in buildings, and i believe with today's technology, we can reduce our energy bills by 40% to 50% in new buildings. by developing a system -- systematic, integrated approach, i believe we can use buildings the use 80 percent less energy with investments that pay for themselves in 15 years through reduced energy bills. similarly, we can retrofit existing buildings to achieve 15 percent and its savings with investments that pay for themselves. a comprehensive energy in, bill would drive -- energy and climate bill would drive american innovation, offer incentives to restart our

nuclear power energy -- industry and encourage utilities to invest in carving capture sequestration. it would drive investments in wind power. in addition to developing the technologies we have today, we must pursue truly transformed its solutions. climate experts tell us we must reduce our carbon emissions by 80% by mid-century to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations at a level that will avoid the worst consequences of climate change. to achieve our long-term goals in the most cost-effective way, we will need a sustained commitment to research and development. only r&d can deliver a new generation of clean technologies. let me close with a quotation from martin luther king, his words spoken in 1967 seems so sitting in today's energy and climate crisis. he said, "be on now faced with a fact, my friends, that tomorrow espy -- tomorrow is today.

in this unfolding conundrum of life and history, there is such a thing as being too late." now is the time to take comprehensive and sustained action. with the leadership of the president, the actions of this congress, and the american people, i am confident we will succeed. thank you, and i will be glad to answer your questions. >> thank you so much for your 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 the house to build a clean energy foundation for a strong american economy. i am 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 and the 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 through this decade and the next what the space race was to the 1950's and 1960's, and america is behind. governments in asia and europe are ahead of the united states

in making aggressive investments in and 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 emit is to reverse our collective emissions growth in time to avert catastrophic climactic changes that would severely harm america's economy and national security within our children's lifetimes. the necessary shared effort will not begin in earnest unless and until the united states leads the charge. the advantage of the kind of legislation the president has called for is that it wraps up investment in developing nuclear energy technologies while giving companies an effective incentive to use those technologies to reduce greenhouse gas pollution -- it ramps up investment in developing nuclear energy technologies. i do not mean to say that we can get something for nothing, but

according to the congressional budget office's 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 it would actually see a net gain of more than 10 cents a game. -- the poorest fifth would actually see a net gain of more than 10 cents a day. the report is that cost would be higher in states where people drive their long distances, yet even at the cost borne by the average family in such a state would double the national average, it would still be just $1 a day. that figure does not account for the economic benefits of saving our children from living with increased job, fire, pests, flooding, disease. -- living with increased drought, fire, pests, flooding,

disease. can anyone honestly say that the head of an average american household would not spend $1 a day to safeguard the well-being of his or her children, to reduce the amount of money that we sent overseas for oil, to place american entrepreneurs back in the lead of the global marketplace, and to create new american jobs that pay well and cannot be outsourced? labor unions support this kind of legislation because they know it will create millions of high- paying american jobs that cannot be exported. manufacturing companies support it because they know it will provide needed investment in research and development while creating markets for the american clean energy technologies once on that investment. he lets utilities support it because they know it will expand our use of reliable source of energy like wind, solar, geothermal, and safer nuclear power -- the electric utilities support it. consumer advocates support it because they know it will strengthen the long-term

economic foundation for all americans without imposing long- term economic hardship on many americans. environmental groups support it because they know it is our best chance of avoiding catastrophic, to our environment. there are still interested out there opposing this effort, but i think the tide is turning against the defenders of the status quo, who want more of the same policies that made us dependent on foreign oil, and that costs american to forfeit the lead in the burgeoning global competition to sell technology. i think americans will reform -- i think americans want reform that harnesses that can-do spirit. this is what the president wants. this is what i want. i believe many senators want the same thing. please consider the environmental protection agency partner in this effort to get america running on clean energy, and please keep up the momentum. thank you, and i look forward to questions.

>> thank you. return to the secretary of agriculture,. >> thanks you. -- -- we turn to secretary of agriculture vilsack. >> i commit that the usda will maintain a close partnership in our work on climate change in nuclear energy. climate change is indeed one of the great challenges facing the united states and the world. the science is clear that the plan is already warming. climate change will affect all of us, and there are particular vulnerabilities for farmers, ranchers, and those who make a living off the land. i would like to commend the house for its historic efforts in developing a climate legislation that creates the framework for u.s. leadership on climate change. i along with secretaries chu, salazar, an administrator jackson look forward to working with the senate as you begin your legislations.

i hope congress enacted a bill that meets president obama's objectives of creating a comprehensive approach that leverage is the nation's capacity for innovation, creates jobs, reduces dependence on foreign oil, and protect our children and grandchildren from those associated with pollution. i believe it is crucial that we increase the participation of farmers, land uses, and forest owners. this issue is too important for agriculture and forestry to sit on the sidelines. inviable carbon offset market, one that rewards land owners forced to worship activities, has the potential to play a very important role in helping america wean itself from foreign oil -- one that rewards land owners for stewardship activities. the potential for our working man's to generate greenhouse gas reductions is significant. in fact, today, our lands are in

sync of greenhouse gases. based on latest statistics, forest and agricultural lands in the u.s. take up more greenhouse gases in the form of carbon dioxide then 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. in aggregate, land fuses are responsible for over 1/3 of global greenhouse gas emissions. it is 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 lands. as a result, it is vital that america demonstrates how the inclusion of agriculture and forest in a domestic approach to climate change can in fact produce real and lasting benefits to both land owners and the climate. under climate change legislation, the farm sector will experience both costs and

benefits. energy price increases can impact role crop production and other agricultural activities. for example, fertilizer and fuel costs tell for 50% or 60 percent of variable costs of the production of corn. -- account for 50% or 60% of variable costs of the production of corn. but i believe there are significant opportunities for rural land owners in a captan trade program that recognizes the contributions that farms, ranches, and forests can make. a number of renewable energy technologies can reduce farmers' reliance on fossil fuels. in cooperation with the department of energy, usda will

continue to promote these technologies in our extension networks will help them make it available for farmers, ranchers, and plant managers. these technologies and the promotion of a clean energy technology will also stimulate the creation of new jobs. as farmers and ranchers and land managers look to install these digest is, people will be needed to build the machines and install the systems. 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 from greenhouse gas credits. to be effective in addressing climates is, the market will need to accomplish two goals. first, the market will need to recognize the scale of change is needed in the infrastructure that will be required. second, ensuring the environmental integrity of agriculture and forest offsets is critical to addressing climate change and maintain

public confidence in the carbon offset program. to produce meaningful reductions, and offset program will likely require the product -- participation of thousands of land owners. we looked forward to partnering with our fellow agencies to work with the senate in designing a credible program. the usda is prepared, with its managing 750,000 contracts with landowners, to meet this challenge. it is important that agriculture and forestry of sets of high integrity. and 40 systems and to be vigorous, verifiable, chance parent, and review and auditing systems must be in place. -- systems need to be vigorous, verifiable, transparent, and review and auditing systems must be in place. resulting losses will be real,

additional, verifiable, and lasting. usda is prepared to support this effort through its scientific expertise, technical capability specific to greenhouse gases, carbon sequestration, and offsets. i would like to close to begin by thanking the committee for taking up this legislation. i believe that agriculture and forestry can play a vital role in addressing climate change, and it's done properly, there are significant opportunities for landowners to profits from doing right by the environment. -- it's done properly, there are significant opportunities for landowners to profit from doing right by the environment. >> i thank you for your this in which service, and for the opportunity to come before you today -- i thank you for your distinguished service and for the opportunity to come before you today to discuss the issues

facing our country. let me say that the energy and climate change legislation that is before you, you will be dealing with a signature issue of the 21st century and for our world, and embedded in that legislation and the debate you will have, it seems to me that there is future agreement between democrats and republicans on some of the key principles. as president obama has often said, those key principles are first of all reducing our dangerous dependence on foreign oil. second, creating new jobs in the united states of america. 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. 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 percent of the land mass of the united states of america. we have thousands of units in our national parks unit, fish and wildlife service. as the stewards of 20% of the nation's land mass, we have a significant role to play with respect to addressing the issues of energy as well as climate change. within the department, we have 6000 scientists working with the official y y service as well as other agencies, as well as 14,000 and manages that help us address issues of climate change. it is my hope that as we move forward with the signature issue of our time, that the expertise of the department of the interior will be fully utilize in addressing the challenges that we face. as we look at energy and moving

forward with energy independence, it is also important to note that we are producers of a large part of the energy that america currently consumes. we produce over 50 percent of the cold that comes into electrical generation. -- we produce over 50 percent of the coal that comes into electrical generation. we also produce more than 60 percent of the oil and gas that comes into the country, so as well as offshore. we have opened up a new chapter for renewable energy. it is our hope that the renewable energy agenda will be one in which we can participate fully on behalf of a 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 of renewable energy permitting offices in places across the southwest, have ushered in what will hopefully be a new era of wind energy production of the atlantic and the other

continental shelf. we can talk about a lot of statistics relative to renewable energy, but i would just like to point out one, just from the southwestern sun, it is our belief that we can produce, just on the pending applications that have been filed, that we can produce 29 percent of the nation's electrical energy needs just from the power of the sun. that goes to the point that was referred to earlier. so i think the effort on renewable energy is one that we are just beginning to get under way, and there is a huge potential there. let me finally say that within the department of interior, they have produced through the national academy of sciences, the national academy of engineering, the institute of medicine, a booklet that i would ask to be entered as part of the record on the ecological impact of climate change. in this booklet, as you go through that booklet, you will

find why it is that this issue is so important to our country. first, if you look at the impacts in alaska, looking at the fast defrosting arctic ice, which is very important, if you would get the western mountains, where i come some -- from, some were looking at wildfires in the invitation of beetles attacking our forests, if you look at the pacific coastline, the ravaging wild fires of problems we are having with fisheries, if you look at the southwestern deserts, the pine devastation we are seeing in places like new mexico, in the central united states, agricultural shifts that are being seen because of the warming of the temperature, migratory waterways, and the north would movement of tropical species -- those are all the kinds of issues being impacted by climate change.

i would recommend this document to all of you, which has been looked at by the national academy of sciences and other partners. in summary, i very much look forward to working with members of this committee, the united states senate, and with my colleagues as we address is signature issue for our times. again, part of this is about reducing our dangerous dependence on foreign oil. it is about making sure that we save our children from the dangers of pollution, and that we create jobs right here in america. >> thank you. centers, we need to make a decision. we have conferred, and see if you agree with this theory because we took so long for opening statements -- and god bless us all -- we are running quickly out of time to get to our second panel. we have some very good people we want to hear from. is this ok with everyone else, we are recommending that we have just three 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 stripped. 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 bill was unusually long and the rest, but we went back to the energy policy act of 2005 that was brought to us by the bush administration republican congress with 16 titles. the house bill 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 is going to seem obvious with the answer would be, but i wanted to make sure i have you on the record, and we will go down. 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. i was very disturbed by some previous comments. he said that as we begin debating climate change, we must first look at transparency. transparency on the scientific data on climate change in transparency on economic data. madame chair, he said we would use his words of doubt and fear, but the president says yes, we can, and yes, we will -- and this is the part that disturbs me -- "but what i have seen so far is an administration that is saying yes, we can hide the truth. yes, we can ignore the facts, and yes, we can intimidate career government employees." i think that is a brutal charge

to levy, and i would like to ask administrative jackson a question on this. would you discuss this charge? i do not believe it, but he is saying that epa has dismissed or suppressed scientific material relating to the finding. would you address that? >> i'm happy to, and i will be brief because i do think this committee has more important in substantive -- more important and substantive issues to deal with. transparency and scientific integrity will be the cornerstone principles of my time at epa, and they will guide our actions. it occurs to me that that kind of change and to open this do not sit easily or well with some interest and some special interests who just refuse to believe that i will ensure that

science and the law guide our actions at epa -- at epa. recently, we were accused of presenting economists -- took -- we were accused of preventing an economist from voicing his findings, but i think it is 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. it is important to understand that the economist 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 staff on his views, and he was encouraged to find a peer reviews that back of his perspective. his views are reflected in the endangerment finding. when i personally learned of his

feeling, justified or not, that his memo had not been circulated widely enough, i immediately instructed my staff to inform him that he should feel free to circulate it to whomever he wishes. those are the facts, and as you can tell, they are anything but suppressed. 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 solutions that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil, that will ensure a healthy climate for our children, and i'm sure we will continue to have discussions like this, but i hope we will move on to more substantive issues. >> q for clearing the record. >> if we had had time, i have responses to make also, but there is not time. i wanted to say that the article referred to -- i want to ask that that be made part of the record, the entire article. the reason is that it lists

several countries who have been part of the treaty who are now having second thoughts, some of room are going to withdraw because the science is not there, and i think that article is an excellent article. i have a question for each of the members of the panel, and i will make this really quick. it is obvious that china has said that they are not willing to be involved in this. in fact, they said they would have to have 1 percent of the gdp of the developed nations to actually be plowed into their economy before they would play with this. that amounts to about $140 billion a year. we also know that -- china, by the way, is the largest emitter now. we also know that closely behind them, india will not do anything -- the environment minister said, "we will not accept any emission reduction targets. this is a non-negotiable stand."

if you 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 make any change in terms of climate, and temperature? >> yes, it would. >> so you disagree with all the others? >> i would say right now, china and the united states -- yes, you are quite right that china has exceeded the united states in its emission of carbon dioxide, but the two countries

are roughly half of the emissions in the world. >> i say yes. >> i don't have a choice. we are out of times. the material -- what? five percent? 5 degrees? would you like to quantify anything that would happen if we do not have the developing countries participating in this? it just united states unilaterally? ok, let me just go ahead and say this is what we determined during the war lieberman bill last year 13 months ago. that was the epa that said this is the difference it would make. let's keep in mind inipc -- let's keep in mind that ipcc said they wanted to keep it up, and this is the chart that with or without the developing nations, it would be virtually no change. do you still agree with this chart?

i'm sure you have seen it. >> [inaudible] >> ok, dr. chu, the chairman wants me to direct that that view. >> i do not agree with the chart. >> i believe the essential parts of that the u.s. action alone will not impact world's co2 levels, but as we have all said and as many members of this committee have 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 and abroad, and that means jobs for americans that we are, of use it -- currently losing. >> i appreciate your answer. thank you very much. >> let me just, following up to the last questions, if the united states were to act

alone, no other country were to take action, i personally believe it would be good for our economy and create more jobs for american and keep jobs in america, but that is not the issue. the issue is what is going to happen with copenhagen, and i can tell you in my conversations with my colleagues, they are looking forward to america's leadership, and they believed america's leadership 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. i think that is what we are all trying to do, but looking at the legislation we are considering, we are trying to improve quality of life in america, to make it easier for people to do with their everyday needs, make it healthier for americans and create jobs in our country. i want to mention one area, which seems to me we are out of step with much of the world. the industrialized world, and that is the way that would transport people in public

transportation. i represent maryland, and i know the stress that ramada is under, the second busiest system in the country. i have seen the stations and seen the conditions that 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. i would like to hear from dr. chu and ms. jackson, your view as to the advantages of public transportation from the energy and environment point of view. i know for quality of life, getting people out of these traffic jams will be adding to the healthful lifestyles of america. i know that it adds to productivity if people do not have to spend two or three hours a day in traffic. can you tell us from the point of view of energy savings and on

the environment, the investment of public transportation, what it would mean? >> i will go first. transportation, from an environmental perspective, is on average across the country about 20 percent of our greenhouse gas emissions. and that comes from people who primarily to new. oftentimes because they have no choice -- that comes from people who primarily to meet -- primarily commute, oftentimes because they have no choice, by single automobile. an emphasis on public trepidation means fewer greenhouse gas emissions. not only that, but other criteria as well. you asked as well about energy, and i will let the secretary of energy answer that question, but clearly, part of cracking the nut of greenhouse gas emissions

and the pollution that comes from greenhouse gases is dealing with the transportation sector. >> very simply, i would say the increasing use of public trepidation, especially in suburban or urban areas, would do a lot in decreasing our carbon emissions. i would also add that using trains for long-distance freight will also do a lot, and then using the trucks for local distribution -- there is an advertisement that has been running for a couple of months. for every i think metric ton of freight, something like 400 or 700 miles per gallon, if you use the train, so trucks cannot get there. >> thank you. >> senate is, before you do a two-minute leading up to your question, but leave a minute, or otherwise, we will not get to everybody.

>> thank you. david green testified before our committee that a low carbon fuel standard was a more effective and efficient way to reduce carbon from fuel than a cap and trade system. would you agree? >> i will not make a judgment as to whether it is more or less. i think it is an important tool >> -- > so you do not agree? -- i think it is an important tool -- >> so you do not agree? i only have three minutes. do you believe that the 100 or so nuclear power plants that we have operating in america today and the, i guess it is classified, number of nuclear submarines operating today are being operated safely? >> yes. >> do you agree roughly with the figures that carbon is the principal greenhouse gas that is

contributing to global warming? >> yes. >> would you agree that coal plants contribute about 40 percent of the carbon -- of that club and? >> something around that number, yes. -- would you agree that coal plants contribute about 40 percent of that carbon? >> something around that number, yes. >> if we are just looking at the next 20 years, wouldn't it be true that the fastest way to produce large amounts of clean, reliable, low-cost, clean electricity would be a nuclear power? >> i believe that restarting the nuclear power industry is very important in this world plan of reducing our carbon emissions in the united states. >> solar and wind and other renewals on which the

administration seems to be absolutely fixated, and which i think are useful, only produce 6% of our carbon free electricity. nuclear produces 70 percent. as you said, it has been operating safely here. france is 80% nuclear. taxpayers are helping india and china build nuclear plants. iran made. why do we not have the same level of enthusiasm for nuclear power? -- iran may. why do we not have the same level of enthusiasm for nuclear power? what is the reluctance? >> as you may know, i think that nuclear power is going to be a very important factor in getting us through it to getting us to a low club and future. the department of energy is doing everything it can to help restart the american nuclear energy.

-- i think that nuclear power is going to be an important factor in getting us to a low carbon future. quite frankly, we want to recapture the lead in industrial nuclear power. we have lost that as we have lost the lead in many areas of energy technologies, and we should get it back. >> thank you. >> thanks you so much, senator. that was very well done. >> i asked secretary chu -- you are a nobel prize-winning physicist. we congratulate you for that. the ability to and that the kind of recognition. -- the ability to earn that kind of recognition. is it possible that global warming could be a conspiracy to mislead or be a hoax in any way,

or is it really related to human activities? >> i think one has to understand how science works. the entire reason for doing science and the feedback of this is that if a scientist can prove what might be generally excepted as wrong, and that loan voice is right, that person becomes very famous. so in the intimate structure of science, there is this ability to say, "did it your best shot -- give it your best shot." so what has happened over several decades is many people still continue to look very hard at the facts, at the analysis, and the whole. you system is a very strong

check and balance against a global hoax. >> thank you. administrative jackson, are you aware of the fact that america in 2006 had 250 million vehicles -- in 1990, 189 million vehicles on the road? 16 years later, there are 62 million more cars on the road. could that create air quality problems for us? >> absolutely. >> i was not sure. i wanted to ask you this, ms. jackson. are you aware that there are now 26 million americans, including 9 million children, with asthma? these rates are double what they were in 1980.

is there any indication of poor air quality that would be consistent with that kind of growth >> > 5 -- growth? >> i am well aware of it. i am the mother of a child with asthma. >> thank you very much. >> thank you very much, madam chairman. administrative jackson, i had already talked about the article in the "wall street journal" saying the epa is silencing a climate skeptic. that is not an isolated case. i sent you a letter on may 13 as well as to the director of the office of management and budget regarding the leaking of a small business administration attorney's name, who wrote part of an internal omb memo who wrote that negative economic and

additional consequences of using the clean air act to regulate climate change, once this was released to the media, the administrator was smeared as being a bush appointee despite being appointed during the clinton administration. there were quite a few concerns about the leaking of that person's name. even in the house, the committee ranking member stated with regard to leaking that attorneys and that that attorneys' ability to serve now in three administrations, a democrat as well as republican, speaks to her professionalism and talent, her abilities and of to activities should not be questioned. i have not yet done in response back to my may 13 letter from you. i have included information on that. do you know when i will receive a response to that letter? >> i do not know, but i am happy

to check on it. >> thank you very much. i would appreciate it if you would. there was an article in the "washington post" yesterday did constructing the crime bill. "the climate bill approved by the house last month started out as an idea -- fight global warming -- and wound up looking like an unabridged dictionary. it runs to more than 1400 pages will with loopholes and giveaways meant to win over legislators." then they go through a number of questions. "would this bill stop climate change?" their answer is it would not. do you agree with this assessment that this bill will not stop climate change, or do you disagree on this? >> i did happen to disagree -- i did happen to see that article,

and i agree that their assessment is the right start and it sends a strong signal in the you all in the senate have work to do, and i respect the fact that you are starting at work. >> your impression is this bill as we are looking at right now will not impact climate change? >> we already had a discussion earlier that with the united states does is important in terms of entering the clean energy race, in terms of reducing our dependence on oil, and in terms of creating millions of jobs. this is a jobs bill, an energy bill in a climate change bill, and we will need to work internationally to affect changes on global climate change. >> thank you. i would like to add some written questions if i may now that i have run out of time. >> surely. >> dr. chu, a number of our colleagues on this committee are very enthusiastic.

they see there is no end to how much we can accomplish. i am a strong advocate of expanding nuclear power as well. they are looking for someone in the administration who is as excited and passionate about it as they are. when i look at the lineup of people in the administration, i come to you as someone who knows more about this, who could be an advocate and help us figure out what we can do a climate change legislation to be supportive of nuclear. i would just ask you to put your thinking cap on and help us to do that. second, ms. jackson, thank you for joining us today. in 2007, we passed legislation, and at the time, it was estimated that we effectively took 60 million cars off the road in terms of emissions reductions in gasoline consumption. 60 million. when the administration and month or two ago moved ahead by

four years, the effective date of the legislation, we basically doubled the effect of what we have done in to the seven. last time we raise the standards was in 1975. we thought we would save a lot of energy and reduce a lot of fuel consumption, but we did not because he kept driving more cars, and we continue to drive more. given what we have done in to the seven and what the administration has done now, we may end up making no progress -- given what we have done in 2007 and what the administration has done now. how do we think differently in the transportation sector to make sure we do not repeat the mistakes that we made, frankly, up to this day? former gov. vilsack, my question to you, the agricultural of sets are not being controlled,

i'm told, and verified by the department of agriculture. how would your agency adapt the role i do not think the usda has tried to assume over the years? take that, if you will. we have a situation where the epa has adopted or is considering adopting usda conservation standards as a way for farmers to show they are meeting and quality requirements. i do not know if that is true. >> senator, we already working as partners on an number of environmental issues. i see this as a partnership with all of my fellow colleagues at this table. obviously, usda has unique assets in terms of its ability to be in virtually every county of the country. it has technical expertise in this area, but i certainly see this as a partnership. i think the epa has a set of unique tools as well, and we

need to figure out how best to use our unique assets. >> great, thanks. >> because of our limited time, secretary chu, i am going to focus all of my questions on you. i want to come back to nuclear power. there are so many issues we want to deal with, but the issue of nuclear power is one that i think we need to pursue more clearly. first of all, i appreciate your stand on nuclear power in were efforts -- and your efforts to help make it part of national policy. as a look at some of the efforts to develop and renewable energy standard in both the senate and house, one of the things that strikes me is that nuclear power is not allowed to be counted as part of the renewable energy base in i think all of the proposals that are surfacing right now. can you see any reason why we would not allow nuclear power to be counted in that process? >> it is being assisted as was

already pointed out, by the fact that it is a carbon-free source of energy. strictly speaking, it is not a renewable energy. so that is the short answer. >> neither are a lot of the other things that count, but go ahead. >> we are and ministering $18.5 billion loan guarantees that we hope will bring nuclear power plants up. -- we are administering $18.5 billion loan guarantees. we hope to to help the nuclear department speed of the approval processes. ultimately, i think that the rate-setting commissions and on the country -- and around the country, that these are local jurisdictions, that should look towards nuclear power as is it worth it to invest in this clean

source of energy? >> is there any reason why we should not count nuclear- powered in the face of those calculations? -- not count nuclear power in the base of those calculations? let me ask this -- with regard to the loan guarantees that you mentioned, which i think are one of the key issues we should focus on in terms of strengthening nuclear power, do you have any time line for advancing the next round? >> we are working very hard i hope by the end of this summer, early fall, to make announcements. >> thank you. i appreciate that. it seems to me that the question that was asked earlier is important, and if i had time, i would ask you right now, and that is what can this committee do in an energy bill as we are crafting one to the best job

that we can to facilitate our country's three energizing of the nuclear energy industry. i know you do not have time to answer that right now, but if you give us some thought and give us a written reply, i would appreciate that. >> i would be glad to do that. >> thank you. >> here is what we're going to do -- we have to go fast now because we have a swearing in on the senate floor, and our panel has been here forever. we have to end on time. go ahead, senator sanders. >> there has been discussion about nuclear power and questions of the panel -- what is the reluctance? i have reluctance. and why? nuclear waste is highly toxic. we do not know how to get rid of it. maybe the people in missouri want it, and we will send it there, but right now, to the

best of my knowledge, no state in the union wants this highly toxic waste. in terms of loan guarantees, are you providing loan guarantees to solar thermal plants? in the southwest? >> i would assume, is reviewing the applications at present. we have not provided a loan guarantee yet. >> my understanding is there are over a dozen plants ready to go. if we are talking about putting money into nuclear energy, we do not know how to get rid of that waste, and i would hope very much we would be ready to entertain products based on solar thermal. let me go back to secretary salazar. units and in your testimony that we have the potential to reduce something like 20 percent of the electricity in this country from solar thermal. is that what you are saying? >> 29%. >> i think that is an

extraordinary statement. i agree with you. how are we proceeding? when are we going to see the creation of solar thermal plants? >> the renewable energy revolution i think is something which we have the guns, with some help from this congress under president obama's leadership, opening up this new great opportunity for all of us. just to give you an example, in nevada, just 10 days or so ago, we announced moving forward with renewable energy applications for solar, which we expect we will have some 14 solar power plants that will be under construction by the end of next year. those projects alone will create some 60,000 jobs here in the united states of america. >> that is extraordinary that is just the beginning of this effort. >> thank you very much for your leadership on this. in europe right now, there is a

huge growth right now in use of wood pellets. in my state, over 35% of our schools are heated with wood. where do you see the potential in terms of biomass as an important part of the energy revolution? >> it is a very significant part of it and recognized by the energy title farm bill passed in 2008, creating opportunities for the usda to provide grant money to encourage biomass opportunities as well as the recovery reinvestment act. those moneys are being put to use in a number of projects. the whole point of this is to diversify and have as many options in terms of introduction that occur in united states. >> the potential there is also to create a whole lot of jobs in the woods as well. >> the question. a lot of jobs would also be in rural communities, which helps revitalize the rural economy.

>> thank you very much. >> thank you very much, madame chair. we are looking forward to have a real effort to reprocess the nuclear waste we already have. i would direct a couple of questions to my former neighbor, secretary vilsack, about farmers. the strong statement this seems to be sending to farmers is that they will face higher costs for equipment, fuel, fertilizer, transporting, and puts in and goods to the markets. do you have any information to show that farmers will not be heavily impacted by this particular -- or the waxman- markey bill or whenever we come up with -- whenever we come up

with here? >> we are in the process of completing an economic analysis, but first, there is no question that this will be economically significant in terms of costs. .

with the genetically modified soybean, to move forward to cellulosic ethanol from wood. but these do not affect the basic farm cost because you still got to dry, you still got to transport, you still got to buy that -- we drive natural gas through the roof, as many of these plans would, we'll see the end factor going up. and you mentioned, for example, i guess in your testimony that manure digesters will be a good thing. sure, if we can use it. in california it will cost between $2 million and $3 million. how do you make that pencil out for a farmer? >> senator, there is tremendous innovation for live stock feed that will reduce these gases. that is an offset opportunity.

there is also no question when you create biorefineries and opportunities to reuse the waste product of agricultural production for fuel, you have created less transportation costs and you have created yet another income source. i think we are just on the cusp of a revitalized rural america. and i am very confident with the broadband money, with the climate change, with energy policy that you are going to see a significant increase in economic opportunity in rural america. >> thank you very much, secretary. >> new plan in order to make sure to make sure that governor barbour can do his role, we have rich wells, dow, hawkins, mayor federman from brad ok pennsylvania and the honorable haley barbour. he has a tough schedule. jeff merkley, our hero of the day, is going to come back with

12:45 with senator inhofe and any other members that can be here to just hear from the governor. then i will be here at 2:00 to hear the other three panels. with that we have to continue to move quickly. so senator udall, you're on. >> thank you, madam chair. as you know, western states face immediate impacts from climate change. according to the report on climate change impacts, that report found that human-induced climate change appears to be well under way in the southwest. recent warming among the most rapid in the nation. this is driving declines in spring snow pack and colorado river flow. this report found that the colorado compact was based on unrealistic assumptions when it allocated the water in the river among the seven basin states which include colorado, new mexico and california. according to climate scientists, if we fail to

reduce global warming, vast areas of the united states will likely face severe water shortages. how would you describe the specific costs and benefits of action and inaction to the average western farmer and rancher or residents of western cities like denver and albuquerque, particularly as it relates to water resources? >> thank you very much, senator udall. all of us from the west and dry arid places we know that water really is the lifeblood of those communities. we see what's happened with drought in new mexico and now with california and many other states. and that's why most water managers, including farmers and ranchers are very concerned with what's happening with climate change in terms of the changing prescription patterns that we see in the southwest. what is happening is that the snow packs are melting a lot sooner than they used to.

so it is an area of major concern among water users and farmers, ranchers, municipalities, industrial users of water, from california to arizona to new mexico and to colorado. and so we're going to continue to see more prescription pattern changes. >> secretary vilsack, you have a few seconds here to also comment i think with respect to the forest and water supply and watersheds. >> well, first of all, senator, the costs of inaction are unacceptable. i can tell you from my visit recently to colorado there are significant economic consequences to the forest problems that are being experienced as a result of invasive species and the beetle. secondly, that's one of the reasons why i think as you discuss this and when the house discussed it that they focused on the fact that forest, private land forests, state forests and i also believe the u.s. forest service has an

opportunity to participate in a meaningful way in terms of adaptation and mitigation and i think it needs to be factored in your considerations. >> thank you. senator merkley. >> thank you very much, madam chair. and i wanted to address this to secretary salazar and possible secretary vilsack. oregon has millions of acres of second growth forest that is overgrown. it's a disaster in terms of carbon dioxide to those forests. they're -- they have very bad disease. they are not growing at a fashion that's most productive for timber or for good eco systems. thinning strategies and healthy management forest strategies can address that. one possibility is that by changes those practices on those lands we have a significant impact in -- on carbon dioxide. since you don't have a private partner it's not clear how the offsets would work if purchased

from the forest service, if you will. but the communities greatly need revenues nor to conduct forest thinning programs and the communities need revenue for the lockup of these lands and this goes back to basically the secure rural schools challenge we've had. so there's a real potential win-win. and i just wanted to ask if you thought about that issue on changing practices on public forest land could benefit this issue and how we could direct revenues to assist the health of our forests and our communities. >> senator merkley, the answer is, yes, we have thought about it. there are two things that can be done. one is utilizing some of the biomass that is coming off of our forest. within the department of interior alone we oversee 500 million acres. that's a huge amount of land that south there. there is tremendous fuel out there that can be converted over to biomass fuel.

secondly, as we look at lezz that deals with energy and climate change, one of the things that should be on the table for consideration is the whole sense of offsets that would include private lands for agriculture, senator. secretary vilsack has spoken. we also might want to take a look at that with respect to some of the public lands, with respect to those in oregon. >> senator, if i could add, the u.s. forest service is in the process of putting together a new strategic vision for the forest service which is focused on managing and operating the forest with a climate change and water direction. we think if we do this we will manage and maintain the forest more properly. we will provide better maintenance. we will provide better opportunities, economic opportunities both in terms of timber and in terms of recreation. so you can be assured that we are taking this into very serious consideration into terms of the forest service. >> thank you both for your

comments. i look forward to working with both of you on this because we view our forest as a sense of lumber. we can use it as a source of biomass that can be utilized in biofuels or used in co-generation and produce jobs in energy. but there's also the chance of changing those practices for offsets or see quest ration. that can also be a source of revenue. we might get a triple view of our forest. and i think that's very appropriate in the type of review that you all are talking about. it will be tremendous for the health of our forest, certainly for our eco systems. for the impact on carbon dioxide in the air. and the strength of our forest communities. so thank you very much for your interest and pursuit of these issues. >> senator, thank you so much. i want to say to this panel, thank you so much for working with us on this. this is a challenge of our generation.

we are all going to work together. so just to reconfirm, governor haley barbour will be a witness at 12:45, and jeff merkley will chair that. and then we'll come back at 2:00 p.m. for the rest of the panel. we stand adjourned. thank you, again. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009]

>> the senate environment and public works committee taking a break in this hearing on a clean energy economy. members breaking to attend a swearing in ceremony in the senate chamber this afternoon. democrat al franken today being sworn in as the newest member of the senate from minnesota. we expect the committee to reconvene. we'll have live coverage with senator merkley and senator inhofe only talking to mississippi governor haley barbour. that's expected to start at 12:45 eastern. live coverage here on c-span. the second panel is set to begin at 2:00. we will have to record that. we'll show it to you later as the u.s. house is set to meet at 2:00 p.m. eastern. of course, live coverage of the house, as always, live on c-span. while we wait for this hearing to resume, today in moscow president obama spoke to graduates of the new economic school about u.s.-russia relations and a global economy.

it's a 35-minute speech following his weapons agreement yesterday with the president. reducing the stockpiles to the lowest levels of any u.s. -russia accord. again, we'll show it to you in its entirety. [applause] >> mr. president, i present to you the graduating class of the new economic school, 2009. [speaking russian] [applause] >> thank you. thank you very much. thank you so much. well, congratulations, ock sanaa and to the entire class -- oksana and to the entire class of 2009. i don't know if anybody else

will meet their future wife or husband in class like i did, but i'm sure that you are all going to have wonderful careers. i want to acknowledge a few people who are here. we have president mikheil gorbachev is here and i want everybody to give him a big round of applause. i want to thank the director of the new economic school. maxim boykoi, chairman of the board. and arkadi, the n.e.s. board member, president of the alumni association and is doing an

excellent job with the president because he was in our meeting yesterday. good morning. it is a great honor for me to join you at the new economic school. michelle and i are so pleased to be in moscow, and as somebody who was born in hawaii, i'm glad to be here in july instead of january. i know that n.e.s. is a young school, but i speak to you today with deep respect for russia's timeless heritage. russian writers have helped us understand the complexities of the human experience and recognize eternal truths. russia's painters, composures and dancers have introduced us to new forms of beauty. russia's scientists have cured disease, sought new frontiers

of progress and helped us go to space. these are contributions that are not contained by russia's borders as vast as those borders are. indeed, russia's heritage has touched every corner of the world and speaks to the humanity that we share. that includes my own country, which has been blessed with russian immigrants for decades. we've been enriched by russian culture and enhanced by russian cooperation. and as a resident of washington, d.c., i continue to benefit from the contributions of russians, specifically from alexander ovechken. we are pleased to have him in washington, d.c. here at n.e.s., you've inherited this great cultural legacy but your focus on economics is no less fundamental than the future of

humanity. as one said, inspiration is needed in geometry just as much as poetry. and today i want particularly to speak to those of you preparing to graduate. you're poised to be leaders in academia and industry, in finance and government, but before you move forward it's worth reflecting on what has already taken place during your young lives. like president medev and myself, you're not old enough to have witnessed the darkest hours of the cold war. when hydrogen bombs were tested in the atmosphere and children drilled in fallout shelters and we reached the brink of nuclear catastrophe. but you are the last generation born when the world was divided

. at that time the american and soviet armies were still massed in europe, trained and ready to fight. the ideological trenches of the last century were roughly in place. competition in everything from astro physics to athletics was treated as a zero-sum game. if one person won then the other person had to lose. and then within a few short years, the world as it was ceased to be. make no mistake, this change did not come from any one nation. the cold war reached the conclusion because of the actions of many nations over many years. because the people of russia and eastern europe stood up and decided that its end would be peaceful. but the end of the cold war, there were extraordinary

expectations for peace and for prosperity, for new opportunities for individuals. like all periods of great change, it was a time of ambitious plans and endless possibilities. but, of course, things don't always work out exactly as planned. back in 1993 shortly after this school opened one n.e.s. student summed up the difficult of change when he told a reporter, and i quote him, the real world is not so rational as on paper. the real world is not so rational as on paper. over two tultous decades, that truth has brn tumultous decades, the truth has been born out over the world. poverty exists here, it exists in the united states. it exists all around the world.

more people have gone to the ballot box, but too many governments still fail to protect the rights of their people. ideological struggles have diminished but they have been replaced over conflict over tribes and ethnicity. a human being with a computer can hold the same amount of information stored in the russian state library, but that technology can also be used to do great harm. in a new russia, the disappearance of old political and economic restrictions after the end of the soviet union brought both opportunity and hardship. a few prospered but many more did not. there were tough times. but the russian people showed strength and made sacrifices, and you achieved hard-earned progress through a growing economy and greater confidence. and despite painful times, many

in eastern europe and russia have much better off today than 20 years ago. we see that progress here at n.e.s., a school founded with western support that is now distinctly russian, a place of learning and inquiry where the test of an idea is not whether it is russian or american or european but whether it works. above all, we see that progress in all of you. young people with a young century to shape as you see fit. your lifetimes coinsides with this era of transition. but think about the fundamental questions asked when this school was founded. what kind of future is russia going to have? what kind of future is russia and america going to have together? what world order will replace the cold war? those questions still don't

have clear answers, and so now they must be answered by you, by your generation in russia, in america and around the world. you get to decide. and while i cannot answer those questions for you, i can speak plainly about the future that america is seeking. to begin with, let me be clear. america wants a strong peaceful and prosperous russia. this belief is rooted in our respect for the russian people and a shared history between our nations that goes beyond competition. despite our past rivalry, our people were allies in the greatest struggle of the last century. recently, i noted this when i was in normandy, for just as men from boston and birmingham risked all they had to storm those beaches, people from kaza

and kiev tried to repel an invasion and turn the tide in the east. as president john kennedy said, no nation in history of battle ever suffered more than the soviet union in the second world war. so as we honor this past, we also recognize the future benefit that will come from a strong and vibrant russia. think of the issues that will define your lives, security from nuclear weapons and extremism, access to markets and opportunity, health and the environment, an international system that protects sovereignty and human rights while promoting stability and prosperity. these challenges demand global partnership, and that partnership will be stronger if russia occupies its rightful place as a great power.

yet, unfortunately, there are sometimes a sense that old assumptions must prevail, old ways of thinking. a conception of power that is rooted in the past rather than in the future. there is the 20th century view that the united states and russia are destined to be antagonists, and that a strong russia or a strong america can only assert themselves in opposition to one another. and there is a 19th century view that we are destined to vy for spears of influence and that great powers must forge competing blocks to balance one another. these assumptions are wrong. in 2009, a great power does not show strength by dominating or demonizing other countries. the days when empires could treat sovereign states like pieces on a chess board is over. as i side in cairo, given our

independence, any world order -- given our inner independence, anyone that tries to compete one other another will fail. progress must be shared. that's why i have called for a reset in relations between the united states and russia. this must be more than a fresh start between the kremlin and the white house, though that is important and i had excellent discussions with both your president and your prime minister. it must be a sustained effort between the american and the russian people to identify mutual interests and expand dialogue and cooperation that can pave the way to progress. this will not be easy. it's difficult to forge a lasting partnership between former adversaries, it's hard to change habits that have been

ingrained in our governments and our bureockrassies for decades. but -- bureaucracies for decades. but i believe on the fundamental issues that will shape this century, americans and russians share common interests that form a basis for cooperation. it is not for me to define russia's national interests but i can tell you about america's national interests and i can assure you that we share common ground. first, america has an interest in reversing the spread of nuclear weapons and preventing their use. in the last century, generations of americans and russians inherited the power to destroy nations and the understanding that using that power would bring about our own disruption. in 2009, our inheritance is different. you and i don't have to ask whether american and russian leaders will respect a balance of terror. we understand the horrific consequences of any war between our two countries.

but we do have to ask this question. we have to ask whether extremists who have killed innocent civilians in new york and in moscow will show that same restraint. we have to ask whether ten or 20 or 50 nuclear armed nations will protect their arsenals and refrain from using them. this is the core of the nuclear challenge in the 21st century. the notion that prestige comes from holding these weapons or that we can protect ourselves by picking and choosing which nation can have these weapons is an illusion. in the short period since the end of the cold war we've seen india, pakistan and north korea conduct nuclear tests. without a fundamental change do any of us truly believe that the next two decades will not bring about the further spread of these nuclear weapons. that's why america is committed

to stopping nuclear proliferation and ultimately seeking a world without nuclear weapons. that is consistent with our commitment under the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. that is our responsibility as the world's two leading nuclear powers. and while i know this goal won't be met soon, pursuing it provides the legal and moral foundation to prevent the proliferation and eventually use of nuclear -- and the eventual use of nuclear weapons. yesterday, president medvef will have a new treaty that will reduce our warheads on our delivery systems. we renewed our clean, safe and nuclear energy which must be a right for all nationes that live up to the responsibilities under the m.p.t. and -- n.p.t. and we agreed to have nuclear

security which is the goal of sduring all vulnerable nuclear material within four years. as we keep our own commitments we must hold other nations accountable for theirs. whether america or russia, neither of us would benefit from a nuclear arms race in east asia or in the middle east. that's why we should be united in opposing north korea's efforts to become a nuclear power. and opposing iran's efforts to acquire a nuclear weapon. i'm glad that the president and i agreed on a ballistic missiles treaty for the 21st century, including iran and north korea. this is not about singling out one nation. if we fail to stand together, then the n.p.t. and the security council will lose credibility and international law will give way to the law of the jungle.

and that benefits no one. as i said in prague, rules must be binding, violations must be punished and words must mean something. the successful enforcement of these rules will remove causes of disagreement. i know russia opposes the plan configuration for missile defense in europe. i made it clear that this has nothing to do with russia. in fact, i want together with russia on a missile defense architecture that makes us all safer. but if the threat from iran's nuclear and ballistic missile programs is eliminated, the driving force for missile defense in europe will be eliminated, and that is in our mutual interests. now, in addition to securing the nation's most dangerous

weapons, a part that we have a critical interest is in isolating and defeating extremists. for years, al qaeda have defied a great religion of peace and justice and worthlessly murdered men, women and children of all nationalitys and faiths. above all, they've murdered muslims. these extremists have killed in ahman and bally, islamabad and kabul and they have the blood of russians and americans on their hands. they are plotting to kill more of our people and they rely on safe havens. that's why america has a clear goal to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al qaeda and its allies in afghanistan and pakistan. we seek no basis, nor do we want to control these nations. instead, we want to work with international partners, including russia, to help afghans and pakistanis advance

their own security and prosperity. and that's why i'm pleased that russia's agreed to allow the united states to supply our coalition forces through your territory. neither america nor russia has an interest in an afghanistan or pakistan governed by the taliban. it's time to work together on behalf of the different future. a future in which we leave behind the great game of the past and the conflict of the present, a future in which all of us can contribute to the security of central asia. now beyond afghan stags, america is committed to promoting the opportunity that will isolate extremists. we are helping the iraqi people help build beater future and leaving iraq to the iraqis. we're pursuing the goal of two states, israel and palestine, living in peace and security. we're partnering with muslim communities around the world to advance education, health and economic development. in each of these endeavors, i believe that the russian people share our goals and will

benefit from success. and we need to partner together. now, in addition to the security concerns, the third area that i will discuss is america's interest in global prosperity. and since we have so many economists and future business men and women in the room, i know this is of great interest to you. we meet in the midst of the worst global recession in a generation. i believe that the free market is the greatest force for creating and distributing wealth that the world has ever known. but wherever the market is allowed to run rampant, through excessive risk taking, a lack of regulation or corruption, then all are in danger. whether we live on the mississippi or on the volgar. in america, we're now taking unprecedented steps to jump-start our economy and reform our system of regulation.

but just as no nation can wall itself off from the consequences of a global crisis, no one can serve as the sole engine of global growth. you see, during your lives something fundamental has changed. and while this crisis has shown us the risks that come with change, that risk is overwhelmed by opportunity. think of whatess possible today that was unthinkable two decades ago. a young woman with an internet connection in india can compete with anybody in the world. an entrepreneur with a startup company in beijing can take his business global. an n.e.s. professor in moscow can collaborate with colleagues at harvard or stanford. that's good for all of us because when prosperity is created in india, that's a new market for our goods. when new ideas take hold in china, that pushes our

businesses to enemy. when new connections are forged among people, all of us are enriched. there is extraordinary potential for increased cooperation between americans and russians. we can pursue trade that is free and fair and integrated with the wider world. we can boost investment that creates jobs in both our countries. we can forge partnerships on energy, that tap not only traditional resources like oil and gas but new sources of energy that will drive growth and combat climate change. all of that americans and russians can do together. now, government can promote this cooperation, but ultimately individuals must advance this cooperation because the greatest resources of any nation in the 21st century is you. it's people. it's young people, especially. and the country that tatches

that resource -- taps that resource will be the country that suck seeds. that success depends upon economies that function within the rule of law. as president medvedev has said, a mature and effective legal system is a condition for a sustained economic development. people everywhere should have the right to do business or get an education without paying a bribe. whether they are in america or russia or africa or latin america, that's not an american idea or russian idea. that's how people and countries will succeed in the 21st century. and this brings me to the fourth issue that i will discuss. america's interest in democratic governments that protects the rights of their people. by no means is america perfect. but it is our commitment to certain universal values which allows us to correct our

imperfections, to improve constantly and to grow stronger every time. freedom of speech and assembly has allowed women and minorities and workers to protest for full and equal rights at a time when they were denied. the rule of law and equal administration of justice has busted monopolies, shut down political machines that were corrupt, ended abuses of power. independent media have exposed corruption at all levels of business and government. competitive elections allow us to change course and hold our leaders accountable. if our democracy did not advance those rights, then i, as a person of african ancestry, wouldn't be able to address us as an american citizen, much less as president, because at the time of our founding i had no

rights, people who looked like me. but it is because of that process that i can now stand before you as president of the united states. so around the world, america supports these values because they are moral but also because they work. the arc of history shows that governments which serve their own people survive and thrive. governments which serve only their own power do not. governments that represent the will of their people are far less likely to descend in a failed states to terrorize their citizens or to wage war on others. governments that promote the rule of law subject their actions to oversight and allow for independent institutions are more dependable trading partners. and in our own history, democracies have been america's most enduring allies, including those we once waged war with in europe and asia. nations that today live with great security and prosperity.

now, let me be clear. america cannot and should not seek to impose any system of government anyon any other country, nor would we presume to choose which parties or individuals should run a country. and we haven't always done what we should have on that front. even as we meet here today, america supports now the restoration of the democratically elected president of honduras, even though he's strongly opposed american policies. we do so not because we agree with him. we do so because we respect the universal principle that people should choose their own leaders, whether they are leaders we gr with or not. -- agree with or not. and that leaves me to one final area we will discuss which is america's interest in an international system that advances cooperation while respecting the sovereignty of all nations. state sovereignty must be a cornerstone of international

order. just as all states should have a right to choose their leaders, states must have a right to borders that are secure and to their own foreign policies that is true for russia just as it is true for the united states. any system that cedes those rights will lead to anarchy. that's why we must apply this principle to all nations, and that includes nations like georgia and ukraine. america will never impose a security arrangement on another country for any country to become a member of an organization like nato, for example, a majority of its people must choose to. they must undertake reforms. they must be able to contribute to the alliance's mission. and let me be clear, nato should be seeking collaboration with russia, not confrontation. and more broadly, we need foster cooperation and respect among all nations and peoples. as president of the united states, i will work tirelessly

to protect america's security and to advance our interests, but no one nation can meet the challenges of the 21st century on its own, nor dictate its terms to the world. that is something that america now understands just as russia understands. that's why america seeks an international system that lets nations pursue their interests peacefully. especially when those interests diverge. a system where the universal rights of human beings are respected and violations of those rights are opposed. a system where we hold ourselves to the same standards that we apply to other nations with clear rights and responsibilities for all. there was a time when roosevelt, churchill and stalin could shape the world in one meeting. those days are over. the world is more complex today. billions of people have found

their voice and seek their own measure of prosperity and self-determination in every corner of the planet. over the past two decades, we've witnessed markets grow, wealths spread and technology used to build, not destroy. we've seen old hatreds pass, illusions of differences between people lift and fade away. we've seen human destiny in the hands of more and more human beings who can shape their own des niece. -- destinies. now we must see that the period of transition, which you have lived through, ushers in gnaw era in which nations live -- in a new asia in which nations live in peace, a better life for their children. that is america's interests, and i believe it is russia's interests as well. i know this future can seem

distant. change is hard. in the words of that n.e.s. student back in 1993, the real world is not so rational as on paper. but think of the change that has unfolded with the passing of time. 100 years ago a czar ruled russia and europe was a place of empire. when i was born, segregation was still the law of the land in parts of america. and my father's kenya was still a colony. when you were born, a school like this would have been impossible, and the internet was only known to a privileged few. you get to decide what comes next. you get to choose where change will take us. because the future does not belong to those who gather armies on a field of battle or

bury missiles in the ground. the future belongs to young people with an education and the imagination to create. that is the source of power in this century. and given all that has happened in your two decades on earth, just imagine what you can create in the years to come. every country charts its own course. russia has cuts its way through time leaving a mark on human history as it goes. as you move this story forward, look to the future that can be built if we refuse to be burdened by the old obstacles and old suspicions. look to the future that can be built. if we partner on behalf of the aspirations we hold together. together we can build a world where people are protected, prosperity is enlarged and our power truly serves progress and

it is all in your hands. good luck to all of you. thank you very much. thank you. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> a speech according to the associated press was not widely available for the ruschan people to see on television. -- russian people to see on television. it was televised live on one of the networks. after meeting with president putin and gorbachev, president obama has lunch with members of the g-8. thursday he'll meet with president hu of china and meet with people of members of the international organizations. and friday he'll go to l'aquila and meet with the pope. and he'll return to washington

saturday. you can check out c-span.org for video from his stops and trip. >> and we're back live on capitol hill for a senate hearing on a clean energy economy. it began this morning at 10:00 eastern. members will return from a break shortly to resume this hearing. at the conclusion of the first panel will take a lunch break and then return at 2:00 p.m. eastern for panel two. you'll be able to watch that at c-span.org as the house gavels in at 2:00 p.m. eastern for a work on a number of suspension bills.

>> the committee will open. and we'll dive right into business. we're resuming testimony and we are fortunate to have the governor of the state of mississippi with us, the honorable haley barbour, we'll be taking his testimony. and then i believe there's a few questions that the senators may have. so welcome. it's good to have you join us today. [inaudible] >> this is my -- and our

younger son, reed, lives up here. thank you for the courtesy, senator merkley. thank you for inviting me to testify before you on the critical issues of energy policy and america's future. america's future is so tied to our energy policy that this hearing can be held before the senate armed services, foreign relations, finance, energy or budget committee and be equally important and relevant to their work. energy policies significantly impacts the aspect of american foreign and domestic policy. energy is the lifeblood of our economy. our national security depends on it. when we think of it it must be in the broader context. as we all know, our country's in the worst economic crisis as in decades. been felt at the kitchen table of every family as unemployment is at the highest rates since 1983 and the average workweek has fallen to 33 hours. our government is vastly increasing our national debt to

get our economy back on track. even though everybody knows the national debt's increasing at an unsustainable rate, we're taking the risk because robust economic growth's the only way to solve our economic problems. yet, as we strife and stretch to get our economy back growing and more americans back on the job, our government is considering an energy policy as set up in the waxman-markey bill and the president's budget that will make it much harder for the energy -- for the economy to grow. a policy that is in fact -- because it will raise the cost of energy for families and businesses, especially manufacturing, but for our economy as a whole. the cap and trade tax, the $81 billion of tax increases on the oil and gas industry contained in the president's budget and the waxman-markey renewable standard will drive up costs and drive down economic growth. don't take my word for it.

president obama, then a candidate, said to "the san francisco chronicle" in january, 2008, under my cap and trade plan, electricity rates will necessarily skyrocket. and before becoming energy secretary, steven chu told "the wall street journal" somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to levels in europe. president obama's o.m.b. secretary peter orszag said under a cap and trade program, firms will not bear the cost of the allowances but instead pass them on to their customers in the form of higher prices. it would occur regardless whether the government sold emission allowances or gave them away. they would be the most important mechanism through which businesses and households would be encouraged to make investments and behavioral changes that reduce co-2 emissions. just last month in an interview with "forbes" magazine, the

c.e.o. of american electric power, one of our biggest utilities, mike morris, said that cap and trade tax will cause a.e.p.'s electricity rates go up 30% to 50%. congress should work particularly hard to ensure americans know the facts about the energy policies you're considering. on the contrary, the house of representatives added more than 300 pages of its 1,200-page energy bill just a few hours it was brought before the floor and passed. that's just the opposite of what is needed. last month, the policy growth -- a regional economic group for 13 southern states held its annual conference and more than 400 were most concerned about the costs associated with the cap and trade tax, the renewable energy mandate and the $81 billion in tax

increases on the oil and gas industry. this were concerned about the costs to families, as well as to our economy. as this conference -- at this conference, there was a great deal of support for conservation and energy efficiency, both of which are indispenseable to our energy future. and there was a lot of hope and confidence expressed about renewables like wind, biofuels, solar and more exotic sources in the future. nevertheless, it was agreed that for a long time that will be a need for traditional fuels like oil, gas and coal and for nuclear, which generates no greenhouse gas emissions, clean coal technology is a project that was presented and praised. but the biggest and most discussed issue at this conference was the cost of energy policy propostal service like the -- proposals like the tax increases proposed for the oil and gas industry. i should note, there were five governors that participated in this conference, including three democrats. there was little dissent about

who would bear the cost of this energy policy. the consumer. one that turns on the light switch, turns on the washing machine, fills up the car with gas or drives the truck delivering goods across town or across the country, that's who will pay. moreover, these increased energy costs will hit small businesses hard and will particularly hurt energy intensive industries like manufacturing or even computer processing. some manufacturers even predicted these energy policies will cause electricity rate increases that will make their manufacturing facilities uncompetitive to facilities in china and india. dan damico, the c.e.o. of largest american steel mfer said he would close u.s. plants, shifting production to china. i thought he made a powerful point when he said, making a ton of steel in china results in five times greater emissions of greenhouse gases than to produce that same ton of steel in the united states.

it's hard to believe that at a time when growing our economy is a number one goal, congress reduces economic growth. congress is considering a bill that drives up the costs of the electricity that cools their families' homes and the gasoline that runs their cars. when u.s. manufacturing faces stiff foreign competition, congress is considering a bill that will make our manufacturers less competitive. the concerns i've cited are serious, even if cap and trade works as plan. but many americans worry it will turn out to be an enron-style financial scheme where wall street manipulators make giant profits while ratepayers, motorists and main street businesses pay greatly increased costs. environmentalists rightly worry about the assumed large scale use of international offsets, and they are not verifiable. others say that foreign offsets claimed by c.b.o. to reduce the price of allowances by 70%, but

that's highly questionable. to me a particular scary future the tax and trade tax regime is that anyone can purchase emissions, permits or credits. there is nothing to stop a large government like china from investing heavily in co-2 emission permits instead of u.s. treasuries. the effective course would be that u.s. located industries could not buy those permits or they would have to pay a much higher price for the permits, thereby making our businesses even less competitive with foreign manufacturers like those in china. market manipulation by speculators are bad enough, driving up demand and prices by foreign competitors is -- be closed by saying that the right energy policy for our country is more american energy. using all sources of energy american. all of the above. we have abundant, affordable, reliable american energy. let's use it rather than having

a policy that means less affordable american energy. senator, i apologize that i ran over. but i do have an accent. >> thank you very much, governor. we appreciated that accent and your thoughtful delivery. i was wondering if you could take us back to the memo in 2001 which you wrote to cheney urging the bush administration to reverse course and reject regulating carbon dioxide as a pollutant. that less than two weeks, i believe, after you wrote this memo, news stories report under strong pressure from conservative republican industry groups, president bush reversed a campaign pledge today and said his administration will not seek to regulate power plants emissions of carbon dioxide. could you bring us up to date a little bit about the role you played and who you represented in asking the bush administration to reverse policy on his campaign promise? >> sure. my firm and i represented a

number of people in american business community, utilities, oil and gas companies, manufacturers, various thipes of industries from microsoft, on the one hand, to southern company on the other hand. the memo, i think, was more about new source review. if it's the memo that got published in "the new york times" and things like that. i believe that memo was about new source review. but if it was a separate memo about carbon dioxide, the position that the bush administration ultimately came out in favor of was that at the time there was insufficient evidence that carbon dioxide was a pollutant according to the standards set in the law at the time. that's a position i agreed with. it would be nice as a former lobbyists for me to take credit to --ed administration did it because i asked them to.

but i think i was one of many, many, many people in the united states that didn't believe it met the standard. and that was the purpose of the memo to say that. >> governor, this was the memo not about news sources but about carbon dioxide in which you noted that controlling carbon dioxide is eco extremism. do you feel any effort controlling carbon dioxide going in the atmosphere, there is no legitimate partnership between what is good for the environment and what could be good for our economy? >> no. the reason i'm here, the reason we held a conference on the coast is how best to deal with climate change, whatever role carbon dioxide plays in it. i'm not a scientist. but i accept for our purposes of going forward here the idea that it would be good for the climate if we reduced emissions. one of the concerns i have, senator, is that this legislation would affect co-2

emissions so little because it has no effect on china who passed us as the biggest east mitter and is building about five coal-fired power plants a day -- a week -- as dan demico, the c.e.o. of new course steel said the way the chinese coal-fired plants worked it takes -- it emitts five times more co-2 to make a ton of coal in china -- ton of steel in china because of the way their coal fired plants work than it does to generate a ton of steel in the united states. but the direct answer to your question is the reason i'm here is we do need to look at how best and the best interest of the united states and most effectively to deal with the threat that scientists are saying co-2 has for the future of the climate. that's why we're here. >> well, governor, i appreciate

that. there are several points you make that i think i would agree with completely. certainly that carbon dioxide is an issue for our atmosphere. i think all of us who look into the next generation need to wrestle with that and exercise the use of our legislative responsibilities to address it. your note about china certainly china is a serious source of carbon dioxide, far more per capita than is the u.s. we need to pull china into the conversation. that's a point well taken. i will turn to our minority leader, our republican leader of the committee, senator inhofe. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and, governor, thank you for being here and sorry for all of the mixup in the scheduling. let me just share with you. first of all, on this science, and we're going to go back to talking about that because in the last three times we had this bill on the floor, i was the one who led the opposition. one reason was i was the chairman of the environment and public works committee, this very committee,