hole. we cannot afford that in this country. i have a chart here. we have 70 trillion dollars of unfunded liability on the books already just from three elements of our federal spending. $70 trillion is already on the books. we are passing it on your children. there is no way they can pay for that. this health care reform should be bringing this number down. . to pay for. there's no way they can pay for that. this healthcare reform should be about bringing this number down not taking it up another $2 trillion by adding a program that on its face is insolvent, which is what the class act is. it's -- my staff got carried

away with the title, it's harsh, away with the title, it's harsh, i think, in the next ten years es money, but over ten years it's a $2 trillion unfunded liability. $2 trillion. that's -- that's totally the opposite direction that we should be going through, going here as a committee. the chairman makes the comment, well, we have language in here that the secretary must adjust and make it solvent. why would you start off with a program that's insolvent? and then tell the secretary oh, you've got to adjust for solvency. let's start up front with solvency and make the program sol vent to begin with. i'm offering amendment if it's an amendment at this time. i would offer amendment number six. my amendment number six. >> amendment number six.

>> which essentially says that that takes out the number that's in here, the $65 premium and just simply directs that the secretary shall set a premium that causes the program to be solvent over 75 years. why 75 years? because that's what we score social security, medicare and medicaid on and when you start reducing below 75 years we're basically playing games with the number, and so an accurate act rarial approach to this to give us reasonable numbers and to remain consistent with the scoring of gao and others who have looked at our long-term unfunded liabilities is 75 years. the bill has a 20-year number that is just absurd on its face and it's an attempt to gain the numbers. so that's all this language does

and let's tell the secretary let's make the program solvent. there's a consistency of thought that we should have a solvent program. i'm not opposing the program. i'm just saying let's have a solvent program. it will be between $85 and $100, and it will be adjusted upwards. but that's the estimates i've heard. i don't know if those are accurate, but the cbo came in at $85 and the outside actuaries came in at $100, i'm presuming it's somewhere in between, but that will be the secretary's job. she'll have to employ her own actuaries, she'll have to give her number. that will be the number that she sets or the number to make this program solvent. it's simply trying to fill the -- i guess it was senator hagan who asked this information from cbo simply trying to address the fact that we shouldn't be playing a shell

game here, that we should actually start this program on the solvency footing and shouldn't start it off as an insolvent program, and we certainly shouldn't be adding $2 trillion to our debt on top of all of the other things we've got around here that we're doing to our children. >> let me -- it's always nice to start with a point of agreement and the last thing i want to be doing here is adding $2 trillion to the debt here. that would be highly irresponsible and so what we're trying to do here is one, encourage people to enter the program because it makes sense for people to start assuming responsibility for their long-term health care needs and not be dependent upon the federal treasury to do so. how do we get people to start taking money, in the case of a student $5 a month and people older than that that want only talked about the $65 a month to contribute over five years

before -- so they can participate in long-term care. the numbers are certainly the disability community, you talk about 100 million and the younger people who will hopefully live longer and will have potentially more productive lives and will face health care needs as they get older. to what extent do we want to encourage them now? not 75 years from now when the costs could be staggering, but today to participate in their own long-term healthcare needs and what cbo has told us is if you add a premium at the level that everyone is talking about, you will have the opposite effect according to cbo of encouraging people to start participating in long-term health, but we also recognize as you get down the road here in time and the cbo letter to senator hagan, an important paragraph from this letter and let me ask that the letter be included in the record. joe, can i get a cope of this letter from senator hagan? >> on page 2 of the letter and it makes the point that senator

gregg is making, although outcomes in the not too distant future are uncertain, the cbo expects that the actions by the secretary to reduce all benefits to the real daily minimum of $50 and raise the monthly premium from new enrollees to $ 5 after 2019 would be adequate to ensure that the program would pay benefits through 2050. in a letter to senator harken -- to senator hagen, rather, makes that same point. and so you're striking a balance here. obviously, this is not public money. it's individual, private money, it's voluntary and if people don't participate then the program never works, in a sense, so the number is the right number to get people in than if you added up too high a number then you have people not getting in and the program fails.

so it's striking a balance. >> that's the point, judd. >> it's not a balance though. it's not a balance to encourage people to come into a program that will have an insolvency of $2 trillion. that's not balance. that's bait and switch. i mean, that really is, my staff is right because basically what you're saying is somebody is you can come into this program at a cheap price today and in the out years we're going to adjust it, your benefits down and your premium up at a radical rate or at a dramatic rate and that's what cbo ss here, they're going to have to change the premium and they'll have to change the benefits. so why wouldn't we start out in the beginning by the honest cost of their insurance to purchase the policy because you know what's going to happen in the out years? these adjustments aren't going to be made because we won't have the political courage to enforce that adjustment and we'll tell the secretary to not make that adjustment and we're going to end up with the $2 trillion of

added debt that will come out of the general fund. this is the way part b premiums started. part b was going to be totally covered by the premium and it's down to 75% of the premium. this is the exact same situation where we understate what the cost is and change the benefit structure and we don't have the courage to do that. let's just say that they have to have a solvent program right up front. >> we're saying that and we're also saying those are new enrollees who pay the 85 and the premium. it's not necessarily increasing the benefits. new enrollees down the road. you're making those assessments. in many ways, we had other legislation dealing with other entitlement program which is did not involve necessarily the kind of sole part its pagz by the individual. here you might make a case that it might have been better off

that we had a requirement of the law that the program be solvent. this legislation says it must remain solvent. what it doesn't say is absolutely it's how you get there except requiring the benefits and premiums to adjust it to keep it solvent. that's what the law says. that's the first time we've ever done anything like that. it's totally private money and totally voluntary. the cost of long-term care will not go away. they'll be staggering and the idea of giving people an opportunity to have independent living and not people going to medicaid and we all know what happens, they sell everything off and put their parents in that situation or family member and they qualify for title 19, and this is the only program we have in this bill that actually brings down medicaid costs. the only one, and we all know what those impacts are. $2.5 billion reduction in medicaid costs. that's not huge, but it's a step in the right direction. we've all heard about our states complaining about it. the law we're asking you to endorse and support here is than

program must be solvent. >> it says, how you do it. >> it starts off as an insolvent program and tells the secretary to be solvent. no one enters the program and it's not going to work. and i hate to refer to another committee here, but i think the banking committee just stopped credit card companies from doing this, you know? where you put a teaser rate out and then you change the rate. that's exactly what's happening. we're putting the teaser rate out and then we'll change the rate. mr. chairman, mr. chairman. is there any provision in this class act that says if the payments aren't enough you don't qualify for medicaid, because under the arrangements if you look at this ten years from now, everybody will still be eligible for medicaid. they're here today to keep you eligible. unless you're absolutely excluded in the class act and i didn't find that it was then you're not going get any savings

from medicaid unless you exclude their ability to file for medicaid if, in fact, they have this program. so thoseavings are not real, they're not going to happen because they're still going have inflation. we know seven or eight years from now we'll have hyperinflation from this country from the debt we're doing right now. sooty want to make a couple of points. i have never been at a mark-up for a section of the bill that has such lack of integrity. it's not the integrity of the desire of when you're wanting to accomplish, but there is a lack of honesty about what the numbers mean. go back and look when medicare was written and what the cbo projections were and how it was going to be great and now we have this tremendous. i've looked it up and i've read the data, i've read what the medicare trustees report said at first. i've read all that and it's the

exact same thing. this is a point and there was no cbo. but the point is that the estimates and budget estimates on medicare was and it was going to be fine, and the point is i'm also disappointed in aarp. this is generational theft again. we'll let the older people in this country. we say 200 million people will take this is what you're trying to do, but we know it's not going get funded. we know it's not going to be viable and we know it's not going to be solvent and the reason we know is the second it goes to propose the rate we will pass a law saying it can't. we will tell you no you can't because the political pressure will be allowed to do it. that's request it got slashed, slashed, slashed. why are we lying to ourselves. if we want to create a long-term care program let's throw it out there and see what the real numbers are and put the real numbers on the table. let's not play the game with

cbo. whatever the actuaries tell us, and we need to do, then let's just do it and let the premiums fall where they are, but let's don't play this lack of integrity of saying we're playing a game and saying we've got numbers when in fact we don't have numbers and to me it's disappointing. we've had a fairly good mark-up where we disagree and we've been straightforward. this is a charade as far as the cost, the benefits and who will participate in it and whether or not people will still get medicaid because they will. ten years from now, $50 isn't going to mean squat in terms of taking care of you and the long-term care at home. it's not going to help you at all. we'll raise the level at which title 19 is available. and we're playing a game that i don't believe is up to the level of the integrity of this committee and i really object. i find it disheartening that we would go down this road and play a game on numbers and knowing that we're not going to

accomplish what we want. ten years from now you'll look back and say, that wasn't what we intended at all. and it's not what we intend. we see the numbers and see where it's going so i would ask that maybe additional consideration to go back and throw the numbers out and let them fall where they are. that's a realistic expectation about what's going to happen. if we want to create a class act, let's do something that we're not charging, we're already strangling them, the generations that are following us and why would we do it again and why would we do it more? this is a repeat of the fundamental mistakes that we've made on major programs by not ensuring that they're solvent. i just think it's beneath us the way we're doing the numbers on this. let me remind my colleague, first of all, this is not a mandatory program, it's a voluntary program. you don't have to participate if you don't want to. it's a modest amount to ask people to contribute. the idea is to not replace medicaid, but to@@@@@ @ åc#r @r

there are people out there where this can make a difference, if you are in an independent living situation. this is completely voluntary and this is a worthwhile element. this is a program where trying to determine the absolute solvency -- this is required and you would have to change the law. i think that people recognize the cost of long-term care, allowing a place where the individuals can participate in this -- . if they want to. they may decide not to. >> so what happens when she raises the fees and everybody drops out and now who's responsible? who is responsible for the liability of everybody that's been there and paid up. i don't think that will be the case according to cbo.

if that happens, say they raise the fees to $100. who will come in? ultimately, our kids are going to be responsible for the unfunded liabilities of this, because if they do raise it enough, they will discourage new people from coming in. that's what's wrong with this game. senator hagan. mr. chairman, did we let private industry do this? we did, yes. the idea was to get them involved and in a way we think this will actually enhance the ability because this doesn't cover, obviously, the nursing home cost and so forth. the idea being that this would be a platform for people to have the kind of program so people that started into this, there's a likelihood that people will move into long-term care issues. >> my question is is there a company from an actuarial standpoint that will actually do

this? that's my concern that the premium coming in with the outlay going out, that's what my concern is -- sort of what big a hole, and private industry will actually look at this and say from an actuarial standpoint that they're willing to get into this business and left the solvency happen there because what really concerns me is i don't -- i worry about $50 a day. just the transportation costs of doing an hour treatment or two hours of treatment is going to surpass, i think, the $50. that's what concerns me. one of the issues -- >> in answer to your question -- >> yeah. the companies, i'm told, by staff would -- are insisting that this be a mandatory program

for this to participate. i'm sorry. the companies were insisting that this be a mandatory program for them to participate, and i don't think -- maybe others want to, but i think a mandatory program would be a mistake in my view, but that's what they're looking for in order for them to participate in response to your first question. >> i'm sure we couldn't mandate people do this. one of the concerns is the budget chairman in north carolina, we have a wonderful program called the community alternatives program that hopefully helps disabled adults stay in their homes and not go into a nursing home, but the average cost is $46,000 a person per year and not onthat only se 8,000 recipients and we have another program that serves

10,000 and that costs about $250 million a year program combined, these two programs have about 600 million just in north carolina for about 18,000 people and there's a wait list that's over two years' long. what i'm concerned with is the numbers with the premium coming in with the promise of the payment five years out that we are not being accurate with these calculations, that's my concern. it is a new medicaid program and that is not the model that we're using here for this. >> the intent is to keep people -- the intent is to keep people and not go to nursing homes and long-term care. >> that's yet savings of cbo reported the savings. what concerns me is the $50 a day is, i think, would be hard

to actually make it work. mr. chairman, the senator from north carolina raised an excellent point to pursue this. if you compare a private sector long-term care policy with this policy, the private sector long-term care policy which averages $200 a day in benefit for a married person with a spouse. >> can i ask what you're reading from? i can have that? it's compared to the average private policy. >> i can get a copy or for anybody else who wants a copy. the senator from north carolina

is making the valid point that at $50 a day you're probably creating a benefit that will be overwhelmed by the cost, but what my point is that you're not even funding the $50 a day cost. at a premium of $65 you can't do this. so, why not start out the solvency. if you're going to have $50 as a base benefit, at least make it a paid-for benefit. my language is really very simple. it just says beginning with the first year of the class program for each year thereafter, the secretary shall establish all premiums to be paid by enrollees for the year based on an actuarial analysis of the 75-year cost of the program that ensures solvency through the 75 years. why not start there? i mean, your position is well, if we start there people won't enroll. if we don't start there and people will enroll down the road

we'll end up with the taxpayer having to pick up the policies. >> my colleague keeps on saying so. this program is a solvent program and that's what the cbo letter tells us. the cbo letter doesn't say that. what the cbo letter says is if you adjust the premium and you adjust the benefits in the out years and you assume that's going to occur and then you can get to solvency, and they think that the premium should be $85, down the road and that's been the problem. why not have an actuarial. why not have the secretary have the actuaries come in and say, okay, maybe it's $65, maybe it's $ 5 you but at least have it done at least have solvency rather than from day one knowing we have insolvency. >> they require the secretary to do exactly that. >> it's solvent today and it's solvent for the next ten years and you set up a system.

>> no, the bill is only solvent in the next ten years because it scores in a ten-year window. >> that's what they do. >> as soon as we get outside of the ten-year window if you use the 75-year life, because that's what we use in medicare, medicaid and social security, it is immediately insolvent and the -- >> and the law requires the secretary to step up and make the at juddmedjustments to make solvent. >> you than from day one. once you get out of the window. >> we're talking in circles on this thing. >> mr. chairman? >> senator casey? >> these discussions are helpful, but i think sometimes when they are extensive we lose a couple of facts that should be on the table or we should re-introduce some facts. the earlier discussion about the congressional budget office and new scoring it was not by this

congressional. it was by the budget office. it wasn't something that was invented on this side of the table. secondly, with regard to the discussion about the class act just so the record is very clear, this is the july 6th congressional budget office letter this is paragraph 5, and i quote, the congressional budget office estimates that the proposals on that effect on the federal budget would be to reduce the budget deficit by about $5 billion during the 2010 to 2019 period. that's fact number one that we should re-introduce. now i'm going to page 2. the congressional budget office letter not the letter from a

bunch of democrats. the second full paragraph on page 2, the middle of the second full paragraph, and i quote. although outcomes in the not too distant future are very uncertain, the congressional budget office expects that actions by the secretary to reduce all benefits to the real daily minimum of $50 and raise the real average monthly premium for new enrollees to $85 some time after the decade by 2019 would be adequate and i'll frommed again, would be adequate to ensure that the program could pay benefits through 2050, unquote. we can debate about what's going to happen after 2019, what a secretary will do or not do, but the fact of the matter is you have part of this health care reform bill which is backed up by, i think, a pretty

unambiguous letter from the congressional budget office, and i think that's very important to put on the record because people reviewing the record and people watching sometimes we can not emphasize that enough. we're talk pg the budget office, not one point of view or one party. >> the second to last paragraph because there is significant ambiguity in the budget analysis because overall, cbo estimates that if the secretary did not modify the program to insurance actuarial soundness, the program would add to the budget deficits in a large and growing fashion, beginning a few years beyond the ten-year budget window. if the secretary did not -- did act to ensure this program solvency, the program and its effect on spending and medicare might or might not add to future

budget deficits depending on the specific actions that were taken. so the point here is that we have a historical context that's part b premium and we're now in a situation where the part b premium is running massive amounts, multiple trillions of unfunded liability even though it was started by a program that was supposed to be covered by the premium. we've started this program starting that it doesn't fully cover the premium. we know that this program will have to be significantly adjusted once you get past the ten-year window. in that adjustment you know congress has a tendency not to accept very well because you heard from their constituencies that they don't want to pay a high premium. it's illogical to start a premium that's insolvent on its face. i agree 100%. the cbo said that this bill is

now $650 billion out of whack. that's fine, but they didn't say that they covered 97% of the people with insurance. there are still $34 million people uninsured. so it's really a $1.6 trillion. the cbo said 611 -- the cost was 611 over ten years. there were 34 million people uninsured. >> they didn't say 650. that's point number one. point number two is with regard to this question with what the secretary does in the future, last time i checked, the congress plays a role there. we provide oversight. that's something the congress has a responsibility to discharge and that's going to be our obligation to do that. >> our track record remains extraordinarily weak in that area when it comes to adjusting

premium s premiums on it. >> mr. chairman? listening to the discussion what we're actually proposing is a loss leader. grocery stores do that over time. they have loss leaders, but they know that when people come in and buy those things that they've got the loss leaders, that they're going to see other things that they'll be inspired to get and those will have a higher mark-up and they will make money, if they go out of business -- and we don't have any other product that can pick up the slack. we than it's a loss leader and this class act premium would be $65. the private sector in order to do the same thing has to charge $175 to $250. of course, they say that if it were mandatory it would be less

and that then they don't have to do the loss leaders, but we say that volume will make a difference. but this is already estimated to be $85, and my father always talked about a couple of farmers that their product and took this to another state, and they took this over there and they sold this and they never could get as much as the cost for them to do this. what they would do is get a beer truck. we know that this is to small, and we're getting a product that we know will have to be made up. has to be made up, and in social security we had an opportunity

back in the '90s that would make insignificant changes that would change social security. i took a look the other day. most of those options are gone. if we put this loss leader in at this time, in ten years most of the option will be gone. you have to price the stuff right to begin with. it's still a bargain at 85 bucks or 110 bucks, it's still a bargain. and it's the obligation of whoever runs this program to point out that it's a bargain and sign people up, not to cut the price below cost. so i hope you'll accept this amendment. >> senator markey? >> thank you very much, mr. chair. a few points that i think are relevant to this debate just so we're talking apples and apples. the bill page 13 notes annual establishment of premium for new enrollees after the first year of the program.

the secretary shall annually establish the monthly premium for enrollment in the class program for any year after the first year after the program has an effect under this title. the re-establishment of new premiums kicks in very early in a year after the first year in which the program is in effect, and it then notesas it goes on, the calculated premium required for program solvency and says the secretary determines based on the most recent report of the board of trustees on the class fund and the advice and the independence advisory council or other information that the secretary deems appropriate that the monthly premiums and income for europe projected to be -- if they're projected to be insufficient with respect to the 20-year period with the enrollment class program as necessary. essentially what we have in this bill right now and i'm just

trying to make sure we're all talking about the same features of this bill is essentially a 20-year actuarial study and it's certainly legitimate to get into the details, but if one does get into those details, one finds that the report, and this is on page 47 on the version i have, the report provided shall include a statement of assets, so on and so forth and it is expected with disbursements will be made and it proceeds to talk about each of the next two fiscal years as projected over a 75-year period beginning with the current fiscal year, and it notes an actual opinion by the social security administration certifying the techniques and methodologies, so on and so forth. so we have in here earlier on a 20-year projection. we have instructions related to a 75-year period. i certainly haven't had the time

to take all these pieces and say how they compare to the points my colleagues are making, but there is -- i'm interested in this discussion. i do think it is very important that we set up a program in which there is a board with reports adopted from an actuary that proceeds to adjust the premiums and yet all that seems to be in here, and i certainly think it merits retrue see if, in fact, it's missing, but i just want to make sure that we're all aware that many elements being discuss side important are in this bill as it stands right now. i also want to note that when we're talking about costs, often the discussion really focuses on the cost to the public side and that is, indeed, important because we're responsible for that balance of income and outflow, but it's also important to understand that we have huge

costs driven in our health care system bthe fact that folks with some modest assistance will be able to stay in their home and end up in incredibly expensive nursing homes and that's why my state of oregon has been immersed in this issue trying to find ways to assist people to stay in their home and so there is an overall savings to the health care system, if in fact, and not to mention the savings of the system, but a phenomenal increase in the quality of life if seniors are able to stay in their home, so there is a public benefit and there is a reduction in cost to other sectors in the healthcare world because the citizens are not having to spend money on the public side and there was a lot of actuarial driven adjustments to the premiumsn this bill as written. >> mr. chairman, if i could respond to the senator because i think he's made excellent points on his last point. we all understand that the

importance of long-term care, health insurance is really a plus for the system, but it also needs to be a solvent -- a solvent long-term care health insurance, and there's no question that if people have long-term care health insurance that benefits the government significantly and the taxpayer as long as the system is a solvent one. on this last point which was to go through the language of the present bill, that's the problem with the present bill. on i mean, on the face of it using a 20-year score for your actuarial soundness is inherently flawed. you're selling these policies to people who were 25, 35, 45 years old. they're not going to retire for 30, 40 years. they're not going to need this policy for 30 or 40 years. the reason you're able to sell it to them at a premium is because over the period of years they obviously accumulate

massive amounts of money that can then be used to benefit them, but to use a 20-year window is absurd on its face for scoring this policy. and the soundness of this. the senator from oklahoma is right. this is outrageous gimmickry to use a 20-year soundness rule. i mean, 75 years is what we traditionally used around here on these programs. that's what the actuaries used. that's what should be used in this because it is the window when you collect the benefits and the people take advantage and collect the premiums and the people take advantage of the benefits. that's the window you're dealing with. >> especially with the age of our population. we know the largest demographic group in our country, which is the fastest growing demographic and that will increase significantly. if i'm to understand my colleague, say for the purpose of discussion here, to talk

about working out a number here that would at least project that kind of solvence they my colleague from new hampshire would then support this plan. >> that's what i do here. with the plan with a 75-year, people offer amendments and they've been voting. i'm curious. this action of the -- section of the bill. >> well, if it's a 75-year score. i'm proud to support the language. >> how about my colleague from oklahoma. >> if you're scoring if you're trying to get a score out, it's what we tried to do. we're not trying to be disingenuous, looking ahead, and i know you disagree with this point, but just to make it again and by having the insolvency number present, with the score, it's a difficult time scoring beyond that period of time obviously and we set up the mechanisms before you heard me say, sorry for repeating myself, but by requiring the cbo or --

requiring the secretary, rather, to determine on a yearly basis what would be required in order to make this solvent. >> we wouldn't start with a premium. you would just have a 75-year score. >> i'm just saying what the bill does now. i realize there's a disagreement about this. >> if you'll accept my amendment, i'll support the language. that's basically -- >> my point is we're trying to achieve the same result. nobody wants to be writing something that he believes is vulnerable. obviously with the exposure that's been articulated. we think we've solved that, my colleagues disagree with that and i'm trying to determine whether there's a determination to be supportive of this program. this amounts to over $1,000 a month and $50 a day. it's not insignificant. >> it's a pretty good contribution for a small amount of money to contribute to the long-term care needs. that's much more expensive, but it allows people to stay in their homes and get the kind of care they may need for a couple hours a day and whatever else it may mean.

that's not insignificant. we're debating about it and none of us argue about the solvency issue. we have to answer that. we've answered it one way here. my colleague from new hampshire suggested another way of achieving the solvency question. so i'm trying to determine whether or not we can do that and achieve the same results here. obviously, there will be less savings and that have been reported by cbo than we're talking about $58 billion. you'll save more. no, you'll save more. you'll get a lot higher number. >> can i respond to the chairman for a minute? let me do this. i want to accept this amendment. i want to ask my colleagues to do so. this is a point we all agree on. the last thing i want to do is sit here and create a situation that we're all debating whether or not we have this trillion dollar or whatever the question is for 75 years. i think it's a great idea. i think it's something we ought to include in our bill and it's a major gap in healthcare. you end up with the people living longer, having good

quality of lives and liking a choice of not being pushed into a nursing home. none of us want to see the medicaid cost and we all know what happens. families do it every day, whether there's impoverished someone at home and that put costs on our state. this is the only program i know of in any of our bills that actually brings down potentially medicaid costs and tom is correct on this. obviously, it's not mandatory, and we think it will delay it anyway with people rushing to that window, if it does that, that's a savings worthwhile. i'm prepared to accept this amendment and as senator enzi said, it's a bargain. if we're talking at $85, i'd like to do the student cap on this to have a cap on students to get them in. i'd like to bring students in. i hope it doesn't pose difficulties for people, but let's accept the amendment. let me hear from the this. any objection to that? although in favor of the greg

amendment say aye. congratulations, senator. >> i appreciate your willingness. >> we'll go to final passage of the bill. thought i would take a chance and don't want to miss an opportunity. >> i want to second your comments, it could have a very positive impact and get people to buy long-term insurance is -- >> it is voluntary, not mandatory, its your own money putting up. it's not government money -- except management -- >> could i share? i agree with the philosophy, we need to create something to fill this. i have a mother that i have people with all of the time. significantly expensive process. what happens if it doesn't float. in other words if we do the 75-year and look back and say what the premiums are, what cbo

said, she has the legislation presently crafted -- but i'm saying down the road if it's not working. >> going to be minimum 110, $120. >> or can terminate the amount of enroll ees coming in. >> let's say we terminate the program. who has the liability for the unfunded -- >> the reason she's doing that is because we're not going to be able to meet those obligations, that's why we empower the secretary to do that. if we do, so what we're saying s. the programs terminated. what about the obligation for people continuing -- >> because what you've done is allowed those people, made a determination that there's -- this is going to run into a deficit and therefore you terminate new enroll ees but have enough coming in, as i assume the case -- correct? enough there to pay out act

wearily the responses to those in the program. >> any additional amendments in this section? if not, that's a good piece of work. i thank you. i enjoy working with u. you made a good case. let's move to -- what's the next section? senator coburn, i suspect you may have an amendment or two.

>> mr. chairman, i am not going

to offer an amendment. >> yeah, i'm sorry. >> i have no amendment to offer. >> i enjoy the conversation. you have been very constructive. ns, you've been very constructive in these debates. >> where are we going, next section? >> i was going to ask everybody to take a look at my amendment, number 34. which talks about the burden this places on the social security administration. and i'm not going to offer -- and withdraw it, but i would like people to take a look at it. it brings up some of the points of in addition to the solvency where we're shifting the burden to social security administration to make a lot of these determinations.

i'm not sure they have the manpower to do that and it's something we'll with to take care of in other bills. >> what we probably ought to do is when we look at something like this. this may be -- i think we included as the number -- 1.2 billion over ten years in the bill, if i'm not mistaken on chart was included administrative cost of the program over ten years. >> i had a question about that. where did we get $125 million a year to manage this program? where's the data that backs up $125 million? >> why that number particularly? let me ask. >> where do we come up with the number of $125 million? where did we come up with that cost? >> why does it cost that amount? >> introduce yourself for the record. >> i know connie.

what we found was and again, this doesn't come out of the federal treasury, this comes out of the trust fund. what they assumed it was 1.2 billion over ten for costs. that is -- two things, at the federal level in terms of being able to collect the money due to the trust fund and all that. >> that's cbo number, not our number. >> i wanted to know where it came from. >> i think to the point senator enzee is trying to make, we would have to deal with this at the finance committee, who are asking to actually certify by records you would bring that you have a functional limitation, to areas of problems is going to be the dd centers in the local areas. states use them for state operated functions as well as for social security determinations and redeterminations, which are very complicated. it's a five-step process. that's who we left it with right

now. do they need more money to hire more people? we need to continue to talk when it comes to finance. we know we need to have the people to do that work. >> thank you, very much. additional amendments and -- what's the next area we're going to? >> we've got left over issues. what is it 12? why don't we recess. we've done a pretty good morning to deal with this section, a pretty good accomplishment. so i'm going to declare it a victorious morning and we'll come back at 2:30. we have the swearing in ceremony of our new colleague, senator al franken of minnesota. we'll stand in recession until 2:30.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] >> day nine of the senate's work on health-care legislation begins with a closed session. our coverage will begin after they open their meeting to cameras.

>> next on c-span, several cabinet secretaries testify on climate change and energy legislation, and then a hearing on detainee military trials. and topics on "newsmaker"washinn journal" include supreme court nominations and judge sotomayor. >> how is -cpsan funded? -- c-span funded?? >> private funding? >> donations? >> i want to say this is my tax dollars? >> 30 years ago, america's cable companies created it c-span as a

public service. there is no government mandate for government money. >> and now several cabinet secretaries will testify on climate change and energy legislation, including secretary chu, lisa jackson of the epa, tom vilsach. barbara boxer chairs this committee. >> to the hearing will come to order and we will welcome everybody here, we are happy to see this turn out. we have received a letter, we just received a letter from the republicans asking for a number of hearings on a number of topics. these hearings are already

scheduled and we have been working with voinovich because he has been requesting days. these -- these. we have several important members of the administration here, and if anyone needs to go for five minutes, this will be fine. you can go five minutes. let me open this in this way. this is the beginning of an effort to pass legislation that will reduce the dependence on foreign oil, and create energy jobs and protect our children from pollution.

the nation that aggressively addresses an issue of climate change will be the nation that will thrive. the nation that will lead and will be the nation that will prosper. here is what he writes. the ability to develop clean power is going to become the defining measure of the economic standing of the country, environmental health and energy security over the next 50 years. we know that this promise is being borne out even in this recession. in california, the hardest-hit by the financial crisis, the area that has outperformed every other is the creation of clean energy jobs and businesses. a report found that more than 10,000 new clean energy businesses were launched in california from 1998 until 2007.

during that time the clean energy investments created 125,000 jobs in california, generating these 15,000 times faster than the state as a whole. we have held 14 hearings on global warming since january 2007 and we will have many more. we are well aware of the work that is done on the dangers of the bush said ministration -- that is done on global warming by the bush of ministration and the obama administration. as the liggett the impact that this is happening, -- happening, we see the threats that could happen, including the loss of species and air pollution. i am happy to welcome the

leaders of the obama administration as they ask us to act on the bill in the house. i expect to hear doubt and fear from the other side. 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 te, 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 no subsidizing the east and west coast at the expense of >> and no to sending our manufacturing jobs to china and india. we say yes to the above energy policy, including nuclear and clean coal, geothermal, greater access to reliable energy, and if we do this we could stop the reliance on the middle east. i am anxious to see what kind of a document we will left. >> thank you for your constructive words. 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 planás@@@@@ 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 ne 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 to/@@@@@@#78r . 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 amer)ca@ úr

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 the average american household hh @ d e)ú1)g 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 2percent 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. adminirative 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@@@@@@@@@ @ @ @ @ @ , @ @@@@ 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 expec 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 farmerwill 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? 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 ose 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 [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] >> you are watching c-span, public affairs programming courtesy of america's cable companies. next, a hearing on detainee military trials. topics on washington journal

include federal stimulus spending and consumer protection legislation and sonia sotomayor. " washington journal begins every weekday at 7:00 eastern. the ninth day of the senate health committee's work continues with a closed door session beginning at 10:00 eastern. the live coverage will begin when the committee opens their meeting to the cameras. >> justice department officials said only voluntary statements from the detainees can be used in military trials. the testimony came during the senate armed services committee hearing. this panel is about two hours.

>> good morning. the committee is meeting today to consider the important issue of military commissions and the trial of detainees in war. on june 25 we've voted to continue it a provision in the national defense authorization of fiscal year 2010. this has been sent to the senate for consideration. and i thank our ranking member, john mccain and lindsay gram for their work on this matter. , article 3 of the geneva convention prohibits -- article 3 of the geneva convention

prevents this, unless they afford all of the judicial guarantees that are considered essential by civilized people. that a military tissue can be regularly constituted by the standards of the military justice system, if there is a practical need that explains the deviation from the court martial practice. similarly, the court found that the judicial guarantees that are recognized as indispensable by civilized people requires a minimum that any deviation from the procedures be justified by evident, practical need. the supreme court found that the military commissions established by the military order of

president bush on november 14, 2001 failed to make this task. the military commissions also clearly failed to meet this test as well, because they delayed from the court martial practice by preventing the use of coerced testimony, even when the direct evidence is available, and by establishing a presumption that the procedures applicable will not apply to military commissions. the failure to establish a system with fairness by the supreme court has led some people to conclude that the usage of military commissions can never be fair were critical

or consistent with the principles of justice. this fails to meet the establishment of the supreme court and i believe that the military commissions can be designed to meet those standards and if they do, they can play a legitimate role in prosecuting the violations. president obama says that he believes this as well. the president said -- dating back to the revolutionary war, they allow for the safety and the security of the participants and the presentation of evidence, gathered from a

battlefield that cannot always be effectively presented in court. i am continuing this from president obama. we will no longer permit the use of evidence, and the statements using the grating interrogation methods, and we will no longer place the burden of proof to say that heresay is unreliable and we will allow detainee's to seek their own council. this will make the military commissions more credible as a means of administering justice and i will use -- i work with

members of both parties, on legislation to make certain that these commissions are fair and effective. the procedures have changed over the years, but as the procedures of governing best -- these are typically those with a court- martial, the uniformity principle is not inflexible, and it does not preclude all departures for use by court martial. but any departure of the supreme court is related to what necessitates this. we have tried to apply this in adopting the procedures for military commissions that we have included in the bill. this ruling addresses a long series of problems, is currently

in law. relative to the coerced testimony, this would eliminate the double standard under which these statements are admissible if they were obtained prior to december 30, 2005. there is a provision that would eliminate the extraordinary language that places the burden on the detainee's to show that coercion was used against them. relative to the issue of access, to classified evidence, a provision what eliminate the unique requirements that have hampered the ability of the defense team's to obtain information and has led to litigation. we would substitute these procedures based on the code of military justice, to make

certain that the government cannot be required to disclose authorize information. and this would reverse the existing presumptions in the military commissions act of 2006 that says that rules and procedures for trial by court- martial would not apply. this says, except as otherwise provided, the rules are applicable by short -- court- martials and they shall have trials under this. the exceptions to this rule are suggested by the supreme court, tailored to the unique circumstances of the conduct of the military intelligence operations. three years ago the committee considered similar legislation

and i asked them to apply a couple of tests, to alleviate the procedures that we establish if the tables are turned and our troops are subject to similar procedures. second, will the stand up to scrutiny and judicial review? those of the right questions to consider and with the language that we have included in the national defense authorization act, this means both tests. over the last few years, we have seen the legal advisor forced to step aside, after a military judge found that he compromised his objectivity after aligning himself with the prosecution. we had a prosecutor resigned, over serious deficiencies in the commission process and the chief

defense counsel placed serious concerns about the resources made available to the commissions, writing that regardless of the other procedures, no trial system would be fair and less the deficiency -- if this is rectified. even if we were able to enact new legislation, that addresses the shortcomings, there is a long way to go to restore public confidence in the military commissions and the justice that is produced. we will not be able to restore confidence at all unless we substitute the new procedures and language to address the problems with the existing status. i want to thank john mccain and the other members of the committee for all of the word that they have put into this issue, and we will be considering the entire bill,

including the provisions, by next tuesday. >> sen. inhofe will make a comment. >> i am in the environment and public works committee and i have a series of questions about placing these people in the u.s. prison system, the security risks and how they will be tried, using the complex that we have seen down there, that is designed for tribunals, the rules of evidence that are between a tribunal in the federal court system, and some questions about the advisability

of reading miranda rights to captured terrorists. i appreciate the opportunity to make that statement. >> i want to join you in welcoming the witnesses on both panels this morning. i appreciate the advice and the experience, in these matters that the witness is bring to the discussions on military commissions. we have led the way in dealing with these issues and developing legislation on these matters, sometimes in cooperation with the white house and sometimes over strong objections. the authorization act for 2010, which was brought from the committee unanimously takes a leading role by including changes to the military commissions act of 2006.

i am happy to work with you and others, of this legislation and we have not resolve all of the issues from the other aspects of the policies, and i believe that we have made substantial progress to strengthen the military commission system, to provide a careful balance between the protection and the national security and allow this to move forward with greater efficiency to a just and fair result. the first panel is composed of experts from within the government, including senior officials of the justice department. the witnesses on the second panel have similar experience and they are now outside the government. i am interested in hearing the view of witnesses from both areas on implementing the current system, including the

speed of bringing the cases to trial, and what should be done to make the system work, ways to deal with the important issue of protection of classified information, whether the current system is adequately addressing terrorist acts by al qaeda and the operatives that occurred before september 11, 2001, such as the bombing of the east african embassies and the cole. if the strike the right balance between the conditions of an ongoing war, whether the definition of unlawful enemy combatants or underprivileged belligerent, should be modified. or the changes should be made in the review of military commissions. the hearing is focused on

military commissions, and there are a number of difficult issues related to these policies, that we must come to grips with in a comprehensive fashion, before we can close guantanamo bay as obama has pledged. these issues are among the most difficult that this administration is facing. i look forward to working with you on this, -- >> we are going to hope from the inside panel, and the departments of defense. >> thank you very much.

you have my prepared statement and i will dispense with the full reading of it, and made some opening comments. >> all the statements will be made part of the record. >> i want to thank this committee for taking the initiative, to look for a reform of military dimensions. in this speech at the national archives on may 21, obama called for the reform of military commissions, and pledged to work for this. speaking on behalf of the administration, we are happy to work with you on this. military commissions should contribute to the national security by becoming a form of trying to people who violate the law of war. by making the process more fair and credible, we enhance our

nation's security by providing an effective alternatives to bring to justice the terrorists to violate the law of war. those are the remarks i wanted to make. i look forward to your questions. >> thank you very much. next is the assistant attorney general from the department of justice. >> thank you. i come from the justice department and this is my first appearance before the committee. i thought i will explain how my work relates to the committee. the national security division, that combines -- combines all of the department of justice and its personnel, the basic mission is to protect national security with the rule of law and civil

liberties. we support all the methods for achieving this protection, not limited to prosecution before a military commission. in the last administration we had a series of federal prosecutors from across the country to assist the offer -- officers and the military commissions at guantanamo bay. i can assure you that this will continue. the man from that place is now my deputy. and a member has gone back to active duty and is the lead prosecutor. as the president explained, when prosecution is appropriate, we will prosecute terrorists, in the 1990's i've prosecuted violent extremists, they engaged

in extensive [unintelligible] but the prosecution exceeded not because we incarcerated these people but because also, we deprived them of any shred of legitimacy. military commissions can do the same, for the people who violate the law of war, not only to detain them, but also to brand them as war criminals. to do this effectively, the commissions must first be reformed. this is a tremendous step in that direction. as you know from my written testimony, the administration is appreciating the bill, and supports much of this. you have made an incredible contribution.

i thank you for inviting me here and i look forward to answering your questions. >> thank you, members of the committee. thank you for providing me with the opportunity to show my view of the defense authorization act. in 2006 when we were trying to establish a permanent framework, i have the opportunity to share my view with the house armed services committee. at that time i recommended that a comprehensive framework should clearly establish the jurisdiction of the commission, set a baseline standard of structure, consistent with u.s. law, and prescribed substantive offenses. i stated that the code of military justice should be used

as a model. the legislative proposal addresses the concerns that had in 2006 following the enactment of the military commissions act. i believe that this legislation is a balanced foreign market to provide important rights, as it provides the means of prosecuting inamed belligerence. i would identify two areas where the additional clarity would be most helpful. the legislation relies on the rules of evidence, to address the handling of classified information. but the military rule does not have a very robust history. over time we have discovered this, they have some benefits

and the military rules and the use of classified information fall short of the overall goal. for over 20 years, the courts have relied upon the classified information act, and in light of the history, as well as the practical difficulties of using this, i recommend using a modified process for the military commissions going forward. i agree with the provision calling for a military judge to look into the allegedly coerced statements, to determine reliability. to assist the practitioners in the field, i recommend a list of considerations, to be of value waited. those considerations should include the degree to which

these statements are corroborated, and to what degree the will of the person making these statements was overborne. thank you for the opportunity to testify and i look forward to answering your questions. >> as the advocate general of the united states navy, your testimony is important, that we recognize that you are speaking in a personal capacity. we would ask if there are differences between the uniformed navy, and your own personal view, we will ask the secretary if there are any such differences. since you put it that way, we will make that inquiry of the secretary of the navy. we will try a 6 minute round.

we have a room that is reserved for some other purpose at 1230. i hope to have enough time. let me ask you this first, mr. johnson, i quoted from the hand in case in my opening remarks and said, that the court -- the regular military courts have the court-martials established with the congressional statute, but they said a military commission can be constituted, if there is a need that explains deviation from the court martial practices. my first question is, in your

view, does this conform to the hamden standard? >> as you -- as you noted, this requires and of course this was at a time when the military commissions act of 2006 did not exist, but the military commissions -- i will not get this exactly right but they should depart from these courts, only in situations based on practical need. the proposed legislation, definitely brings us closer to the model, and the circumstances under which the military commissions -- contemplated by

this bill, is different, this is in our judgment, circumstances that are necessary, given the needs that are here. for example, there is no requirement of miranda rights, proposed by this legislation, article 31 is specifically excluded, from the application here, article 31 calls for the miranda warning, in these circumstances. it also takes what i believe is a very practical approach to this, as you have noted in your opening remarks. the burden is no longer on the opponent, to demonstrate that

this should be excluded. there is a notice requirement, and if the proponent of this -- can demonstrate reliability and materiality, and this is not available as a practical matter, this can be part of the military operations and this could be admitted. military commissions are different in that most often what you have in military justice is the punishment of the u.s. military. this is directed by a domestic nature, and the military commissions, for violations of the law of war, the military

cannot be expected in changing how they do business in the battlefield. this is appropriate with evident, practical need. with the rules of authenticity, that are set forth, this is not the requirements that you see in civilian courts, this is what we would know is the strict chain of custody. there is a more practical approach for intelligence collection. >> if there -- if you can expand in the places where we fall short in complying with this, i would appreciate that.

can you expand your answer? and let me ask you -- in your judgment, do you believe that the bill is drafted, that these provisions conform to that standard? >> to the extent that the principle applies to this system of commissions, the department of justice mentioned some of these. we have recommendations for change. but these are not rooted here. >> i am asking you questions. it is not appropriate for the department of defense to prosecutor terrorists? do you believe that this is a program for the department of defense to prosecute the alleged

terrorists, instead of the department of justice doing all of the prosecuting? >> the president has made it clear in his speech on may 21 that we will prosecute in federal court. and where there is a violation under the reform system, we will also prosecute the law of war violations. the president said it best, when he said we should use all instruments of national power, and this includes military commissions. >> i thank you, my time has expired. >> thank you. if the trials were held in guantanamo, or the united states, would there be any difference in the proceedings? >> if the military commissions

were held in the continental united states, we would have to consider the possibility that some level of due process may apply, that the courts have not determined that applies right now. the system has to be carefully and evaluated, -- >> what you say is that there could be a significant difference in procedure if they were held there or the united states of america. >> i do not know if it would be significant. >> we have to know what your view is because it may change how we shaped the legislation, if they will have more rights -- i think the people should know that. >> one thing i mentioned is that

when it comes to the admissibility of statements, the administration believes a voluntary standard should apply that takes into account the reality of military operations and we believe that this is something that the due process should of what -- should require if the commission's come to the united states. >> i hope that you will -- talk about what you think the difference will be, for the location of those trials. it is very important. your statement on the second page says that it is the view of the administration that there is a serious risk of involuntary statements for the military commission -- and this is unconstitutional.

does this infer that these individuals have constitutional rights? >> yes. >> what are those constitutional rights? citizens of the united said -- citizens who were not members of the united states of america, at war with the united states? >> this applies to military commissions and imposes a constitutional floor on the procedures that the government has in such conditions. >> what would these be? >> there are a number of due process rights and we believe that there is a serious risk that the courts will find that the voluntary standard is required for admission of this? >> so these people in guantanamo who were part of 9/11

or have committed war against the united states are entitled to constitutional rights. >> the due process clause guarantees some requirements. that is on the conduct and the rules for these commissions. >> that is very interesting, i had never proceeded under that assumption. they are entitled it to geneva protection under these commissions, which applied to the rules of war. i did not know of a time in american history where the enemy's were given constitutional rights? >> there is a difference between their rights -- they would not be entitled to the rights under prisoners of war. >> there are the geneva

conventions --, article 3 -- common article 3. we have now established that the enemy combatants -- that they are now entitled to rights under the rights of u.s. citizens? >> that is not correct. both in the way of how we describe this as a due process requirements that applies to the commissions, even if they are prosecuting the aliens -- it is not right to equate the rights and the rules for the commission proceedings against aliens, with those against u.s. citizens. these may be an extremely complicated area. >> your statement -- there is a

risk that the courts would hold the involuntary statements, this is unconstitutional. that means they have constitutional rights. i know that there are other questions from the witnesses, if there is a second round i will take advantage of this. >> thank-you to the witnesses. >> let me begin with an expression of appreciation, for the process that the administration has gone through to come to the place where you are at today. as we have gone through this deliberation, about how to treat prisoners of war, those suspected of violating the law of war, it seems that we have had a hard time putting this in

the context of our own sense of fairness, related to the need war. this is a war against terrorists, they do not fight in uniform or for nation states, and this may go on for a very long time. but it seemed that there was no sense to the people who were arguing that these individuals should be tried in the federal courts. i do not think they have the constitutional rights that we associate with american citizenship and they have not violated federal criminal law. i know that there were some that suspected that the obama administration review would

recommend that these go into federal court, and i appreciate that you have not come to that conclusion although i have questions about some of the parts of what you have done but this is a very open-minded and very fair and ultimately historic process that he went through, and you reached the right balance. you were asked a moment ago, if the military commissions provision of the national defense authorization act worked with the hamden ruling, the believe that the military commissions are within the requirements of the geneva convention? >> yes. with room to spare. one of my personal objectives,

frankly, is that we devise a system that will import with the united states law. >> i thank you for the answer and i agree with you. i appreciate that these provisions are not only within the requirements of the geneva convention, but with room to spare. we hold ourselves to a high standard, sometimes standards that are so high that they are unrealistic, and may be self- destructive in the context of the war that we are in. what we have provided for in this legislation, let me ask you

a specific question that came up. in the light of the judgment of the supreme court, this suggested the approval of the court of appeals, for armed forces. this is the place where the accused can appeal from a judgment in the military commission. this is not a standard court as you know. why is the administration looking for the right of appeal from the military commissions, to the article 3 of the federal courts? >> let me take a stab of -- let me talk about this.

we believe that this should be an expanded scope of review to deal with the facts as well as the law. we believe that we should retain the commission review, and then have appealed directly to the washington circuit. this would be a several tier level of review, and this would resemble in many respects, the justice because you have the levels of the court, rather than the trial level court, so it would be our press -- our preference to have this -- and we would have the expanded scope of the review. >> so the changes in this regard

are not rooted in the uniformity principles as was stated in hamden, but are rooted in some other requirements about what is fair and just? >> this is a fair statement. let me ask you to talk about what i said at the beginning, and answer this in the time that i have left. why have you reached the judgment on behalf of the administration where the president's -- where he said that these cases should not primarily go to the federal courts? >> as you know, the president signed an executive order for a review of each situation and this is ongoing. as you have seen in one

instance, someone with a pending military commissions case was transferred to the southern district of new york. it is fair to say that what they have concluded is that these people should be prosecuted for violations, and the military commissions justice is the more appropriate form depending on many different factors and you have a situation where they have violated the law and we want to keep the military commissions as an option, whether this is almost anyone, will stay that way, i did not say. the review is ongoing. >> i want to close the story on this, i think the committee has made the right judgment, the

right of appeal should be to the u.s. court of appeals, and not to the circuit court for this district. thank you. >> i would like to compliment you and sen. king for coming up with a new bill, i think that this would help. any verdict would work its way into the civilian courts, -- so nobody will be in prison based on the military commission that has not had a day in federal court. >> assuming there is an appeal. >> when it comes to the idea of location, the court room is set up to do these trials, and i

would be interested to get your thoughts about how the location matters. in nothing treating this as an extension of the united states would mattered greatly. i would like to know how location will matter. one of the issues that we are grappling with his material support for terrorism. this is not a traditional charge in the lot of conflict. we incorporate the assimilated crimes. can this document be used? >> >> you can bring this through the assimilated crime act, and this can be charged. >> some of these people can be charged under both sets of law. >> do you agree with this theory

that we could use this doctrine to incorporate the military support? >> there is still the question as to whether this was an offense -- >> if you were able to incorporate the title 18 defense -- >> to the extent that this is viable. >> when it comes to the standards of evidence, are you familiar with these procedures when they try the international war criminals? one thing that i would suggest, i think these rules are more restrictive. >> we spoke about this in 2006, looking at an international tribunal for rwanda and yugoslavia. they have very liberal rules.

>> what kind of standard do they use with the statements of the accused? >> this is the reliability. >> if you compare the military commission system, to the international court trial, we're much more liberal in terms of providing protections to the accused that he would get if you went there. i have no problem with that -- that is a good thing. we should go back to what the courts are likely to lead get. this is a bit confusing, it is not about the constitutional status as an american citizen, but they will be looking for due process and they will be making a judgment as to whether this

means the minimum standard of the american court. when you look at the history of military commissions, the german trials are not what you would want to use. those were conducted in a matter of days, and they passed scrutiny, but when we look back in time, this is not something that we will want to repeat? >> i essentially agree with what you have just said. this was not the finest hour. there were some questions about where you can apply this, -- >> do you have a problem with these circumstances in terms of decommissioning statements? >> i think that this is the right test, the position is that

this should be used to establish the voluntary nature that will apply to the wartime situation. >> the final plot is about the difference between the article free trial and the military commissions trial. what percentage of the detainee's do you believe will be held off the battlefield but will never go to a military commission trial? >> a number is tough to say at this time, the review of the detainee's is ongoing. we should all assume that for purposes of national security, there will be a category of people that we believe must be retained, for reasons of public

safety and national security. these are not necessarily people that we will prosecute. >> the evidence is not what you would take to beyond a reasonable doubt, with national security implications? >> under the domestic criminal law, is there any theory that would justify detaining a criminal suspect without a trial? >> in our own domestic law -- >> in the military setting, is this a permissible behavior to hold somebody under the theory that they are a belligerent enemy combatant, indefinitely -- twice this is a recognized principle of the law of war. >> the supreme court held this in 2004. >> i agree with mr. johnson.

>> the only theory that would allow us to detain somebody indefinitely without a criminal trial would be the fact that we found them to be part of the gannett -- enemy force, if they are still dangerous and cannot be released. a process that would render this decision. >> i do not know if dangerous this is even part of this. -- dangerousness is even part of this. i do think that the court said that sometime, this could run out, but essentially i agree with this. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> >> what you have said in terms of geography is, geography

matters in terms of article 2, of the court martial -- or the geography, and where are these military commissions, these hearings are held, if it's outside of the content of the united states, then perhaps, the u.s. court would not or could not intervene to provide extra protection, under the constitution's. >> the analysis depends on a variety of factors and this -- this may be the case that geography will have a part of this but this will be difficult to predict exactly what will happen. >> is there a difference between

guantanamo in terms of what they may do with an article 2. >> this is a matter that is currently in litigation. i want to be very careful to say that there could be differences. >> what are your thoughts about geography? >> much of this design charter territory of the courts, what rights if anyone applied to the detainee's. i would say that this is arguable that -- whether the united states or any place else -- they do not enjoy the constitutional rights of an american citizen, that they would enjoy. >> what i hear you say is that, under current law, the rights

are at this level, but it is not clear if the courts could rule, that they increase in numbers and death? >> it is fair to say that, some level of a voluntary requirement -- this would be applied, to what we would offer in a military commissions prosecution, and because in the constitution would apply if these cases were prosecuted in the united states. in practice, the military commissions judges have engaged in an analysis anyway, in assessing the ability to prosecute some of these detainees.

there was an analysis at guantanamo, and many of the commission judges have gone through a voluntary analysis with these statements. >> mr. johnson, can you speak to the process of the review task force. i think 779 people were detained here, 544 have been transferred with 229 remaining. is this a fairly accurate number? >> those numbers are accurate to me. >> do we know the status of these people? there are those that could be tried in either article, do we know how many have already been determined for article 3? i understand that this means

that they would be coming to federal courts for prosecution. >> i do not have precise numbers for you, but i believe that is fair to assume that we will have detainee's in the five categories that were outlined in the speech. some of them will be prosecuted in article 3, or -- or we did have the military commissions, some of them in the fifth category that are not prosecuted for different reasons, for the reasons of safety of the american people and national security, we may detain them with the authority of this congress and the supreme court. >> do you have any idea when this may be completed? >> this will be before the end of the year. >> this year? >> in your written testimony, you spoke about the amendment to

the commission's report, indicating that for the most part, the matters that are of concern for the commissions act -- the on the issues that you highlight, is there anything else that should be addressed? >> that is what i was referring to, that we were unable to get back in 2006. >> i suppose that, in asking what the administration -- when the administration is hoping to hold a military tribunal, is it fair to ask about the view of where to hold these tribunals, as geography may matter? >> we have made no decisions about this, congress and the supplemental that was recently

passed, they asserted their rights and prerogatives, to know what we have in mind. >> this is what i am asking. no decisions have been made, and we continue to consider various options. >> there may be some consensus with this? >> in the supplemental language, you have mandated this. >> thank you very much. >> i would like to ask how the executive branch will make a determination about who will be tried? >> this is something that we have actually been working on. as the repnt