atlantic city. it only costs about $1500. it's ridiculous. enough is enough with the taxes. we need to help each other and pull together. that's what we need to focus on is everybody being entrepreneurs and do whatever your god-given talent. people helping people. thank you. >> that's it for washington journal for today. thank you for joining us. . .

coming up this weekend on booktv, today the late robert mcnamara from 1995 talks about his book, in iraq respect, the tragedy and lessons of vietnam. and joe scarborough on the bush administration, the republican party and the obama presidency. afterwards readers on sunday night. also, books on the economy. how a second grader beats wall street. a panel of authors talks about the current economic crisis and what to do about it. and congressman henry waxman on his 35 years in the house. go to our website for more

information. >> a senate hearing where several cabinet secretaries will talk about climate change. barbara boxer is the chair of the public works committee. this is over two and a half hours. we received a letter from the republican side asking for a number of hearings on a number of topics. these are already scheduled, and we have been working for this

-- with senator voinovich on this. we appreciate your interest on this. i will also ask people if they can keep their opening statements to two minutes if possible. you are welcome to take five minutes if you need it. we have vote -- for their important leaders of the administration here. if anyone needs to go five minutes, that is fine. let me open this. today's hearing is to kick off the effort to pass legislation that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil, create millions of jobs and protect our children from pollution. the same as thomas frieden spoke -- the theme is thomas

frieden is a book. here is what he writes. the ability to develop clean power and energy efficient energy will become the in terminally health and security over the next six years. we know this premise is being borne out even in this discussion. in california, which has been one of the hardest hit and the housing crisis and financial crisis and a state budget crisis, the area that has outperformed every other has been the creation of clean energy jobs and businesses. a recent report said that more than 10,000 clean energy businesses were launched in california from 1998-2007.

during this period, clean energy investment created more than 125,000 jobs in california, and generated jobs 16% faster than our economy in our state. our committee has held more than 40 hearings on a global warming we are going to hold many more, as i stated before. we are well aware of the work done on the dangers of global warming by the bush administration and the obama administration. a few weeks ago, this administration released a sobering report on the impact of global warming across the united states, and the devastating effects that will come if we do not take action. droughts, floods, fires colossus' species, damage to agriculture, worsening -- fires, loss of species, damage to agriculture. to act on the heels of the

passage of the waxman-markey bill in the house. today i expect you'll hear fierce words of doubt and fear from the other side of the aisle regarding our legislative efforts. this is consistent with a pattern of no -- no, we can't, no, we won't. i believe that when the vote is eventually taken on our bill, the committee will reflect the president's attitude which is, yes we can, yes, we will protect colleagues, this is a challenge to our generation that offers hope, not fear, anyway out of the environmental and economic challenges we face so that our children and our grandchildren will have a bright future. thank you very much. senator in hounhoffe. >> thank you. despite the -- on june 26, by

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

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

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

heartland, and no to bureaucracy and red tape, no to the largest tax increase in american history, at no more sending jobs to china and india. we say yes to all the above energy proposals, including clean coal, natural gas, wind, geothermal. we say yes to greater access to all sources of clean and reliable energy. that we have right here at home. if we do this, we could stop all reliance on the middle east. i am most anxious to see what kind of a document we will have a chance to debate. thank you. the senator, thank you for your constructive word. -- >> senator, thank you for your constructive words. the markey bill, the portion of which deals with the tax credit -- there are no new taxes, but there is a tax credit for consumers. >> let me make an inquiry here,

madam chairman, because in the event that after each statement is made, since you want to refute them, i think we should have the chance to do the same thing. >> ok, that is fair enough. >i do not mind if you want to refute it. go ahead. >> ok. what we are dealing with here is going to be a large tax increase. i was interested in some of the cbo reports that said what we are going to do is take this large sum of money that comes in under cap and trade and return it to the people who are paying taxes. well, it is coming from them originally, so i would certainly not want to give any credibility to any kind of an evaluation as to the cost to the american people, if it is predicated on the assumption that we have a cap and trade tax, raising huge amounts of money from the american people in the form of energy costs, >> i stand by my

words. if there is any dispute, let me know. lundberg, barraso, alexander, voinovich. is there agreement on that? oh, senator gillibrand -- is sheet -- ok. >> this is indeed a critical conversation for the future of our nation. transforming our energy economy is essential to the status quo is unacceptable, whether the minister dollar, for dollar a gallon gas, fiasco in which we are spending $1 billion to $2 billion a day on foreign oil, a historic connection to burning july to a carbon -- the geological carbon that we can break. and certainly our national insecurity that comes from

dependence on a few foreign nations for critical energy supply. this status quo must change to strengthen our nation in this generation and the next. we need to end our dependence on foreign oil and foreign energy. we need to take and break the connection between burning geological carbon and -- we need to leave the world that 20 to lead the world and renewable resources so that -- we need to lead the world in renewable resources. we certainly need to underwrite the innovation of our capitalist economy and in surging ahead of the world and creating these products. we can do all this by restructuring energy economy through this bill.

if we fail to do that, we will continue to be dependent upon a few small nations for critical energy supplies. we will continue to spend $1 billion to $2 billion or more every day overseas, and we certainly will continue to i am honored to be here and i look forward to the testimony. i apologize that i will do running back and forth to do health care markup. >> thank you. before i call senator alexander, senator inhofe and i thought as long as we have a quorum we could approve a couple of nominees that have been waiting to be approved. why don't we hear from senator alexander and that we can go to that process. >> thank you.

senator bond has to leave, and i could ask -- i want to ask if he could go before me if that is all right. 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 agricultu 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 nhtmare it will be with the epa and a great center of my book-of public mandate to increase taxes. the black box is on the bottom. some represented here today. implementing government programs that will tax and spend trillions of dollars.

the gray, green, purple, and brown boxes on the side in the middle. all this will focus on heating bills, food prices, product prices, gasoline products, and jobs, threatening families with higher prices, farmers with higher prices, drivers with higher prices, and workers with lost jobs. all this just ask, what of -- what are our democratic colleagues afraid of? they're not afraid of what this will do to our families. why don't we get into the hearing on the legislation itself? i hope we will get to the answers soon, and i appreciate the opportunity to show the concerns i have. thank you, madam chair printer >> thank you, senator. -- thank you, madam chair. >> thank you senator. the nomination of assistant administrator for the office of research and development. i call denominations, i ask

unanimous consent that they be considered without objection. without objection, so ordered, my colleague does as well. i urge my colleagues to do the same. anybody wished to be heard on these nominations? if not, i urge that they be approved. do i have a second? >> second. >> second. all those in favor selling aye. >> aye. >> i thank my colleagues. senator klobuchar? >> i know the distinguished panel understands that new energy administration is -- new energy legislation is about creating jobs and developing homegrown energy and breaking our reliance on foreign energy. i spent the fourth of july 2 week up north in minnesota, meeting with people everywhere, but i will tell you up there the upon rate is at 20%. in minnesota, our people want good paying jobs across the spectrum.

to mine more iron ore, manufacturing turbines to ship them to the superior and countries across the world, and scientists to develop fuel cells and ethanol technology. but an energy bill has to take into account not just the captains of the energy industry, but also the people who buy the energy. middle-class families need protection in a jolt -- from a jolt in their energy rates, and the needed energy bill to provide job at attendees. i believe the new energy bill done right will mean new business to make the nuts and bolts of new energy systems. electric car batteries and solar panels, and geothermal heat pumps. i know that secretary vilsack understands that a new energy bill can help our farmers grow -- create new farming members

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

second, does the legislation take into account our agriculture and community, which i know there was some good work done there in the house to of knowledge their contribution to this. third, for traditional companies, industries that are not subject to the same carbon constraints, to make sure that they do not have an unfair advantage. finally, does the legislation give a sufficient boost to renewable energy? i would like to see a more aggressive portfolio standard. i know that is being worked on in the energy committee. overall, i do not believe we can stick with the status quo. i do not believe we can throw daggers at this bill. we have to work to improve it. the people of my state and our country depend on that, and i thank you very much for all of your work and contribution. >> senator, thank you. senator alexander? >> thank you, madam chairman. i look forward to the hearings and to participate in them.

i would like take a little different tack on this. the chairman quoted tom friedman and the importance of a nation that hoped to lead, addressing clean energy. i think you left out an adjective, and i would put the word "cheap" and there, "inexpensive," if you prefer. the united states accuses more than 24% of all the energy in the world. why is that? if we want to build cars and trucks in tennessee, michigan, ohio, we have to have cheap electricity. the auto suppliers in my state are just like this. every little cost addition moves a job to mexico and some rough. and materials for solar uses 120 megawatts.

in tennessee, have large amounts of cheap electricity. the choice is between a high- cost clean energy plan and a low-cost clean energy plan. my question to the committee, why are we ignoring the cheap energy solutions to global warming, which is nuclear power? this is really fairly simple. if what we are really interested in is reducing carbon, which is the principal greenhouse gases, we can focus first on smokestacks and say let's start building 100 new nuclear power plants. nuclear power is 70% are carbon-for electricity. solar, wind, and all these other things are 6%. nuclear is 70%. over the next 20 years, if we want to do that, we could build 100 more nuclear power plant. as we did that, we could begin to close dirty coal plants or

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

there is no other technological way that we have to have a large amount of reliable, cheap electricity other than nuclear power. so if we are in the business of saying yes, we can, if the president would give the same kind of aggressive interest to building 100 new nuclear power plants as he does to building windmills, we could solve global warning in a generation. we keep beating around the bush, and instead the house has come up with this contraption, much like the one last year, which senator bond had on the table and which is $100 billion a year in new costs. somebody has got to pay that. and it works out to $900 per family, the way my math figures it. it will suffocate large sections of our economy and drive jobs overseas. cheap energy advocates, which include all republicans -- almost all republicans and a

growing number of democrats, say build nuclear plants, double research and renewable energy in the meantime, to make it cheaper and reliable. we must remember, at a time of 10% unemployment, high-price energy sens jobs overseas, looking for cheap energy. cheap energy not only creates jobs, madam chairman, it is the fastest way to reduce global warming. 100 new nuclear plants will reduce global warming faster than taxes and mandates. so i intend during this debate to keep bringing this up. a low-carbon fuel standard is an executive with to do with carbon from fuel than the economy white cap and trade, which only braises prices every three years. it might not reduce carbon. that is 30% of carbon. 40% of carbon is in smokestacks. we could build new plants, and as they come on line, we can do something about the dirtiest coal plants. i think the chair for the time,

and i urge the committee and the senate to look at the cheap clean energy solutions if we want to keep jobs in this country. >> senator, we look forward to working with you on that. >> thank you very much for this hearing, and let me start by saying there is much of what senator alexander said that i agree with, although i reach a different conclusion. i think the bill that we marked up last year, the lieberman- water bill, the provisions in the markey bill coming courage is the type of activity that senator alexander was talking about, including the expansion of nuclear power, which i also support and belief is necessary for us to meet our energy needs and to accomplish our other goals. i think we can improve the bill that came over from the house, though i think we need to act on legislation. it is critically important for many reasons, the first of which is jobs. it is about keeping jobs here in america, about we have developed

the technology. now let's use that technology to create green jobs here in america that will help our economy, our national security, less dependence on foreign energy sagd@ @ @ @ @ @ r we can accomplish all of that. the they came over from the house will allow us to do what i think senator alexander wanted to do. it will create jobs in this country. yesterday i was at frederick county. they strongly want to see the jobs created here in america. thank you for the environmental cleanup work and putting it on the national party less. one of uses that you are lookins

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

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

address the enormous crisis are rooted in three fundamental values -- signs paste policies and programs, but -- science- based policies and programs, adherence to the law, and transparency. mr. obama took another shot at his predecessor, saying that the days of science taking a backseat to ideology are over. but in march, the obama's epa issued endangerment finding on carbon. it established that carbon is a pollutant and gives the epa the authority to regulate it. even if congress does not act. around this time, mr. carlin, a colleague, presented in 98-page analysis arguing the agency should take another look at the science behind manmade global warming, and they say it is inconclusive at best. the analysis noted that global

temperatures were on a downward trend. he pointed out problems with the global model -- with global mateodels it shows and a pop -- -- it shows apocalyptic scenarios. the response to mr. carlin was an e-mail from his boss, alma carlin. forbidding him from any direct connection with anyone outside his office with regard to his analysis. when mr. karlan tried again, the disseminate it -- to disseminate analysis, the administrator and the administration had decided to move forward, and your comments cannot help the legal or policy case for this decision. i can only see one impact of your comments, given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact

on our office. mr. carlin blast and another e- mail, you need to move on to other issues, move on to other issues and subjects. i do not want you to send us any additional epa time on any more papers on climate change. ideology -- no, not here. just us science folks, honest. madam chairman, as the ranking member of this committee, the oversight subcommittee, i believe we can no longer allow this type of behavior to go unchecked. behavior were the best advice and counsel is ignored, where it is blocked, where is kept hidden from the public. it is for this reason that i visited with senator right house this morning, requesting that the epa and launched its own

investigation into these recent troubling events. a culture of intimidation is no justification in the administration. this administration is publicly promised to hold itself to a standard of openness, transparency, and excepting of opinions from individuals with differing opinions. the administration has so far failed to make the grade. thank you, madam chairman. >> thank you, senator. senator lautenberg? >> thank you, madam chairman, and welcome to this panel. this panel of experts and committed people to improving our environment. i think you for taking the -- let me call it, the darts that might be thrown along the way. fear not, stumble on because whenever we have to do we have to do it. what we saw on the wall here, on these flags, were no, no, no. saying no to the whole process.

but at least we have come a long way because wasn't it ought to long ago that we heard that this was all a hoax, that global warming was a hoax? that is no longer the case because our friends on the other side agree that things have to be changed. maybe the hoax issue when away. it was a bad joke, and thank goodness that has disappeared. what we are seeing here now -- what we're saying here now is no to the fact that 26 million americans, 9 million of them children, are asthmatic. the rates have doubled since 1980. do we want to say, no, you really do not have as much? there is a distinguished physician here. i am sure you would say there is no longer any as much to worry about. the fact of the matter is we do not have an easy task, but our children and grandchildren are depending on us. we are taking the advice of the majority of members of the union

of concerned scientists. these folks are willing to say, no, species are not really declining. no, things are really bad at all. well, they are terrible. they're terrible, and states across the country finally have the right to decide what they want to do in their own states, and i congratulate california for having done what it has. we are looking at legislation. it is pretty darned good. from over at the house, we have an opportunity to review at, to change it, to do what we want to do, and we cannot measure the volume of paper work that has gone in there, as indicative of whether it is good or bad. what we have got to do is not to use the trees, the plant more trees. my friends, this unfortunately has disintegrated in some ways to either you are for a cleaner environment where you are not.

we talk about things like transparency. let's talk about what it is to protect our children in the future. and look at the facts in front of us and not deny that they exist. madam chairman, i think you for holding this hearing. press on. we are all going to work on it, and hopefully we will convince some of our friends on the other side of the aisle that this is a series project. >> thank you, senator. senator crapo? >> thank you, madam chair. this is a critical issue to our country and our people. i have to take exception to the argument that either side is simply saying no. i can look back to the times when the republicans were in the majority and we had major energy legislation to move forward and the answer from the other side was no. what we have is a debate about how we should best approach the national energy policy of our country, and we have very true and sincere and real concerns

about how we should proceed on both sides. i think it is incumbent on us in this committee to roll up our slves 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 ther side of the aisle that our nation is far too dependent

on petroleum, carbon-based resources, for our energy. that we are far too dependent on foreign sources of energy. and that we as a nation need to become independent, much more independent in our own development of energy. i look at it similar to how one would look at an investment portfolio, that most people do not believe it is a prudent thing to invest all their assets for all their energy or the largest portion of them in one asset. it is not prudent for america to have an energy policy that is so dependent on one type of energy. we need to diversify. we need to develop wind and solar and geothermal and hydro , and we need to develop the opportunity for expanded utilization of petroleum as we transition to these other sources of energy. but we cannot ignore what is probably the biggest piece of the answer, and that is nuclear power. i do not believe there is that much disagreement across the

aisle, except that we do not seem to see the kind of provisions in proposed legislation that will truly help us expedite and move forward. on some of these very significant answers like nuclear power. i simply want to say that, as we move forward, there are very, very obvious solutions available, and there is agreement on the issues that we must deal with with regard to our national security in our national energy independence. what we have to find our way is to get past the partisan differences and reach those solutions, and i hope that this committee will seriously get down to that business. thank you very much. >> senator, thank you. i want to know for the record that we did pass an energy act in 2005, 2006, and 2007. we did work across the aisle, so i hope that you are right, that we can do it this time. >> very much came down, but --

>> absolutely. senator gillibrand? >> thank you, madame chairwoman, for your leadership on this issue. i agree with you that we have an extraordinary opportunity here, and i want to thank the panelists for joining us, and i will thank you in advance for your testimony. the opportunity we have in front of us is to address this economic crisis, and new energy markets are the greatest economic market of our generation, and this bill will begin to address how we can turn our economy around and create jobs in these new green sectors. we have enormous opportunity in new york state, from wind, solar, biofuel, solar power. we have a strong agricultural sector, a strong manufacturing sector, and we have lost a lot of manufacturing jobs. we have lost over 150,000 manufacturing jobs in new york state alone. the potential growth -- the pitch for growth -- the potential for growth follows

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

american industry. i just want to thank my colleagues for their participation. i want to thank you, madame cdag@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we will get right to the panel. thank you very much. thank you for not just being here, but they give for serving our country in your role. we miss you very much here in the senate. i want to reflect a couple of c -- i thought senator crapo

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

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

we spent some time at the dupont company. a new solar film is about 1/1 000 of a human hair. the secretary was good enough to help move along regulations that allow ocean-based wind power to go forward. we appreciate that. we expect a harness that wind starting three years from now off the coast of rehoboth beach, off the coast of new jersey, maryland, and other states up the northeast corridor. a lot of the components for the bill right there, shipping out from the delaware river, delaware bay, off rehoboth beach. a lot of jobs will be involved in doing that as well. we will be running electric cars up and down the east coast before long, powering them with

a maturity that will be hardest from wind off of our coast -- powering them with electricity that will be hardest from the wind off our coast. the energy from the sun in one hour is enough to power everything we use on this earth in one year. the solar energy emitted by the sun in one hour is enough to meet our power needs or energy needs on this planet for one year. einstein used to say, "in adversity, lies opportunity. boy, there are some terrific opportunities. we have to be smart enough to capture it and make it happen in turn is adversity not just in to clear air and less dependence on foreign oil and so forth, but we have to turn it into jobs. we have a great opportunity to do that, whether building nuclear power plants, employing windmill farms, employing these

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

war in iraq. we are now whining away out of that war, which evoked -- we are now winding our way out of that war. we're spending $350 billion every single year purchasing oil. do you know we could do with $350 billion from investing in energy in the united states? we will transform our nation. in terms of global warming, i know some of our friends may not believe in the phenomenon of global warming, and they may back up an individual here or a scientist there. fair enough. but the evidence is very clear. the over number -- the overwhelming number of scientists who study this issue not only worry about global warming but tell us that the situation today is a lot more direct than they thought a few years ago. that is what the overwhelming scientific evidence seems to suggest. last but not least is the issue

of economics and jobs. i think others have suggested we have the possibility over a period of years of creating millions and millions of good paying jobs because we transformed our energy system. madam chairman, it just seems to me that we want to focus on at least three areas. number one, we need to enact strong near-term targets for efficient reductions. number two, we have got to meet president obama's renewable energy bill, which is passing legislation produces 25% renewable energy by 200025. -- by 2025. thirdly, we must ensure rigorous and transparent market oversight. we need to ensure that we have legislation that does not simply become a windfall for speculators and traders. let's not underestimate the importance of that. the senator talk about his vacation.

let me show you what i saw. at middlebury college, which very shortly will be providing energy for their fairly large campus from both sustainable energy and energy efficiency virtually 100%. i went to a plant that they have on campus, which is using wood chips, replacing oil. they are saving $700,000 a year and creating local jobs, cutting back greenhouse gas emissions. they are now doing an experiment to plan willow trees, which will be used as part of that fuel. i think the potential, as i have mentioned to ken salazar and others, for geothermal in the southwest of this country is extraordinary. we can produce a significant amount of electricity from solar plants. in terms of energy efficiency,

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

i will ask senator white house at this time. >> thank you, chairman. i welcome the administration officials, a particularly warm welcome to our former colleague, secretary salazar, whose tenure was brief but marked by great achievement and immense good will on both sides of the aisle. it is wonderful to see you back. i would just make four simple points that i think are the crux of what we have to do going forward to the first is that the earth's kleiman is being changed by carbon plant -- the earth's climate is being changed by, and pollution. if we do not do something about it, it is simply wrong not to act until the second point is that right now polluters are allowed to pollute for free. as long as they are allowed to pollute for free and take the cost of their pollution and put it on everybody else in america, they are going to keep doing it. that is the american way.

it is e american way of government to see that those perverse incentives do not continue. the third point is that behind that problem, a new economy beckons. with clean energy jobs in the future of energy independence for this country. it is an enormously powerful strength that we can tap into if we do this right. the last thing is we have the choice now to be on the front end or the tail end of progress. i saw in the newspaper the other day that toyota had something like 2000 patents to protect its hybrid technology to keep people from competing. that is the privilege that you get when you are the front runner, and china and japan and europe, countries all over the place, are investing to put their industries at the front.

i do not want to see american industries at the back of that parade, i want to see us at the front leading. the four of you have the capacity to make -- to solve those four problems, to solve those issues for the american people. we know that this is probably come along with the exxonmobil board room, the last place that sober people debate whether or not these problems are real, but we intend to work with you anyway, and we hope to give you strong legislative support if we can. thank you for your efforts. >> thank you, senator. senator iududall, followed by senator specter. >> thank you, madam chairman. i would like to put my opening statement in the record, but i did want to -- >> without objection. >> i wanted to answer something that seems to be said over and over again by the oversight, and

i hope the panel will focus on this. -- by the other side, and i hope the panel's focus on this. when you put a price on carbon, you are in fact helping the nuclear power industry, as has been set in this hearing and other places. nuclear-powered is not being helped, nuclear-powered is being eliminated, all kinds of things. that in fact is not true. you put a price on carbon, what you end up doing is sending a very strong signal in the marketplace that carbon dioxide emissions, and that these kinds of emissions are to be reduced in the future, and that you move in the direction of technology which you do not create carbon dioxide. nuclear is one of those. so i hope that when we focus on

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

pennsylvania. i compliment you, madame chairwoman, on your vigor in pursuing this@@@@@@@ @ @ @ @ @ z of the great importance of this issue in many directions. cleaning up the environment, stopping the spread of carbon, reducing our dependence on opec oil, which has tremendous ramifications politically with iran, strengthened by its oil revenues, and venezuela being strengthened. we have a mammoth bill from the house of representatives that has been hobbled together in the most extraordinary way. that is part of the legislative process. 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 account, along with the concerns i have for my four granddaughters and their grandchildren in cleaning up the atmosphere. .

we spent hundreds of billions of dollars each year to import 50% of the oil we use. to solve these challenges, the administration and congress need to work together to spur a revolution in clean energy technology. the president and i applaud the action of the klan action bill. we look forward -- action of the

clean energy bill. look forward to working with congress to improve this. the atmospheric level of carbon dioxide by roughly 40%, and level one-third higher than anytime in the last 800,000 years. -- a level one-third higher than anytime in the last 800,000 years. there's also evidence that greenhouse gases have caused our climate to change. already, we have seen the loss of about half the summer of the polar ice cap, a dramatic accelerating rise in sea level, a loss of over 2000 cubic miles of glacial ice, and these changes are not occurring on a geological time scale, but in the time of less than 100 years. the intergovernmental panel on climate change projected that in 2007, if we continue on this course, there is a 50 percent

chance of a global average temperatures increasing by more than seven degrees fahrenheit in this century. a more recent 2009 m.i.t. study found a 50 percent chance of a nine-degree rise in a 17 percent chance of a nearly 11-degree increase. 11 degrees may not sound like much, but during the last ice age, from cape -- when canada and the united states down to ohio and pennsylvania were covered year round in glacier, the world was only 11 degrees colder. a world 11 degrees warmer will be a very different place. is this the legacy we want to leave our children and grandchildren? denial of climate change problems will not change our destiny. a comprehensive bill that caps the missions in reduces climate change will. america has the opportunity to lead a new industrial revolution by creating sustainability.

opponents of this effort claim that the nation cannot afford to act at this time. i disagree, and so does the environmental protection agency and the congressional budget office. these organizations estimate that meeting the greenhouse gas targets in the house bill can be achieved at an annual cost somewhere between 22 cents and 48 cents per day per household. this is about the price of a postage stamp per day. history suggests the actual cost could even be lower. the cost to save our ozone layer, to reduce smog, to scrub the sulfur dioxide from power plants were all far less than estimated. for example, according to the epa, the sulfur dioxide reduction is 1/5 of the original industry estimated costs. the right clean energy incentives will rev up the great american research and ingenuity

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

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

now is the time to take comprehensive and sustained action. with the leadership of the president, the actions of this congress, and the american people, i am confident we will succeed. thank you, and i will be glad to answer your questions. >> thank you so much for your eloquent words. administrative jackson, welcome again. you are a frequent visitor in this room. we welcome you again. >> it is good to be home. thank you for having me. members of the committee, thank you for the confirmation votes today. epa appreciates your support. thank you for inviting me to testify about new legislation to get america running on clean energy. let me begin by commending you for starting senate hearings on this, the second legislative day after the house of representatives passed the american clean energy and security act. immediately after the historic vote on june 26, president obama called on the senate to demonstrate the same commitment.

the same commitment we saw in the house to build a clean energy foundation for a strong american economy. i am grateful that this committee has wasted no time in answering that call. the house bill reflects the principles the president believes are essential for our nation's energy future, decreasing our dependency on foreign oil, creating millions of new jobs and the emerging clean energy technologies, and reducing the pollution that endangers our children. i know there are a variety of proposals pending in the senate that have the same goals. i look forward to working with all the committee members as you engage in this effort. clean energy is through this decade and the next what the space race was to the 1950's and 1960's, and america is behind. governments in asia and europe are ahead of the united states in making aggressive investments in and clean energy technology. american businesses need strong incentives and investments now

in order for this nation to lead the 21st century global economy. we are also coming late to the task of leading the world's major greenhouse gas emit is to reverse our collective emissions growth in time to avert catastrophic climactic changes that would severely harm america's economy and national security within our children's lifetimes. the necessary shared effort will not begin in earnest unless and until the united states leads the charge. the advantage of the kind of legislation the president has called for is that it wraps up investment in developing nuclear energy technologies while giving companies an effective incentive to use those technologies to reduce greenhouse gas pollution -- it ramps up investment in developing nuclear energy technologies. i do not mean to say that we can get something for nothing, but according to the congressional budget office's analysis of the american clean energy and security act, the net cost to the average american household

in 2020 would be less than 50 cents a day. for the wealthiest fifth of american households, the net cost would be less than 70 cents a day. the poorest it would actually see a net gain of more than 10 cents a game. -- the poorest fifth would actually see a net gain of more than 10 cents a day. the report is that cost would be higher in states where people drive their long distances, yet even at the cost borne by the average family in such a state would double the national average, it would still be just $1 a day. that figure does not account for the economic benefits of saving our children from living with increased job, fire, pests, flooding, disease. -- living with increased drought, fire, pests, flooding, disease. can anyone honestly say that the head of an average american household would not spend $1 a day to safeguard the well-being

of his or her children, to reduce the amount of money that we sent overseas for oil, to place american entrepreneurs back in the lead of the global marketplace, and to create new american jobs that pay well and cannot be outsourced? labor unions support this kind of legislation because they know it will create millions of high- paying american jobs that cannot be exported. manufacturing companies support it because they know it will provide needed investment in research and development while creating markets for the american clean energy technologies once on that investment. he lets utilities support it because they know it will expand our use of reliable source of energy like wind, solar, geothermal, and safer nuclear power -- the electric utilities support it. consumer advocates support it because they know it will strengthen the long-term economic foundation for all americans without imposing long- term economic hardship on many americans. environmental groups support it because they know it is our best

chance of avoiding catastrophic, to our environment. there are still interested out there opposing this effort, but i think the tide is turning against the defenders of the status quo, who want more of the same policies that made us dependent on foreign oil, and that costs american to forfeit the lead in the burgeoning global competition to sell technology. i think americans will reform -- i think americans want reform that harnesses that can-do spirit. this is what the president wants. this is what i want. i believe many senators want the same thing. please consider the environmental protection agency partner in this effort to get america running on clean energy, and please keep up the momentum. thank you, and i look forward to questions. >> thank you. return to the secretary of agriculture,. >> thanks you. -- -- we turn to secretary of

agriculture vilsack. >> i commit that the usda will maintain a close partnership in our work on climate change in nuclear energy. climate change is indeed one of the great challenges facing the united states and the world. the science is clear that the plan is already warming. climate change will affect all of us, and there are particular vulnerabilities for farmers, ranchers, and those who make a living off the land. i would like to commend the house for its historic efforts house for its historic efforts in we look forward to working with the senate as you begin your deliberations. our hope is that congress enacts the bill that meets the objectives of president obama of creating efficient and cost- effective approaches that leverages the nation's capacity for innovation, creates jobs,

reduce its dependence on foreign oil, and protect our children and grandchildren from pollution. i believe it is crucial that we engage the participation of farmers, ranchers, and forest plan owners. this is important. a viable market that rewards farmers, ranchers, and others for their activities has the potential to play a very important role in helping america wean itself from foreign oil. it represents a significant building block for revitalize in rural america. though carbon renewable energy is an important area. greenhouse gases reduction is important. based on the latest statistics, forest and agricultural land in

the u.s. take up more greenhouse gases in the form of carbon dioxide and is released from all of our agricultural operations. ions. 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 departmen of the interior will be fully utilize in addressing the challenges that we face. as we look at energy and moving forward with energy independence, it is also important to note that we are producers of a large part of the energy that america currently consumes. we produce over 50 percent of

the cold that comes into electrical generation. -- we produce over 50 percent of the coal that comes into electrical generation. we also produce more than 60 percent of the oil and gas that comes into the country, so as well as offshore. we have opened up a new chapter for renewable energy. it is our hope that the renewable energy agenda will be one in which we can participate fully on behalf of a president obama. let me say just a word about renewable energy and its importance to our country. we have in the last several months opened of renewable energy permitting offices in places across the southwest, have ushered in what will hopefully be a new era of wind energy production of the atlantic and the other continental shelf. we can talk about a lot of statistics relative to renewable energy, but i would just like to point out one, just from the

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

it is important to look at the facts. hear the facts do not actually justify the release. they get in the way of the story. i think it is important to understand them. one person was given permission and encouraged to speak his mind. he was encouraged to host certain things for other epa staff. his views are reflected in the technical support documents. when i personally learned, that his memo had not been circulated widely enough, i instructed my staff to inform him that he

should feel free to circulate it to whomever he wishes. wishes. those are the facts, and as you can tell, they are anything but suppressed. ionestly 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 t facts, at the analysis, and the whole. you system is a very strong check and balance against a global hoax. >> thank you.

administrative jackson, are you aware of the fact that america aware of the fact that america in 2006 had 250 million vehic 16 years later, there are 62 million more cars on the road. could that create air quality problems for us? >> absolutely. >> of want to ask you this of you aware that there are now 26 million americans with asthma these rates are double what they were in 1980. does that indicate poor air quality that would be consistent with that kind of growth? growth >> > 5 -- growth?

>> i am well aware of it. i am the mother of a child with asthma. >> thank you very much. >> thank you very much, madam chairman. administrative jackson, i had already talked about the article in the "wall street journal" saying the epa is silencing a climate skeptic. that is not an isolated case. i sent you a letter on may 13 as well as to the director of the office of management and budget regarding the leaking of a small business administration attorney's name, who wrote part of an internal omb memo who wrote that negative economic and additional consequences of using the clean air act to regulate climate change, once this was

released to the media, the administrator was smeared as being a bush appointee despite being appointed during the clinton administration. there were quite a few concerns about the leaking of that person's name. even in the house, the committee ranking member stated with regard to leaking that attorneys and that that attorneys' ability to serve now in three administrations, a democrat as well as republican, speaks to her professionalism and talent, her abilities and of to activities should not be questioned. i have not yet done in response back to my may 13 letter from you. i have included information on that. do you know when i will receive a response to that letter? >> i do not know, but i am happy to check on it. >> thank you very much. i would appreciate it if you would. there was an article in the "washington post" yesterday did

constructing the crime bill. "the climate bill approved by the house last month started out as an idea -- fight global warming -- and wound up looking like an unabridged dictionary. it runs to more than 1400 pages will with loopholes and giveaways meant to win over legislators." then they go through a number of questions. "would this bill stop climate change?" their answer is it would not. do you agree with this assessment that this bill will not stop climate change, or do you disagree on this? >> i did happen to disagree -- i did happen to see that article, and i agree that their assessment is the right start and it sends a strong signal in the you all in the senate have work to do, and i respect the

fact that you are starting at work. >> your impression is this bill as we are looking at right now will not impact climate change? >> we already had a discussion earlier that with the united states does is important in terms of entering the clean energy race, in terms of reducing our dependence on oil, and in terms of creating millions of jobs. this is a jobs bill, an energy bill in a climate change bill, and we will need to work internationally to affect changes on global climate change. >> thank you. i would like to add some written questions if i may now that i have run out of time. >> surely. >> dr. chu, a number of our colleagues on this committee are very enthusiastic. they see there is no end to how much we can accomplish. i am a strong advocate of expanding nuclear power as well.

they are looking for someone in the administration who is as excited and passionate about it as they are. when i look at the lineup of people in the administration, i come to you as someone who knows more about this, who could be an advocate and help us figure out what we can do a climate change legislation to be supportive of nuclear. i would just ask you to put your thinking cap on and help us to do that. second, ms. jackson, thank you for joining us today. in 2007, we passed legislation, and at the time, it was estimated that we effectively took 60 million cars off the road in terms of emissions reductions in gasoline consumption. 60 million. when the administration and month or two ago moved ahead by four years, the effective date of the legislation, we basically doubled the effect of what we

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

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

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

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

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

you give us some thought and give us a written reply, i would appreciate that. >> i would be glad to do that. >> thank you. >> here is what we're going to do -- we have to go fast now because we have a swearing in on the senate floor, and our panel has been here forever. we have to end on time. go ahead, senator sanders. >> there has been discussion about nuclear power and questions of the panel -- what is the reluctance? i have reluctance. and why? nuclear waste is highly toxic. we do not know how to get rid of it. maybe the people in missouri want it, and we will send it there, but right now, to the best of my knowledge, no state in the union wants this highly toxic waste. in terms of loan guarantees, are

you providing loan guarantees to solar thermal plants? in the souwest? >> i would assume, is reviewing the applications at present. we have not provided a loan guarantee yet. >> my understanding is there are over a dozen plants ready to go. if we are talking about putting money into nuclear energy, we do not know how to get rid of that waste, and i would hope very much we would be ready to entertain products based on solar thermal. let me go back to secretary salazar. units and in your testimony that we have the potential to reduce something like 20 percent of the electricity in this country from solar thermal. is that what you are saying? >> 29%. >> i think that is an extraordinary statement. i agree with you. how are we proceeding? when are we going to see the creation of solar thermal plants?

>> the renewable energy revolution i think is something which we have the guns, with some help from this congress under president obama's leadership, opening up this new great opportunity for all of us. just to give you an example, in nevada, just 10 days or so ago, we announced moving forward with renewable energy applications for solar, which we expect we will have some 14 solar power plants that will be under construction by the end of next year. those projects alone will create some 60,000 jobs here in the united states of america. >> that is extraordinary that is just the beginning of this effort. >> thank you very much for your leadership on this. in europe right now, there is a huge growth right now in use of wood pellets. in my state, over 35% of our schools are heated with wood.

where do you see the potential in terms of biomass as an important part of the energy revolution? >> it is a very significant part of it and recognized by the energy title farm bill passed in 2008, creating opportunities for the usda to provide grant money to encourage biomass opportunities as well as the recovery reinvestment act. those moneys are being put to use in a number of projects. the whole point of this is to diversify and have as many options i >> the potential there is to create more jobs as well. >> the question about that. the jobs will mostly be in rural communities which would revitalize the rural economy. >> thank you very much. >> thank you very much. we are looking forward to having a real effort to process this.

we can get rid of the race -- waste. i will direct a couple of questions to my former neighbor secretary vilsack about farmers. it seems that the farmers in my state will face higher costs for fuel, equipment, transporting, and other areas. you have any information to show that farmers will not be impacted heavily by this particular bill? >> we are in the process of completing a review of the economic analysis. there is no question that innovation is going to make a significant difference in terms of this.

. f costs. . >> to what they do with their land. there are a series of steps that can be taken and will be taken that will generate opportunities for offsets. >> i look forward to working with you, because there are tremendous opportunities. we have new technology that will

lower the cost of enzymes with the genetically modified soybean. these do not affect the costs because you still have to transport. you still have to buy that. we drive natural gas through the roof. you mentioned in your testimony that this would be a great thing. are costing between $2 million and $3 million. how do you make that pencil out for a farmer? >> there is tremendous opportunity that will potentially reduce those gases. there is also no question that when you create regional opportunities to create -- to

use the waste product of agricultural production for fuel, you have created less transportation costs and another income source. i think we are just on the cusp of a revitalized rural america. i am confident with the broad band money and climate change that you are going to see a significant increase in economic opportunity. >> thank you very much. >> in order to make sure that governor barbara can do his role. in the next panel we have rich well, indeed the hon. haley barber. haley has a tough schedule. jeff is going to come back here at 12:45 with sarah, because she wants to be there. and they will just hear from the governor. then i will come back at 2:00

p.m. and hear from the other panel members. with that, we have to continue to move quickly. >> thank you. great to have you back. as you know, western states face immediate impacts from climate change. according to the report on climate change impact, it found that human-induced climate change appears to be well under way in the southwest. recent warming is among the most rapid in the nation. this is driving declines in colorado river flow. this report found that the colorado compact was based on unrealistic assumptions when it allocated the water and river on monday 7 basin states. -- allocated the river among the seven basin states. vast areas of the u.s. will face 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, particularly as it relates to water resources? >> thank you very much, senator udall. all of us from the west and dry arid places we know that water really is the lifeblood of those communities. we see what's happened with drought in new mexico and now with california and many other states. and that's why most water managers, including farmers and ranchers are very concerned with what's happening with climate change in terms of the changing prescription patterns that we see in the southwest. what is happening is that the snow packs are melting a lot sooner than they used to. so it is an area of major concern among water users and farmers, ranchers,

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

in your considerations. >> thank you. senator merkley. >> thank you very much, madam chair. and i wanted to address this to secretary salazar and possible secretary vilsack. oregon has millions of acres of second growth forest that is overgrown. it's a disaster in terms of carbon dioxide to those forests. they're -- they have very bad disease. they are not growing at a fashion that's most productive for timber or for good eco systems. thinning strategies and healthy management forest strategies can address that. one possibility is that by changes those practices on those lands we have a significant impact in -- on carbon dioxide. since you don't have a private partner it's not clear how the offsets would work if purchased from the forest service, if you will. but the communities greatly need revenues nor to conduct forest thinning programs and

the communities need revenue for the lockup of these lands and this goes back to basically the secure rural schools challenge we've had. so there's a real potential win-win. and i just wanted to ask if you thought about that issue on changing practices on public forest land could benefit this issue and how we could direct revenues to assist the health of our forests and our communities. >> senator merkley, the answer is, yes, we have thought about it. there are two things that can be done. one is utilizing some of the biomass that is coming off of our forest. within the department of interior alone we oversee 500 million acres. that's a huge amount of land that south there. there is tremendous fuel out there that can be converted over to biomass fuel. secondly, as we look at lezz that deals with energy and climate change, one of the things that should be on the table for consideration is the

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

lumber. we can use it as a source of biomass that can be utilized in biofuels or used in co-generation and produce jobs in energy. but there's also the chance of changing those practices for offsets or see quest ration. that can also be a source of revenue. we might get a triple view of our forest. and i think that's very appropriate in the type of review that you all are talking about. it will be tremendous for the health of our forest, certainly for our eco systems. for the impact on carbon dioxide in the air. and the strength of our forest communities. so thank you very much for your interest and pursuit of these issues. >> senator, thank you so much. i want to say to this panel, thank you so much for working with us on this. this is a challenge of our generation. we are all going to work together. so just to reconfirm, governor haley barbour will be a witness at 12:45, and jeff merkley will

chair that. and then we'll come back at 2:00 p.m. for the rest of the panel. we stand adjourned. thank you, again. >> the committee will open. and we'll dive right into business. we're resuming testimony and we are fortunate to have the governor of the state of mississippi with us, the honorable haley barbour, we'll be taking his testimony. and then i believe there's a few questions that the senators may have. so welcome. it's good to have you join us today. [inaudible] >> this is my -- and our

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

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

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

utilities, mike morris, said that cap and trade tax will cause a.e.p.'s electricity cause a.e.p.'s electricity rates go up 30% to 50%.@@@@@ @ r of its bill just a few hours before a was brought. that is just the opposite of what is needed. last month the policy board -- 413 southern states held its annual conference. we are most concerned about the costs associated with the cap and trade tax, the renewable energy mandate and the $81 billion of tax increases on oil and gas.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and that the science is mixed, and the louder they say that science is settled, the greater to me is they have nothing else to say because right now if you look at the changes that have taken place, senator barrasso entered senator in the record this morning. it was an article that was reprinted in "the wall street journal" and it listed five countries where they're changing their position now because they realized that the co-2 is not the villain that they thought it was. the public perception has totally change. the polling shows when you talk about think top 20 concerns, sometimes it makes number 20, sometimes it doesn't make it at all, it used to be two or three. clearly it's a wakeup call my two greatest frustrations, my two greatest frustrations are that when you look and you see people talk about lowering our

dependence on foreign countries for our ability to run this machine called america, and yet those same individuals won't let us drill offchauffeur, won't let us get in the tar sands, won't let us work on marginal wells we have in both of our states and don't want to increase the domestic supply, we're the only country in the world that does export our own domestic supplies. yet they still say they want to reduce our risk. we could do it overnight as i said, as i documented in my opening statement, if we were to open things up. the second thing is, as you alluded to, i'm so happy this morning that the administrator, the e.p.a. came out and agreed with me when i was making my case that if we were to pass this bill, the one that passed the house, unilaterally that would cause our manufacturing base to leave we know that. that's a fact. it would go to country ares, as you pointed out, china has no emission requirements restrictions, it would have a net increase in co-2.

if you're one of those who believe that co-2 is causing these problems, you ought to be opposed to this because unilaterally it won't work. as administrator said this morning she said, i believe essential parts of the chart are tt the united states action alone will not impact co-2 levels. this morning, i quoted the top leaders in both india and china saying, under no circumstances were they going to have any reductions. that's not my question, that's my statement. my question is, do you agree? >> yes, sir, i do. i will say, i was surprised to hear the administrator of e.p.a. say that this morning that it wouldn't have any effect, but i was interested in e.p.a.'s report on this bill back when it was traveling through the house, made the point that it wouldn't have any effect on importation of foreign oil. that their report says it essentially has no effect on petroleum and i'm like you.

we need to wean ourselves off of foreign oil, at least the excessive reliance we have, and this won't do it, according to e.p.a. this won't do it. but we do have a lot of production capacity that we're in the taking advantage of and we ought to be producing. i was glad to hear the secretary of energy talk about more nuclear. that emits no greenhouse gases aened tv more nuclear and get ourselves off foreign oil and gas ought to be a big goal of what we're doing. but we need to try to do it in a way that doesn't have huge costs for families and doesn't do great damage to our economy when at the same time we're stretching so ha to do everything we can do to get our economy back strong and people back working. >> you have problems in mississippi, you have a lot of low-income people, you did a great job trying to preclude something like this from happening.

senator barrasso? >> thank you, mr. chairman. governor, great to see you, just following up on what senator inhofe said, what could the impacts of this be on families in mississippi, i know who study says it will cost 600,000 jobs a year to the national black chamber of commerce saying it will cost 3 million jobs a year. every study that has looked at that question says it will cost jobs. yes, there will be green jobs created but there will be far more outnumbered by the lost jobs. the house bill has got something i didn't know congress did. it has a huge gun and pointed section 8 for the people who lose their jobs because of this bill. it is very generous, three years

of unemployment and the government would pay 80% of your employment when this cost you your job. talking about this as a jobs bill and have huge unemployment benefits is a little bit disconcerting. we in our state tried very hard to do all of the above. we are trying to build a new nuclear power client. the first commercial -- a new nuclear power plant. the state has been very supportive of it. this is going to be the first time, we will take something that is indigenous coal, and we will burn a to make electricity from a gas, but then we will capture the emissions and will use them for tertiary recovery in our oil fields. today we have three big tertiary

recovery projects going on, where they have to mine the c02 and pay for it. this way they can buy the co2 as a waste said that the electric utility gets a benefit and they get to buy co2 for a whole lot less. old wells. we are trying to do things consistent with what senator murphy was talking about, that is how do we do things in a positive way to reduce co-2 emissions. what we don't want to do and are worried about are things that have terrific harm to families and to our economy. one of the initial studies of a previous cap and trade bill, done by mckenzie, said it would increase the price of electricity per kilowatt hour by five to 15 cents a kilowatt hour. if you take the very low end of

that, five cents per kilowatt hour, in jackson, mississippi, that's a 56% increase in the electricity rate for a home. from 8.9 cents. the penalty for violating the renewable energy standard in waxman-marquis is 2 1/2 cents a kilowatt hour. our rate is only 8.9 cents a kilo watt hour for our -- we've got three big utilities, for our one in jackson. that's an enormous increase for our people to live with. those are the kind of things we're trying to avoid. if there's one thing i can say to the three of you and chairman boxer, the more the public can learn the facts, and not rush through this, this is -- this affects every element of our economy and our national security so that the public knows the facts and then makes

decisions based on the facts. >> one minute left, governor barbour, anything else you'd like to share with the committee you didn't have enough time to do in your prepared state snment you've just seen a bill where they threw in 300 pages at the last minute, that's no way to make legislation or come to solutions. >> it is a huge issue. it's an issue that affects every single person in the united states, every job in the united states, for the good or bad. and just the public needs to know the facts. and the longer the facts are in front of the public, then the better decisions they will call their senators about on the phone and understand this and understand what to say. >> thank you, govern josh. thank you, mr. chairman. >> any closing comments? >> just one. i know you have a commitment. you and i are both old enough to remember the b.t.u. tax in 1993. i referenced that this morning, the interesting thing, and let me get -- at least when you get on your plane to leave, let me

share, i don't think this bill will pass. it'll pass out of this committee, there's nothing that won't pass out of the committee, but on the floor it won't. in 1993, when they had the b.t.u. tax, it passed the house by the same margin of one, it was 219 votes. that's what this passed. and of course it was overwhelmingly defeated when it got to the senate, people had time to look at it, it was a regressive tax, while it wasn't nearly as high a tax as this bill would provide, still the american people did wake up, i'm confident they'll do that again. >> senator, thank you. i hope you're right. there are a bunch of things we can do and i would be in favor of doing, i just think the cap and trade tax and -- i know it's not y'all's jurisdiction but the increase in taxes on the oil and gas industry, about $81 billion over 10 years -- >> that was in the budget. i might say, some of our new democrats are very supportive of our position on that, such

the senator from alaska, he's trying to help us. $81 billion that would be the death nell of -- the death knoll of the oil and gas producers. >> we're 10 minutes over schedule, i know you also -- we need to make sure you get off to your plane. i appreciate you adjusting your schedule to meet now, not when the panel is here later. the committee will recess until 2:00 p.m. at that time, we'll hear from other members of the second panel, rich well, david hawkins, and john federman. i appreciate you bringing the views from your home state and i know that -- i think for all of us here at the panel, jobs are right at the top of this agenda and how we restructure our energy economy so we're not dependent on a few foreign nations compromising our national security, spending $2 billion a day overseas rather than spending it here creating

jobs in america. thank you for your testimony. the committee is adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] president obama is wrapping up his overseas trip with a stop in the african country of ghana. it is his first trip to sub- saharan africa as a u.s. leader. in a speech, he urged african societies to seize opportunities

for peace and prosperity. he and his family traveled to the coast of gone up for a tour of a former slave fortress, where thousands of africans were kept in dungeons before boarding ships headed towards america. he will return to washington later today. live coverage of the confirmation for sonia sotomayor begins monday at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. also, -- it will also be on c- span radio. here is a look at the murder boards, a committee of people who help nominees prepare for their confirmation proceedings. >> it is a terrible term to explain a critical part of the process. even though the nominees we have and judge sotomayor are very smart people, the stakes for these hearings are so high that it is critical that you have

thorough preparation. the goal for the process is to go through a time of refreshingly nominees memory of all of their opinions that could be considered controversial, give them an opportunity to reeducate themselves on all of that. then you set up a series of murder boards where you replicate a hearing condition where you have members of the white house counsel's office and the office of legal policy play the role of various senators on the committee, asking the types of questions they would ask bandied putting the nominee through the process. the goal of this process is that you want the questions that you ask to be harder than anything that you're nominee will face when they are actually in front of the lights and with c-span on. it is one of the most high- profile job interviews that you

have in the american government. >> different members of the team are playing the role of chairman, ranking members and other members? >> exactly. there are three sources to look for as a team. obviously, you look at the nominees writings and opinions and speeches they have given over the years. you also look to the questions that the nominee hasç been askd to see what the senators seem to be interested in. you also look at what they have asked of prior nominees. >> you can see the confirmation hearings for soda sotomayor beginning live at 10:00 a.m. eastern on monday. -- hearings for sonia sotomayor. >> coming out, the late robert

mcnamara talks about his book, the lessons of vietnam. then a former congressman on the bush and administration, the republican party and the obama presidency. he is interviewed by a wall street journal columnist. it read errors on sunday night. also, books on the economy. -- it also re-airs on sunday night. allen roth tells us how a second grader beats wall street. and all others talk about the current economic crisis. then henry waxman on his 35 years in the house. -- authors talk about the current economic crisis. >> how is c-span funded? >> taxpayer dollars.

>> private donations. >> public support. >> consumer funded. >> the work funded. >> private contributions. -- viewer funded. >> 30 years ago it was created as a public service, a new government mandate, and no government money. >> on thursday nancy pelosi bowed to pass health care legislation before the august recess. our weekly briefing with reporters also included questions about cia briefings to congress. democrats are accusing the cia of misleading congress during the bush administration. this is about 15 minutes. >> a bill to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and

increase national security and reduce pollution in the air. a bill to invest in innovation and new technology and rebuilding america in a green way. and a bill to honor our moral responsibility to protect gones beautiful creation by preserving the planet. -- to protect god's beautiful creation. this is absolutely essential. in action is too costly for our country in terms of dollars. our goal is a healthier america. congress is moving with comprehensive health reform that provides affordability, accessibility, quality and it will have a public auction. the only debate on that is what it will be called right in your suggestions.

as we move forward, we want to fix what is broken about this system. i have, told the three tenors that we must bring every possible dollar out of the health-care system al that wastes fraud and abuse that may be unnecessary to help cover the cost, as this will be paid for. members are establishing priorities and the ways and means committee is talking about some of the pay for us as we go forward. we will not be taxing health care benefits in any legislation that comes from the house. this health care reform is essential and important for the middle. -- for the middle class in america. people are seeing health care costs going up $1,800 a year.

between now and 2020, that means $18,000. in that 10 years $18,000 increase. it is just not feasible for a family to sustain that kind of cost. that is why our bill is a middle income initiative. we will lower costs, we will have greater choice and we will be able to convey stability and peace of mind to the american people. it will be great for individual people, it will be healthier for families and from an economic standpoint as well. it will be important in terms of small businesses to be competitive, and it will be important to our national debt.

health care reform is entitlement reform. excuse me. i am losing my voice. it is with great excitement that i promised the president we would have legislation out of the house before we went on in august break. that is still michael. depending on the tactics on the floor, we hope to stick by that schedule. i would be pleased to take any questions. excuse me one minute. >> [inaudible] they say they told them that the cia misled -- >> i have not had that briefing.

we saw yesterday that the press brought to our attention. >> [inaudible] they will end up voting for a public auction. [inaudible] to democrats get blamed for backing such [inaudible] >> we had this question almost every piece of legislation that comes up, but the house of representatives will set the pace for how we go forward and hope that the senate priorities are ones that we can come to agreement on. i am confident that we can. some of you said this about the recovery package. then it was said about the budget and the energy bill, but the fact is that we believe that a public auction is the

essential. -- a public option is essential to reform that will work for the american people. we are committed to that. >> [inaudible] >> i can only speak for the house. but i am confident we will have -- let me be clear about what it will be. it will be an option, a health security option, but it will being -- would never name -- it will be a sustainable, it will be a level playing field that will increase competition that is not something that is designed to outdo the private sector, but to have real competition. the private sector has had the field to itself up until now. the system has not worked for a

large number of people in our country. we believe that the so-called public auction is the way to keep the private sector honest. -- the so-called public auction -- option is the way to keep the private sector honest. >> [inaudible] you said you have not received the briefing yet. are you pursuing that? what is your take on what has evolved in the past 24 hours? >> i have seen the letters and they have considered -- the intelligence community has the oversight in the house. i am sure they will be pursuing this in their regular committee process. >> [inaudible]

the propriety of you making charges about the substance [inaudible] >> i did not know there was any question about propriety. i am proud of my work in human rights and people know where i am on the issues. >> [inaudible] >> this is an excuse, not a reason. our success is driving republicans to distraction. but the fact is that there is a briefing that is a serious concern to members of the committee. they had their course of action to deal with it. that is that. >> [inaudible] has taken a pledge he will not vote for a health-care bill that he has not read. or until it is available to the public on line for 72 hours. will you take a similar pledge? >> is this a pledge in keeping

with having read all of the bills he has ever voted for? i don't know what his pledge is but we pledge to have a full process with ample time for the legislation to be well known to the public. every person is an expert on his or her health care, and they are very curious. >> the other day in los angeles the congressmen held up a copy of [inaudible] praising the life and work of michael jackson. [inaudible] >> we are turning to popular culture now. michael jackson was a great performer, and lots of sadness there for many reasons. what i have said to my colleagues over the years and as leader and speaker is there is an opportunity on the floor of

the house to express their sympathy or their praise any time that they wish. i don't think it is necessary for us to have that solution. in this case, if the idea is to praise the life and work, as i assume that resolution does, then why not do that? a resolution would open up to contrary views that are not necessary at this time to be expressed in association with the resolution whose purpose is quite different. >> [inaudible] how often do you speak to leon panetta? >> i don't know when i last spoke to him. when he called to say he would be named and i offered my support for his becoming the director. i think that was the last time i spoke to him or the i have one briefing from him. it could be two, but not

recently. but i do get my regular briefing but not necessarily form him -- but not necessarily from him. dennis blair has been briefing me. >> are you in a position to name democratic people in the crisis? >> imminently. i will let you know as soon as we have this. >> [inaudible] there might be a need for a second stimulus. what is your permission -- what is your position? >> i am committed to the first stimulus. this third quarter is a big order for the stimulus. i think that people will begin to see more of the results. even one doctor who said that if it falls short, it will still be over 2.5 million jobs saved or created. we hope that it will be better than that.

the question is always open as to what the administration may recommend to us, but right now i believe we have much more to gain from seeing through the first stimulus. i am a proponent for bringing up a full transportation bill, which is a great jobs bill. at some point we may have to do something on the extention of unemployment benefits, but in terms of the investments that were made in the first package, i want to play that out. we have to be very careful about the spending on this. i respect what the opportunity that the distinguished majority leader put out there, but right now i think we have big issues with health care and how we find that. if we do go someplace i would like to see us through the transportation bill.

>> [inaudible] is there an upper limit to the new debt you are willing to incur from that bill? what is that limit? >> yes, we have to have the cbo score. i do want to say that the cbo does not score any savings from prevention. as we put the bill forward, we want to know that our goal is to lower costs improved quality and make america healthier. we have other delegations. some may be the omb and others may be academic institutions which can quantify exactly how much the hundreds of billions of dollars of savings in some of the initiatives we take. we will respect what the cbo scores says. we will put it in the context of a larger context.

some want it to direct -- the benefits of prevention and early intervention. we have to have that scored before we go forward. that is part of what we are waiting forthe cbo scoring is to what the bill will cost. -- the cbo scoring is to what the bill will cost. squeeze out what you can out of the system, savings. then we have to establish priorities. that is very challenging. otherwise, the bill is in less, so we have to contain and it must be paid for. [inaudible] ]

>> john boehner talked with reporters about economic stimulus, health care and cia briefings to congress. this is about 15 minutes. >> good morning everyone. vice-president biden is traveling to my home state of ohio today to discuss the democrats stimulus plan. ohio's unemployment rate is above 10%, the nation's unemployment continues to rise. families and small businesses are asking mr. vice president, where are the jobs? demonization, says the stimulus would keep unemployment below 8%.

they promised it would create jobs immediately. it is pretty clear that they were wrong. the bottom line is this, the stimulus is not creating a enough jobs, but here is one thing the stimulus is accomplishing. you will call earlier during the debate on the bill, democrats promised the stimulus would be free of earmarks. we pointed to one particular request that we were convinced was going to be funded in this. that was to protect the salt marsh harvest mouse near speaker pelosi's district. they said we will not fund this. it is not going to happen. guess what? $16 million of the stimulus money was appropriated to take care of the salt marsh harvest

mouse. while people 100 miles away have forms that are drawing up because it would '90s any stimulus money to turn on the pumps so that the -- they would not use any stimulus money to turn on the pumps. it want to create jobs instead of doing another whistle stimulus, what we need to do is start in congress by stopping job killing legislation like speaker pelosi's national energy tax and the government takeover of health care, which includes a big tax on small businesses. these will kill jobs in america , hurt families and small businesses. on the national energy tax, it will raise prices on everything from electricity to gasoline to food. it is really going to increase the costs for all families in

america and every business in america. it will drive millions of jobs to countries like india and china. somewhere in the branch of 2.3 million jobs every year. many of the democrats who supported this bill are feeling the backlash at home because the american people are outraged over this job-killing legislation. it now appears that democrat leaders will want their members down the plant once again when it comes -- walk their members down the plank again. earlier this week when i flew to washington, the flight crew gave me a note. i awoke from a nap and here was a note from the flight crew. thank you for standing up and fighting against the government taking control of our health care. it was signed by the captain and his cocaptain and a flight attendant.

if you don't think people in america are now beginning to understand what is going on, they are understanding pretty quickly. americans will not support a plan that raises costs, increases taxes and let's bureaucrats take care -- denied the care that their family and their children need. .

we're trying to save jobs in america, help get our economy going again, and all people see is a lot of waftful washington spending. and we've got to take care of the salt water marsh mouse. no wonder the american people think we're nuts. [inaudible] >> what a coins dents. >> partly because that's stated. there were rumors this week it seems that [inaudible] what do the folks in the republican party think of democrats on economic issues? because in places like ohio that are struggling with jobs and manufacturing jobs where you see a potential opening there. >> well, exactly. most americans want their job

back or they're concerned that they're going to be the next one to lose their job. they heard all the promises from the administration that the trillion dollar stimulus bill was really going to help or that their national energy tax was going to create more jobs. the fact is the national energy tax bill would i think destroy far more jobs than it will ever create. and people want their jobs. they want to see the economy moving again and they don't see anything happening. and they were promised by this administration that this money would go out quickly on the infrastructure side that it would be, we would have shovel ready prjects. well, when you look at how long it took odot to get a contract out and how some of the money is spent, you'll see it's not for shovel ready projects. they took $20 million of stimulus funds to do a study of the proposed project in

southwest ohio. that the supporters will admit couldn't begin construction for at least seven years. >> there's a letter sent that he recently testified withheld significant actions from congress to 2001. what's your reaction to that let sner and do you think that somehow backs up the speaker's claim that the c.i.a. misled her? >> our intelligence professionals are on the leading edge of helping to keep americans safe and american assets around the world safe. they are on the leading edge of supplying information to our military so they can be successful in their efforts in iraq and afghanistan. i've worked closely with our intelligence professionals and they are that, professionals. and i do not believe that the c.i.a. lied to congress. i'm still waiting for speaker

pelosi either put up the facts or retract her statement and apologize. and i don't know that this letter changes anything with regard to the speaker's action. >> given the -- on intelligence matters. does this claim from members -- [inaudible] personally? that's not evidence enough for you? >> listen, i think some people are trying to mix apples and ornings here. -- oranges here. when it comes to the information with regard to enhanced interrogation techniques, it's pretty clear what the c.i.a. briefed members of concord coalition congress. and for the speaker to say she wasn't briefed and then she was briefed and then to come out and accuse them of lying i think it's way over the top. but i don't think it has

anything to do with this issue that's being discussed by my colleagues across the aisle. >> do you think that in light of the fact that the administration was wrong of its economic forecast and the economy is doing worse than they said it would be without the stimulus, do house republicans and you personally feel vindicated in your opposition to the stimulus? >> listen, at the end of the day what we want is to get the economy going again. we believed then and we do now that the best way to get the economy going again would be to allow american families and small businesses to keep more of what they earned. our projections again by dr. christina romer using her model would be that we would have created twice as many jobs at half the cost given the fact that unemployment continues to rise we probably could have created ten times as many jobs as they have because their plan

is not working at all. >> yesterday in an e-mail [inaudible] you think before voting on it as well as the case made available to the public 72 hours beforehand. >> i asked my colleagues to go sign a petition at let freedom ring.org that has this commitment. >> speaker pelosi downplayed the idea that you had any of the bills -- [inaudible] making health care reform bill. >> they don't want people to read this. they might find out how ridiculous it is. if you've watched how they've brought these major bills to the floor, they bring them to the floor, they bring a big amendment in the dead of night and pass it before anyone has any clue what's there.

because as we found out when i went through the 3 16 page amendment that was filed at 3:09 a.m., members were appalled at what was just in the amendment. and i didn't even get through the whole amendment. can you imagine what the rest of the bill looked like? >> are you going to urge other members? >> i will. >> democrats are pushing for changes [inaudible] the obama administration said that -- what's your position on that? >> i think that the cat fight going on within the democrat party can continue. >> do you have a position on who should get briefed? >> i do. and the speaker and i along with majority leader reid and leader mcconnell have had this conversation with our intelligence professionals and the white house going back some year and a half or so.

and there is a protocol in place, and i think the protocol that the leaders have agreed to, along with the previous administration, is an appropriate one. >> last question. >> i'm not used to having this much room. although it is nice having you much further away from me. [laughter] >> what exactly, will you explain, go into more depth here about the multiplir effect and how you apply it to the -- >> when we used dr. romer's economic model for our stimulus proposal, we used the most conservative assumptions in a most conservative multipliers when we did it. and i do believe that the same

-- we did the same when it came to developing the estimate of how many american jobs would be lost as a result of their health care proposal. but this isn't hard to figure out. when you raise the cost of employment, guess what, you get less employees. and there's no question that their proposal raises the cost to employers to have employees, because it requires all employers to provide health care. and if you don't supply health care, guess what, you get taxed virtually an equivalent amount. so you're raising the cost of employment, which means an eer employer is going to be much more discertaining about whether they should be add more employees at a time when we're trying to help create jobs in america, we don't need to be moving policies that make it more difficult for employers to bring on new employees. thank you all.

>> 30 years ago america's cable companies created c-span, a private business initiative. no government mandate, no government money. >> justice department officials said that only voluntary statements from guantanamo bay

detainees would be used in military trials proposed by the obama administration. the testimony came during this senate armed services committee. carl 11 of michigan is the chair. about two hours. on june 25, the committee unanimously voted to include a provision in the national defense autsryization act for fiscal year 2010. this bill has now been sent to the full snat for its conversation. i thank our ranking member and all the members of the committee for their work on

this important matter. in its 2006 decision in the hamden case, the supreme court held that common article 3 of the geneva conventions prohibits the trial of detainees for violations of the law of war unless the trial is conducted, quote, by a regularly constituted court affording all of the jirblee guarantees which are recognized as indispensible by civilized peoples. closed quote. the court concluded that quote the regular military courts in our system is the courts martial established by the statute. but that a military commission can be regularly constituted by the standards of our military justice system, quote, in some practical need explains deeveations from court-martial practice, close quote. similarly, the court found that the provision for quote

judicial guarantees, which are recognized as indispensible by civilized peoples requires at a minimum that any deeveation from the procedures governing courts martial be justified by evident, practical need. the supreme court found that the military commissions established pruent to president bush's military order of november 13, 2001, failed to meet that test. the military commission's subsequently authorized by congress and the military commissions act of 2006 also clearly failed to meet that test as well because they deviate from court-martial practice by permitting the routine use of co-ersed testimony, by authorizing reliance on hears evidence even when direct evidence is reasonably available, and by establishing a presumption that the procedures and press dents applicable in trials by court-martials will not apply to military commissions.

the double failure that i've just described to establish a system that provides basic guarantees of fairness identified by our supreme court has placed a cloud over military commissions. and has led some to conclude that the use of military commissions can can never be fair, credible, or consistent with our basic principles of justice. they can play a legitimate role in prosecuting violations of the law of war. president obama has said that he believes this as well. in his may 21, 2009 speech at the national archives, the president said, quote, military commissions have a history in the united states dating back to george washington and the

revolutionary war, they are an appropriate venue for trying detainees for violations of the laws of war. they allow for the protection of sensitive sources and methods of intelligence gathering. they allow for the safety and security of participants and for the presentation of evidence gathered from the battle field that cannot always be effectively presented in federal courts. now, instead of using the flawed commissions of the last seven years, -- now i'm continuing the quote of president obama. instead of using the flawed commissions of the last seven years, my administration is bringing our commissions in line with the rule of law. we will no longer permit the use of evidence as evidence statements that have been obtained using cruel or inhumane methods. we will no longer place the burden to prove that hears is

unreliable on the pop ponent. and we will give detainees greater lattude in selecting their own counsel and more protection fs they refuse to testify. these reforms, he said, among others, are make our commitry commissions a more credible and effective means. and i will work with congress and members of bodes parties as well as legal authorities across the political spectrum on legislation to ensure that these commissions are fair, legislate, and effective. the procedures for military commissions have varied over the years as the procedures followed in our military justice system have varied. the supreme court noted in the hamden case that while procedures governing trials by military commission are typically those governing courts martial, the, quote, uniformity principle is not an inflexible one. it does not preclue all departures from the procedures dictated for use by court-martial but any departure

the supreme court said must be tailored to the capidgesy that neffstates it. that is the standard that we've tried to apply in adopting the procedures for military commission that is we have included in the bill that we referred to the full senate. this new language addresses a long series of problems with the military commissions procedures currently in law. for example, relative to the admissibility of co-ersed testimony, the provision in our bill would eliminate the double standard in existing law under which co-ersed statements are admissible if they were obtained prior to december 30, ie. relative to use of hears evidence, the provision in our bill would eliminate the extraordinary language in the existing law which places the burden on detainees to prove that hears evidence introduced against them is not reliable and probetive. relltoif the issue of access to classified evidence and

exculpatory evidence, the provision in our bill would eliminate the unique procedures and requirements which have hampered the ability of defense teams to obtain information and have led to so much lit congregation. we would substitute the procedures based on the uniform code of military justice with modest changes to ensure that the government cannot be required to disclose classified information to unauthorized persons. and of great importance, the provision in our bill would reverse the existing presumption in the military commission's act of 2006 that rules and procedures applicable to trials by court-martial would not apply. our new language says by contrast that, quote, except as otherwise provided, that prures and rules of evidence applicable in trials of general court-martials of the united states shall apply in trials by military commission under this

chapter. the exceptions to this rule are, as suggested by the supreme court, carefully tailored to the unique circumstances of the conduct of military and intelligence operations during hostilities. three years ago, when the committee considered similar legislation on military commissions, i urged that we apply two tests. first, would we be able to live with the procedures that we established if the tables were turned and our own troops were subject to similar standards? second, is it consistent with our american system of justice? i believe those remain the right questions for us to consider and that the language that we have included in the national defense authorization act for fiscal year 2010 meets both tests. over the last three years, we have seen the legal advisor to the convening authority for

military commissions forced to step aside after a military judge found that he had compromised his object tivity by aligning himself with the prosecution. westbound prosecutors resign after -- we have had prosecutors resign after serious defigssies in the military commission process. we've had the chief defense counsel raise serious concerns about the adequacy of resources made available to defendants of military commission cases, writing that regardless of its other procedures, no trime system will be fair unless the serious deficiencies in the current systems approach to defense resources are rectified. so even if we're able to enact new legislation that successfully address it is short comings in existing law, we still have a long way to go to restore public confidence in military commissions and the justice that they produce. however, we will not be able to restore confidence in military commissions at all unless we

first substitute new procedures and language to address the problems with the existing statute. again, i want to thank senator mccain, senator graham and the other members of the committee for all of the work that they put into this bill and to this issue. and the senate will be considering the entire bill, including these provisions hopefully starting next monday or tuesday. senator mccain. >> senator inhoff has asked to make a brief comment. >> unfortunately, i'm the ranking member on environment and public works. we have a hearing that's going on at the same time. so i do have a list of nonlawyer questions i'll be submitting for the record, such things as the impact of placing detainees in the u.s. prisons system pretrial and post trial. the security risks of escape. where these detainees will be tried and at what risk.

the advantages of using the complex we've all seen down there, the expeditionry legal complex that is designed for tribunals. the rules of evidence that are between a tribunal and a federal court system and lastly discussion, some questions about the adviseability of reading miranda rights to captured terrorists. so i thank you and i will be submitting these. and i appreciate the opportunity to make that statement. >> thank you. senator mccain. >> thank you, mr. chairman, i want to thank you in welcoming our witnesses in both panels this morning. i appreciate the expert advice and experience in these matters that our witnesses bring to our discussions on military commissions and detainee policy. this committee has led the way in dealing with detainee issues and developing legislation on detainee matters sometimes in cooperation with the white

house and sometimes over its strong objections. the national defense authorization act for fiscal year 2010 which was reported out of this committee unanimously on june 25th again takes a leading role by including changes to the military commission act of 2006. i am pleased to have worked with you and senator graham and others on this legislation and we haven't resolved all the thorny issues that military commissions and other aspects of detainee policy present. i believe we have made substantial progress that will strengthen the military commissions systems during appellate review, provide a careful balance between protection of national security and american value, and allow the trials to move forward with greater efficiency toward a just and fair result. the first panel is composed in experts in national security and legal matters from within the government including senior

officials of the defense department, justice department, and our uniformed judge advocate general corps. the witnesses on our second panel have similar practical and academic experience who are now outside the government. i'm particularly interested in hearing the views of witnesses on both panels on problems that have been encountered implementing the current military commissions system, including the speed of bringing cases to trial and what should be done to make the system work more smoothly, ways in which to deal with the important issue of protection of classified information, whether the current military commission system adequately addresses alleged terrorist acts by al qaeda and its operatives that occurred before the attacks on september 11th, 2001, such as the bombing of the uss coal and our east african embassies. whether the rules on use of hears testimony at trials strike the right balance between the conditions of an ongoing war or whether

improvements should be made. whether the definition of, quote, unlawful enemy combatant or, quote, unprivileged blue ridge rent should be modified -- blue ridge rint should be modified. whether changes should be made in the revy of missionry commissions. while our focus is on military commissions and the trial of detainees, there are a number of enormously difficult issues related to detainee policy that we must also come to grips with in a complehnsive fashion before we can close the detention facility at guantanamo bay as president obama has pledged to do. mr. chairman, the issues present d by the detainees at guantanamo and overseas in afghanistan are among the most difficult policy decisions this administration faces. i look forward to hearing the views of our witnesses and working with you on these matters as the d.o.d. bill moves forward toward floor

conversation and conference with the house of representatives. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you so much, senator mccain. we'll first now hear from our inside panel. and first the general counsel for the department of defense. >> thank you very much. you have my prepared statement. i will dispense with the full reading of it and just make some abbreviated opening comments here. >> all the statements will be made part of the record in full. >> thank you. i want to thank this committee for taking the initiative on a bipartisan basis to seek reform of military commissions. as you know, in his speech, as the chairman remarked, at the national archives on may 21, president obama called for the reform of military commissions and pledged to work with the congress to amend the military commissions act of 2006. so speaking on behalf of the administration, we welcome the opportunity to be here today

and to work with you on this important initiative. military commissions can and should contribute to our national security by becoming a viable form for trying those who violate the laws of war. by working to improve military commissions, to make the process more fair and credible, we enhance our national security by providing the government with effective alternatives for bringing to justice those international terrorists who violate the laws of war. those are the remarks i wanted to make initially. senator, i look forward to your questions. >> thank you very much, mr. johnson. next is the assistant attorney general for the national security division at the department of justice, david criss. >> thank you mr. chairman senator mccain and members of the committee. i come from the justice department and this is my first appearance before this committee. i thought i might begin just by briefly explaining how i think

my work relates to that of the committee with respect to military commissions. the national security division which i lead combines all of d.o.j.'s major national security person until and functions and our basic mission is to protect national security consistent with the rule of law and civil liberties. and in keeping with that we support all lawful methods including but not limited to prosecution in an article 3 court or before a military commission. in the last administration, nsd assembled a team of experienced federal prosecutors drawn from across the country to assist the d.o.d. office of the military commissions and litigate cases at gitmo. and i can assure you that assistance will continue. the man who led that team for the national security division is now my deputy and a member of that team has since been recalled to active duty and is

now the lead prosecutor at omc. as the president explained, when prosecution is feesible and otherwise appropriate, we will prosecute terrorists in federal court or in military commissions. in the 1990's, i prosecuted a group of violent extremists and like their more modern counter parts, they engaged in extensive law fair which made the trials challenging. but the prosecution succeeded not only because it incarcerated these defendants, some for a long time indeed, but also because it deprived them of any shred of legitimatesy. military commissions can help do the same for those who violate the law of war. not only dedain them for longer than might otherwise be possible but also brand them as ill legitimate war criminals. to do this effectively, however, the commissions themselves must first be

reformed. and the committee's bill is a tremendous step in that direction. as you know from my written testimony and that of mr. johnson and admiral mcdonald, the administration appreciates the bill very much and supports much of it. you have made an incredibly valuable contribution with the bill. so i want to thank again for inviting me here and i look forward to answering your questions. >> thank you very much. admiral mcdonald. >> thank you, mr. chairman, senator mccain, members of the committee. thank you very much for providing me with the opportunity to present my personal views of section 1031 of the national defense authorization act. in 2006, when this committee was working to establish a permanent framework for military commissions through the military commissions act, i had the opportunity to share my views with the senate judiciary committee and the house armed services committee. at that time, i recommended that a comprehensive framework

for military commissions should clearly establish the jurisdiction of the commissions , set baseline standards of structure, procedure, and evidence, consistent with u.s. law and the law of war, and prescription substantive offenses. i stated that the uniform code of military justice should be used as a model for the commission's process. i am pleased to say that this committee's legislative proposal addresses the concerns i had in 2006 following the enactment of the military commissions act. overall, i believe that this legislation establishes a balanced framework to provide important rights and protections to an accused while also providing the government with the means of prosecuting alleged alien unpri ledged enemy blue ridge rents. in reviewing your legislation, i would identify two years where additional clarity would be most helpful to our prabblingtigsers.

first, the legislation relies upon the current courts martial rules of evidence to address the handling of classified information. unfortunately, the cog accident military rule, mre 505 does not have a very robust history. over time, we have discovered that while mre 505 has some beb fits, the military rules on the use of classified information falls short of our overall goals. on the other hand, for over 20 years, article 3 courts have relied upon the classified information procedures act or seepa. in light of the history and experience of cipa, as well as the practical difficulties with the mre 505 to date, i recommend using a modified cipa process for military commissions going forward. second, i agree with the provision calling for the military judge to evaluate the admissibility of allegedly

coersed statements using a to talt of the circumstances test to determine reliability. however, to assist our practitioners in the field, i recommend that you develop a list of conversations to be evaluated in making this determination. those conversations should include that athe degree to which the statement is corroborated, the indisha and reliability of the statement itself, and to what degree the will of the person making the statement was overborne. once again, thank you, mr. chairman, for the opportunity to testify. and i look forward to answering your questions. >> thank you very much, admiral mack domed. as the judge advocate general of the united states navy, your testimony is obviously very, very important to us. you emphasize that you're speaking in a personal capacity here today. and we will -- we understand that, and we would ask, however, if there are some differences between the uniformed navy and your own

personal views, that we will ask the secretary if there are any such differences we assume mr. johnson is speaking for the entire department of defense. but since you put it that way, we will make that inquiry of the secretary of the navy. let's try a six-minute round here. we've got not only two panels, but we've also got a room which is reserved for some other purpose previously at 12:30. i hope we will have enough time. so we will try six-minute first-round. let me ask you first, mr. johnson. i quoted from the hamden case in my opening remarks saying that the court in hamden said that the regular military courts and our system or the court-martials established by

congressional statutes but they also said that a military commission can be regularly constituted. if there's a practical need that explains deeveations from court-martial practice. we have attempted in our language to do exactly that. and my question first of you is, in your view, does our bill conform to the hamden standards? >> senator, as you noted, hamden requires and of course hamden was at a time that the military commissions act of 2006 did not exist, as i recall. but the holding of hamden was that military commissions -- and i'm not going to get this exactly right but that military commissions should depart from ucmj courts only in situations of evident practical need.

the proposed legislation in our view definitely brings us closer to the ucmj model. and the circumstances under which the military commission's contemplate bid this bill and ucmj courts differ are in our judgment circumstances that are necessary given the needs here. for example, there is no miranda requirement imposed by this legislation. article 31 of the ucmj specifically is excluded from application here. article 31 is what calls for miranda warnings in ucmj circumstances.

and the legislation also takes what i believe is a very appropriate and practical approach to hears hears. as yeah noted, the burden is no longer on the opponent to demonstrate that hears should be excluded. there is a notice requirement in the proposed legislation and if the proponent of the hear say can demonstrate reliability and teerlt and that the declare nt is not available given the unique circumstances of military operations and the hear say could be admitted. military commissions are fundamentally different from ucmj courts in that most often what you have in military justice is the punishment of the member of the u.s. military

for some violation of the ucmj very often some sort of domestic nature. and military commissions obviously for violations of the law of war, they're very often prosecuting people captured on the battle field and just given the nature of the way evidence is collected there needs to be a recognition that the military can't be expected to change how it does business to engage in evidence collection on the battle field. so the way this legislation deals with the hears rules i think is quite appropriate and is certainly an example of evident practical need. i would say the same when it comes to the rules on authenticity set forth in this proposed legislation. there's not a requirement like you would see in ucmj courts or in civilian courts for what we in civilian courts would know as a strict chain of custody. there is a more practical

approach given the needs of military operations and intelligence collection. >> kiintrupt you there? if there are any, if you could expand for the record any places where you believe that there's, where we fall short of complying with the hamden standards, i'd appreciate that. if you could do that for the record. >> sorry for going on. >> mr. chris, let me ask you, representing the department of justice. in your judgment, do you believe that this bill as drafted, that these provisions conform to the hamden standards? >> yes. to the extent that the uniformity principle from hamden applies, i think it is met here. jay mentioned some of the differences and i think his justify cakeses make sense. we have some recommendations for change but those aren't rooted in the uniformity principle at all.

>> i'm asking you questions. it's been argued that it's not appropriate for the department of defense to prosecute terrorists. do you believe that it is appropriate for the department of defense to prosecute alleged terrorists with these military commission instead of the department of justice doing all the prosecuting in article 3 courts? >> yes. i think the president made clear in his may 21 speech that we will prosecute in federal court and where there is a law of war violation and under a reformed system of military commissions we will also prosecute law of war violations in those commissions. i think the president said it best when he said that we need to be using all instruments of national power against this adversary, and that includes military commissions. >> thank you. my time has capired. senator mccain.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. johnson and mr. chris, if trials were held in guantanamo or the united states, would there be any difference in the proceedings? >> senator, if military commissions were held in the continental united states, i think that we have to carefully consider the possibility that some level of due process may apply that the courts have not determined applies now. i think that that assessment has to be carefully evaluated and carefully made. i think that -- >> so what you're saying is that you believe there could be some significant difference in procedure if the trials were held in guantanamo or the united states of america? >> i'm not sure i would be prepared to say significant

difference. >> well, i think it would be important for this committee to know what your view is. it might have something to do with the way that we shape legislation. if they're going to have all kinds of additional rights if they're tried in the united states of america as opposed to guantanamo, i think that the committee and the american people should know that. >> one of the things that i mentioned in my prepared statement, senator, is that when it comes to the admissibility of statements, the administration believes that a voluntaryness standard should apply that takes account of the realities of military operations. and we think that that is something that due process may require particularly if commissions come to the united states, that the courts may impose a voluntaryness standard. >> well, i hope that you and mr. chris will provide for the record what you think the difference is in the process would be as to the location of those trials. i think it's very important

certainly as to me. mr. chris in your statement on page 2 you said that it's the administration's view that there is a serious risk that courts would hold the admission of involuntary statements of the accused in military commission proceedings as unconstitutional. does that infer that these individuals have constitutional rights? >> yes. i mean, they do. >> what are those constitutional rights? people who are not citizens of the united states of america who were captured on the battle field commiting acts of war against the united states? >> our analysis, senator, is that the due process claws applies to military commissions and imposes a constitutional floor on the procedures that would govern such commissions including against enemy aliens. >> and what would those be, mr. chris? >> a number of due process base

rights. one of which mr. johnson just mentioned is we think there is a serious risk that courts will find that a voluntaryness standard is required by the due process claws for admission. >> so you are saying that these people who are in guantanamo were part of 9/11 or who have committed acts of war against the united states are entitled to constitutional rights, of the constitution of the united states of america? >> within the framework that i just described, i think the answer is yes, the due process clause guarantees and imposings some requirements on the conduct and rules governing these admissions. >> it's very interesting because i had never proceeded under that assumption in drafting this legislation and the previous legislation. the fact is that they're entitled to geneva protections under the vene va conventions which apply in the rules of war. i did not know nor know of any

time in american history where enemy combatants were given rights urneds the united states constitution. >> i mean, i do think senator there's a difference between their rights, for example they would not be entitled to the rights under geneva to prisoners of war. >> no. they are rights under the treatment of enemy combatants. those the geneva conventions of common article 3. >> yes. >> ok. thank you. but we now have established that it is the view of the administration that enemy combatants or bell lidge rents or whatever the new name that you would like to call them are now entitled to rights under the -- constitutional rights of u.s. citizens. >> not at all. i don't think that's right. both in terms of how we would describe this as a due process requirement that applies to the commissions even if they are prosecuting enemy aliens and also i don't think it's right

to equate the rights or the rules that are required for commission proceedings against aliens necessarily with those that would apply against u.s. citizens. those might come out differently. this is an extremely complicated area of law. >> it certainly is. but your statement for the record is it's the administration's view that there is serious risks that courts would hold that voluntary statements of the accused in military commission proceedings is unconstitutional. therefore it means that they have some constitutional rights. so, mr. chairman, i know that there are other questions by the witnesses -- of the witnesses and if there's a second round maybe i'll take advantage of it. >> thank you, senator mccain. senator lieberman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thanks to the witnesses. mr. johnson, let me begin with a an expression of appreciation for the process that the administration has gone through

to come to the point that you're at today. for me, as we've gone through this deliberation about how to treat what i call prisoners of war, that is those suspected of violating the laws of war, it seems to me that we've had a hard time putting this in the context of our own sense of fairness related to the unique war we're in. obviously, this is a war against terrorists. they don't fight in uniform, they don't fight for the most part for nation states. and this war may go on for a long time. but nonetheless, it seemed to me along the way that there was no sense to those who were arguing that these individuals apprehended for violations of the war of war should be tried in our federal courts. in the sense that senator mccain has just said, i don't think they have the

constitutional rights that we associate with american citizenship. also, they've not in my opinion violated federal criminal law, they violated the laws of war. so that i know that there were some who expect that the obama administration's review would end up recommending that all of these cases go to federal court. and i appreciate the fact that you have not come to that conclusion. although i have some questions about some of the subparts of what you've done. but i think this is really a very significant, very open minded, very fair, very ultimately historic process you went through and reached generally thinking the right balance. and i appreciate it. you were asked just a moment ago whether you thought that the military commission provisions of the national defense authorization act were within the hamden ruling of the supreme court. i want to ask you whether your

judgment is that the military commission provisions of the ndaa are within the requirements of the geneva convention. >> yes, senator. with room to spare. yes. and one of my personal objectives, frankly, is that we devise a system that comports with the geneva convention as well as hamden as well as applicable u.s. laws. so i think the answer to your question is yes, sir. >> well, i thank you for that answer. i agree with you. and i particularly appreciate that the clause you added, which is that the military commission provisions of the national defense authorization act are not only within the requirements of the geneva convention but as you said with room to spare. i agree. that we hold ourselves to very high standards. sometimes standards that are so high that they are unrails

stick -- unrealistic and in some sense self-destructive in the context of the war we're in. but i agree with you that what we've provided for this in this legislation of this committee is well within the geneva convention. let me ask you a specific question that came up in the last exchange and testimony of mr. chris. in light of the judgment of the supreme court in the hamden case, that certainly to me suggested approval of the court of appeals for armed forces as the place that the accused here can appeal from the judgment of the military commission and the court of appeals for armed forces is not a standard article 3 federal court as you well know. why is the administration

seeking a right of appeal from the military commissions to article 3 federal courts? mr. chris or mr. johnson. >> senator, let me take a stab at that initially at least. first, we agree and endorse the position expressed in the bill that should be an expanded scope of review. review of the facts as well as the law. our view is that we should retain the court of military commissions review and then have appeal directly to the d.c. circuit. that would be in effect a four-teered level of review beginning with the trial court. and in our view, would resemble in many respects ucmj justice because you have that interimmediate level of appellate court rather than an

appeal directly from the military commission's trial level court to the cast. so it would be our preference to have an appeal directly to the d.c. circuit. but we agree with the concept of expanded scope of review. >> is it fair to say that the administration's suggested changes in this regard are not rooted in the supreme court's uniformity principles as stated in hamden? but, they're rooted in some other requirement or some sense of the administration about what's fair and just here? >> i think that's a fair statement, senator. >> let me ask you just to comment, to go back to what i said at the beginning, and just describe in the time that's left in my questioning period. why you reach the judgment on behalf of the administration or why the president ultimately reached the judgment that these cases that we're talking about

should not primarily go to our federal courts? >> well, as you probably know, the president signed an executive order mandating review of each detainee's situation. that review is ongoing. and as you've seen in at least one instance, a detainee who had a pending military commissions case against him was transferred for prosecution in the southern district of new york. i think it is fair to say that what the president and the administration have concluded is at least some of these detainees should be prosecuted for the violations of the laws of war. that military commissions justice is the more appropriate form dependent upon a variety of factors. in some situations you have a situation where a detainee is violated both title 18 and the laws of war. and we want to retain military commissions as a viable and realistic option, whether

almost every one or everyone who is now a pending military commissions defendant will stay that way. i couldn't say. the review is ongoing. >> thanks. i want to just close the loop on the previous question because my time is up, which is that i think the committee has made the right judgment in saying that the right of appeal from the military commissions should be to the u.s. court of appeals for the armed forces and that there shouldn't be an appeal to the circuit court for the d.c. district. thank you. >> thank you senator lieberman. senator graham. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to, one, compliment you and senator mccain for trying to come wup a new bill. i think it would help the country if we could reform the process. and i think we're very close to a bill that we all can be proud of. about the appeals. the main thing for the public to understand is that any verdict rendered in mailtry commission trial will work its way into the silion courts. is that correct? >> yes, sir. >> so no one will be imprizznd

in this country based on the military commission verdict that does not have their day in federal court, civilian court? >> assuming they appeal, that's correct. >> now, when it comes to the idea of location, the courtroom at guantanamo bay is uniquely set up i think to do these trials. i would be interested to get your thoughts about how the location would matter. i'm not so sure after the supreme court decisions treating guantanamo bay as an extension of the united states that it would matter greatly. so like senator mccain, i would like to know how location would matter. admiral mcdonald, one of the issues that we're grappling with is the support for terrorism. i think i understand the administration's view that that is not a traditional charge under the law of armed conflict. but under the uniformed code of military justice, we incorporate the assimilated crimes act. could that doctrine be used here? >> yes, sir.

you could incorporate it in under title 18 through the assimilated crimes act into the ucmj and it could be charged. >> and i think mr. johnson, that gets back to your point. some of these people can be charged under both sets of laws. is that what you were trying to tell us? >> yes, sir. >> mr. chris, do you agree with that theory, that we could use the assimilated crimes doctrine to incorporate material support using a title 18 event? >> i think you could do that as a frmle matter. there still remains the question whether material support was a -- under that label or a different label. >> i totally agree with that debate. but if you were able to incorporate title 18 offenses that would resolve that issue? >> to the extent it's a viable law of war offense. >> now, thank you. when it comes to evidentry standards, are you familiar with the hague procedures when they try international war criminals? >> i'm not. >> well, one thing i would

suggest that you look at, i think our hears rules are much more restrictive, quite frankly. >> we talked about this in 2006. we looked at the international criminal tribunal for rwanda and for yugoslavia and both of those have very liberal hear say rules. and when it comes to voluntaryness, what kind of standard do they use? >> it's the reliability of the statement. >> the point i'm making to the committee, that if you compare our military commission system particularly the reformed version to an international court trial at the hague, we're much more, for lack of a better word, liberal in terms of proo viding due process and protections to the accused than you would get if you were going to go to the hague. and i have no problem with that, quite frankly. i think that's a good thing. now, let's get back to what the courts are likely to look at in a military commission trial,