at this moment, we're being called upon to fulfill our duty for the citizens of this nation and of future generations. i will be honest with you. i do not know how passing health care will play politically, but i do know it is a right thing to do it is right for our families, it is right for our businesses, it is right for the united states of america. if you share my belief, i want you to fight with me. i want you to help us get over the fence. the need is great. the opportunity is here. it is within our grasp. thank you very much. [cheers] . .

♪

♪ ♪

♪

♪ ♪ >> president obama representative been up a visit to suburban philadelphia discussing health care. then right back to washington. coming up, a discussion on the obama administration's an addition policies by the brookings institution. that is underway right now on c- span2. right now you were looking at a picture from homeland's security. president obama has revealed his choice for the newest head of the administration.

it is the retired general robert harding. he has an extensive intelligence background. it is significant, after the attempted christmas day airline attack. homeland's security secretary janet napolitano will talk about his choice at noon eastern, about to get under way.

>> we're standing by live at the department of homeland's security, awaiting the arrival of janet napolitano. she will surely announce the nominee to head the transportation and security administration, general robert harding, who formerly served at the defense intelligence agency.

right now, a discussion on the emigration policies hosted by the brookings institution, on2 on. later, a look at the epa with its administration and lisa jackson at the press club here in washington. that will be at 1:00 p.m. eastern.

>> good morning. i'm here today to announce that president obama will nominate major-general robert harding as the next administrator of the transportation security administration. it is a critical position for the security of the nation. by nominating general robert harding for this very important

job, the administration is calling on an individual with more than 35 years of experience as an army commander, a senior military intelligence officer, a high level manager of intelligence operations, and a successful businessman and ceo in the security field. the general will need all these towns as he takes the helm of this vital agency. tsa's mandate is brought. they're responsible not only for u.s. aviation security, but also to safeguard rail, and other transportation systems. the general be a tremendous asset to bolster security at domestic airports. he will deploy additional law- enforcement officials, behavior detection officers, air marshals, and explosive detectives and canine teams. he will fix the gaps in the system as well. on friday we announced that the first 11 airports to receive advanced imaging technology

purchased with american recovery and reinvestment act dollars. these state-of-the-art machines enhance our capability to detect and disrupt threats of terrorism. we expect to deploy a total of 450 units by the end of 2010. our fiscal year 2011 budget calls for 500 more. we have accelerated the deployment of this enhanced technology, and strengthened other layers of security, partially in response to the attempted terrorist attack on december 25. it served as a stark reminder of the evolving tactics that the violent extremists will pursue to threaten our international aviation system, to thwart the security measures put into place at 9/11, and kill innocent people. the international dimension of this incident and international threat posed by radical extremism requires an international response also.

right now dhs is working on an international effort to build intercepted and strengthen the aviation security. since january i have met with european counterparts and mine north, south, and central and caribbean colleagues to discuss ways to bolster measures and standards. these meetings so far have produced very encouraging results including joint declarations to strengthen the international civil aviation system between the u.s. and european union, and between the u.s. and argentina, brazil, canada, chile and several other countries. on friday, japanese counterpart and i announced we will join with our counterparts from the asian-pacific region and tokyo this week to continue building this consensus. make no mistake, we are engaged

in aggressive effort to strengthen the international aviation system against terrorists who constantly seek ways to exploit gaps and for security measures. general robert harding is precisely the kind of leader we need moving forward. his national security expertise cannot work in the international community, and years of service in the u.s. army will be a valuable added addition to the department's efforts. i might add that as a retired u.s. army major general, bob also has another distinguished veteran -- adds another distinguished veteran to the ranks. let me close by saying this, the tsa administrator is among the most important unfilled post in the obama administration. the president and i both believe that general robert harding has the experience and perspective to make a real difference in the

carrying out the mission. if there were ever a nominee who warranted expedited and detailed consideration in the senate, this is it. we hope the commerce and homeland security committees will be able to work expeditiously to complete their hearing process, so that his nomination may move to the floor for confirmation. i applaud the president on his superb choice. i look forward to swift senate confirmation. i look forward to having bob on board at the tsa very soon. thank you all. >> homeland security secretary

janet napolitano on the announcement of retired army major general robert harding to have the transportation security administration. coming up at 1:00 p.m. this afternoon, live remarks from epa administrator lee said jackson, talking about climate change, carbon emissions, and priorities. the will be live coverage beginning at 1:00 p.m. eastern. >> up next, another segment from this morning's "washington journal." \ the guest talks about the role that nuclear energy plays an honest energy policy. host: christine todd whitman with us this morning to talk about nuclear energy and your role as co-chair of the clean and safe energy coalition. two things. the last couple of weeks. the president announcing loan guarantees to build the first

new nuclear reactor in the u.s. in some 30 years. also, the administration's announcement that this amount and will be closed, will not be a waste storage facilityho storagew will it work? how do these tie into each other? guest: they are integral, but they are not insuperable. right now those nuclear runs are being stored on site. if we are serious about keeping nuclear at 20% of our power, as it is today, in the future, they are going to have to bring more nuclear reactors on line. we are also going to get into reprocessing if we are serious, recycling. you can vastly reduced the amount of power in those spent

rods and reduce the type of storage. we will come up with a place to store. they have appointed a panel with secretary chu to look at if we should get back into the reprocessing business. it was congress who ask for a place to put those rods but one should not be a indicator of how the other. congress has said there should be one repository, and they named it the mountain, but they need to make some decisions now. host: what do you know of the administration's policy in terms of nuclear, beyond what they have done here for these federal loan guarantees in georgia?

guest: what they are saying is they are serious about nuclear. they are looking at the future, looking at a 23% increase in energy consumption. nuclear is the only form of base power that does not release any of the balloons or greenhouse gases while producing power, and it is always there. while they will still be putting their money and encouraging green power and conservation, they are saying if we are going to increase this demand -- this is not too far away -- we have to start today. host: you are the co-chair of the clean and safe energy coalition. who is behind this organization? businesses, individuals? guest: we are a voluntary organization made up of people,

labor unions, some environmental groups, some health groups, some former elected officials. there are over 2200 members. my co-chair is patrick more, one of the co-founders of greenpeace. what he is saying is, i care about climate change, i care about keeping the economy going. i think this needs to be part of our future. what case is trying to do is put the facts out there. it is not for everybody. communities need to know what to ask if a utility is proposing bringing in nuclear. host: what sorts of jobs figures to uc?

beyond construction jobs. -- do you see? guest: that is one of the attractive aspects of nuclear. in the height of construction, you may need 2500 workers. about 1400 permanent jobs. those jobs create $40 million in total income to the employees, $430 million in income to the surrounding community. for every one job that is brought on line at a reactor, two 23 jobs are created in the community to support that. on average, they pay 30% more than a similar job depending on where they're located. we do have utilities that are now moving forward with looking

at the technologies, so there is a lot going on that makes it attractive. host: were you surprised that this administration move this way? guest: not really. they want to be sensible. if you take the best scenario, renewals are maybe 7%, 9% maximum. even if you triple that, you are not going to meet the 23% increase in demand. we still have not figured out how to store that power. it is on when the sun is shining in when the wind is blowing. everybody says that nuclear is terribly expensive, but so it is solar and wind.

there are trade-offs to be made on everything. host: christine todd whitman is with us until 9:15 eastern. democrats, 202-737-0002. republicans, 202-737-0001. independents, 202-628-0205. pasadena, maryland. caller: i am glad that obama wants to do nuclear, but do we ever consider building more oil refineries in our country? guest: that is an issue that is being discussed by the department of energy and various utilities that have the ability to do that. but as you know, there is concern about where your drill, how you drill. these are concerned that will bring any new technology on-line

a slow process. we are extraordinarily good at same note. we do not want to drill for oil. we do not want to drill for coal. about 50% of our power. we do not want to keep on importing oil from countries who do not like us. we do not want to consider nuclear -- but we are now starting to get over that. now with these windchills, -- windmills, people are concerned about that as well. we have to understand that there is no one answered. there will be a mix of renewable energy to come up with a better solution. host: michael from kentucky. north carolina, and i apologize.

caller: i worked on the epa campus here and i did the wire rim. in three years in that project i saw so much government waste. things being thrown away. i have to put life together that were severely damaged. on the flip side, there will be wasted in all projects. it seems that the government, when they get into building things, they do not consider waste. i think contractors feel as if it is a blank check. we cannot do that. that is part of the discourse in this country. i am all for building a new nuclear power plant, and i

called my senator hear about it. there has been severe layoffs in the electrician trade. so i put in an application to a nuclear facility in town here. it is ridiculous. in the ad, they say no experience necessary, no military background. who is going to be watching these nuclear power plants? what are their qualifications? this is not just a pharmaceutical company. guest: good question. that is something the industry takes the enormously seriously. i cannot speak to what job you

were looking at, and but you would go through a background check before you go on to a nuclear site. they oversee it to make sure that they are constantly testing the parameters of the security they have in place. the utilities and federal regulators that oversee this note and a slight mist that can be a disaster for the industry as well as the people around. what you have it is security on site provided by the utilities. they will be watching closely, but you also have the nuclear regulatory commission that does spot checks. they will be looking at any new reactor coming on line. they will be highly trained. yes, if you are using 300 yards of concrete in the course of building a reactor -- there are all sorts of things that go into making a reactor.

there will be wasted and different contractors, but they will all be scrutinized. in almost every state where a reactor is being looked at, they are being required to look at, at least twice a year, to make sure construction is colon how long as plant and the money that is being spent is intended in the way that it was meant to be. host: walker, louisiana. james on the republican line. caller: i think a couple of new nuclear power plants would be the best stimulus of all. considering the leaked cru e- mails, the revelation that monitoring stations are being located in the urban areas, do

you believe the climate change issue is settled? guest: no, there will always be disputes. as far as bringing new power on, it is a clean form of power. it does not produce many of the pollutants. i believe human activity does not cause climate change, but we exacerbate a natural phenomenon and we are making it difficult for nature to the door the changes that are happening anyway. so it is in our best interest to slow it down as we can. there are steps that we can take nuclear, in my mind, is a separate discussion and climate change 1. yes, it does not produce greenhouse gases, but it does not also create a regulated pollutants.

other sources of power do. my husband said, after being the head of the epa, i could ruin anybody's day. it is tough in the air that we should not be getting in our body. host: on energy legislation in capitol hill, there is a recent headline saying that christine todd whitman believes that we need to be reducing carbon emissions. guest: the climate change debate has become so politicized. you are either for or against it. there is no middle ground on that right now. we have seen what happened with politics these days. but we need an energy bill. we desperately need an energy plan. we have an aging infrastructure.

we need to take some action. you will get to a reduction of carbon if you do a bill. especially if you do it with the understanding that the unborn states as clean as possible that would therefore bring you to nuclear. how we use the land around us also has an impact on the environment. host: dan from massachusetts. on the independent line. caller: i have a couple of questions. the first one pertains to global warming. i wonder if you believe the basic premise that pumping oil

from the earth -- and it may help the planet to be more stable, and burning in in releasing the co2 into our atmosphere, at the same time decreasing our planet's ability to convert that into oxygen@@s whether through the release of carbon, or the other five or six greenhouse gases, or the way that we are changing land-use patterns and deforestation farming, all of which have a huge impact. we need to take it seriously and address it. i don't believe the world will end tomorrow, but do believe is

serious. end tomorrow, but we need to be aware of it. we need to look for ways where we can reduce our carbon impact, improve our footprint geographically in the world, and not start tthe economy. guestcaller: i am glad to hear u say the word exacerbate. i think that we are helping this along. the other thing pertained to dust in inew york city after 9/11. i know that you had a difficult call to say that it was safe for people to work in the area. apparently, a lot of them went into their without respirators. there has been no new

information supporting the 9/11 commission, and even head of the commission said that it does not hold water -- host: we will take it from there. guest: it was not a difficult call. we said over and over, those working on the site needed to wear respirators. in fact, the agency brought in every respirator that we could find. we provided wash stations for the workers, but we could not enforce it. there is a difference between those working on the site and in manhattan in general. we were giving constant test and measuring them against other tests being looked at by the city, other institutions. the air quality in general in lower manhattan was ok. we were not seeing a long-term health problem for people who

lived in the area after the initial impact. but on the site, they needed to wear respirators. host: you said that you could not enforce it. did people just not wear them consistently enough? guest: some people did not like to wear them. they were cumbersome, hot. if you remember, was pretty warm at that time. this was a desperate mission to find their compatriots. the workers did not want anything that was going to slow them down, and they felt like they slowed them down. we had some people with portable monitors who came up to me and said you have to put on your respirator, and they said, get out of my face, this is my buddy they were not being necessarily responsible, but they were being passionate.

it was the local responders, federal contractors -- that is when ohssha could do it -- but there were municipalities and others that were responsible. host: next phone call. caller: i have a request. if you could please discuss the total carbon footprint of producing nuclear power from the exploration, mining, transportation, and storage. guest: no question there is a carbon footprint. there is a carbon footprint to everything. there is a carbon footprint to

hydroelectric. there is a carbon footprint to solar panels. i cannot give you a comparative from one renewable to another, but when you are talking about efficiency, when nuclear power is running, it is more efficient. it is the one form of based however, for something that will meet our energy demands 24/7, nuclear is the only one of those resources that does not release when it is using our. while it is not releasing carbon aboard greenhouse gases, you are right, there is still a carbon footprint. host: where do we get most of our raw ore for this?

guest: majority in the united states and canada. we import the bulk. up until recently, 20% of our nuclear has come from reprocessed russian nuclear warheads. the russians figure out that they werewe were making money fm that, so we cannot get them any more. host: next phone call. caller: good morning, c-span. i served on the navy and on nuclear submarines. i know how efficient nuclear power can be. but i also worked in the oil industry and i have seen the epa, in on us oncome in on us --

come in on us. they seemed to avoid the independence and came down on the bigger ones. we had a lot of producing wells and we abandoned a lot of them that still have production in them. a lot of the deeper wells that were plugged, is there any way that we can put spent nuclear fuel in there? it would be a win-win. we are talking 10,000 feet with concrete on top of them. guest: first of all, thank you for your service. we have to be careful about how we process of nuclear waste. that will be up to the nuclear commission.

lee hamilton and the cochairs will be handling it for the department of energy to look at where we can guarantee the long- range safety. regulations require that you look at safety 10,000 years out. if anybody could guarantee you anything for 100 years, you would say they are not because technology would change. but that is what this requires. it is a rigorous process to make sure that wherever the spent fuel is capped can be done so sickly. it will take a lot of examination to find some place other than the amount -- yech amounted yechyucca mountain -- yucca mountain. host: what is next best

scenario? guest: i am not totally sure that it is on of the picture. harry reid ihad stated his case. i do not know that we will walk away from it at the end of the day, but that will be up to the nuclear regulatory commission. host: front royal, virginia. republican. caller: good morning. i am wondering why no one is interested in t. boone pickens. i can remember as a kid when of oil wells were all over illinois. every one of them had these burning things of gas.

what a waste, we thought. i know there are not so many oil wells now, but there are several that are capped. maybe oil has built up in them. if they were to use the fuel, has t. boone pickens suggests -- i wonder why i never hear the media picked up on his ideas. he talks about wind power a lot, but he also talks about gas. guest: he has a big investment in that and is certain a visionary in his thinking. that will be up to individual companies to decide whether or not they can open up a cat well, if there is -- capped well, if

there is energy to be looked at. he had a 200,000-acre field for windmills to produce the same amount of power that you could get from an average nuclear reactor. the economics were not working for him at that point in time. that is why we desperately need an energy bill. we need congress to set up parameters, say how we are going to go forward. . this is just strictly capital costs. there is a difference there, even in costs. host: what will be cheaper for the consumer?

guest: at the end of the day on a per kilowatt basis nuclear is one of the least expensive forms. these will change as we get more efficient with things like solar panels and when farms and blades, will bring down costs, but right now nuclear less- expensive then any other forms. host: let me get your organization's reaction to that of the epa that they want to raise the threshold for greenhouse gas emissions of the least 75,000 tons per year for power plants and other industrial projects? waddy think they're doing it, and secondly, what is your reaction? guest: they aren't looking out their responsibilities are under the law -- they are looking at what their responsibilities on are under the law. that has been ever thus.

it is a reflection of, really, the obama administration policy, what they want to start to push, whether it is part of a scenario where they pushed the hill into action or not -- that is up to them. the epa has regulatory responsibility for things and they will move forward. it really is about getting the information out there to people so that they can make informed decisions. we don't lobby on the hill for a specific piece of legislation. without question, members will individually, but the thinking behind case and asking people to go online to cleansafeenerg y.org, when they have to make a decision about whether or not it is going to be real or not, it

helps them to look over their shoulder and see that there are thinking people out there and that we should at least be discussing this. don't take off the table because of legacy issues that are no longer relevant to the way nuclear power is brought on line today. host: apolitical comment from a suite in new jersey -- a political comment from a tweet in new jersey -- guest: thank you, joe. host: any interest in returning to electoral office? guest: no. host: you wrote a book about your disagreements with your party -- guest: the group i co-chair with john danforth, where we recognize that in a country as recognize that in a country as diverse as this one, host: here is cincinnati.

good morning. go ahead with your question or comment. caller: yes, there is a proposed site for nuclear facility. inasmuch as our it two state representatives see the project go forward, can you tell me ask what stage the facility is, as far as going ahead with permits? guest: gee, i cannot. i don't know the status of individual sites. there are 22 or 19 companies that have gone to the regulatory commission with 22 potential sites. where each of the individual sites stands in the process, would ever it would be, it would be the beginning. the commission is only beginning to look at and process those.

i do not know exactly where, though. on where it is precisely. host: dennis in columbus, ohio. caller: good morning. the reason the government is not using gravity as a power source -- it is very cheap and inexpensive, possibly the lowest cost you can get. guest: again, i am not a scientist, so i cannot tell you why they have done so for the economics have not worked out. my company is working with a group on a green city, and one of the things we look at to make sure that it would be a need neighborhood development city, the entire city, was using title search, because it is off in john. inch'on as the second largest tidal surges in the world. that it seemed to meet to be a very good way to use green power. i don't know how you capture the

gravity. i cannot speak to what the technical obstacles are to bringing gravity on as a power source. but i was fascinated that in order to really channel the power of the waves and the tide, you would be changing ecosystem surrounding it. you have to channel it. there are a lot of possibilities out there, things that sound really good initially and a cut in aid that are on paper that when you get them out into a field, they don't react, and then they don't work in the way that you thought they might. or that you were expecting they would. it does not mean you walk away, it does not mean you look at gravity. i cannot tell you how you go about capturing that in an efficient way to make power. but if it is possible, i am convinced that there is somebody out there who is looking at it, because we have a lot creativity going on in the area. host: "the hill" eastport wrote about "nuclear survival --

nuclear's revival." they requested heat triple the amount of loan guarantees to $54 million. guest: from members on capitol hill there is a greater appetite for nuclear. from republicans in general, there is a bit better than 50% of the population today and the country, and depending on the question, over 60% of the people, believe nuclear should be part of our energy future going forward. that is a dramatic shift from the 1970's, when we basically got out of the business entirely. host: a dramatic shift over the last couple of years. guest: from a political point of view, absolutely. even harry reid says he is not against nuclear, is just against yucca mountain. host: republican line. caller: good morning, everyone. i would like to come to ms.

whitman's defense of the first responders issue. what are these first responders thinking about? it is hot, like you separate these people should have thought before they went in and tried to save their butts. you are right. guest: thank you. i don't fault them for wanting to do everything they wanted to do. i was on the side a couple of times. i feel really bad that we were not able to ensure that the way they did the pentagon, where the military controls pentagon site and they did not let anybody on without respirators. you did not have any of the problems you have to date with the first responders at the new york city site. it was a difficult thing, a two- tier message that epa has to get out for the responders on the site and the people downtown in general and lower manhattan in general. but those people were focused on making a difference, and it was just heart wrenching -- many

of them had not just good friends -- i had good friends and those buildings -- they also had family members. it's tough to tell somebody to step down, step away, slow down, because you have to -- they're not thinking about themselves. host: writing about nuclear energy -- what about the education skills that that sort of what about the education skills guest: first of all, we heard from someone already today. we have a lot of people coming out of the nuclear navy. case energy has been working with a number of universities and florida and some states were you have the appetite for nuclear, working on new engineering programs for nuclear. bringing people and train people to florida power and light with miami-dade will guarantee jobs for people who get involved with the program after they get out of it.

there is a lot of training and they are starting to gear up now. it is the question of is this serious, is there a future here? there is any way, because you have a number of the current people working on at the site who are eligible to retire. you'll have a significant number of retirements. nuclear engineering, anything to do with the nuclear industry, will be something that is ongoing for the foreseeable future with the existing reactors. host: new jersey, to one that, on the democrats' line. -- joanna, on the democrats' line. caller: ms. whitman, being an advocate for environmental concerns, a strong one when you were governor of our state, you are aware as anybody else that there is no safe way to store nuclear waste. that is the beginning of the conversation. would you discuss the cost savings of once the nuclear facility is on line -- you never once mentioned the cost of bringing these facilities the

ability to function. and i don't understand why the taxpayers should be on the hook for guaranteed loans that banks won't offer because most of the facilities that have been begun at have gone into default and have been closed and abandoned. the costs are astronomical, and it is always way over what the budget is. it is just not a feasible way of handling future energy. whereas sustainable energy can create jobs, if we were smart enough not to off for the production of the needed materials and build these plants here. it could be a solution to our employment problem. guest: i think we could do the same thing with nuclear as far as the various components of the plants. i see it as a big potential jobs creator. first of all, i have to disagree with you. i do believe that what we're doing now is safe, has been proven to be safe.

the business administration did a study that said that on a lost work day basis, nuclear is one of the savings industry's in which to work. i guess you get chased by dogs on that one, so it is not really count. but nuclear is safe. when we get into reprocessing, which the french do -- the french are almost 80% nuclear power. there are some 50 nuclear reactors being built around the world. nuclear is going forward and it is going forward safely. the difference between today and when we did our first round of nuclear -- by the way, you are absolutely right, total costs are expensive. it is expensive to build a new reactor, but it will be expensive to bring on any new form of power. there is no question that what you have to look at is, in the interests of the consumer, what is the best on a per-kilowatt basis, because that is what really counts. banks -- banks were not getting into loading nuclear because the

federal government said that we were not doing a clear. we stopped doing to clear in the 1970's, -- we stop doing nuclear and the 1970's, for all intents and purposes. there is ge, a westinghouse, a german one -- i forget what the other two are. these are being built around the world, so we have a much better and much more accurate idea of what the problems might be in bringing them on line, what the costs are going to be, and in the past, we saw huge cost overruns. we sought to beat -- we saw delays and huge cost overruns. the latest one came in on time and on budget. there is one of 55 being built around the world, just one that is over budget significantly, and the rest are on time and on budget. things have changed very much,

and we cannot forget that when we had a discussion about nuclear. but it is not either/or, too. i want to get back to that. it is not either/or. you can still be investing in nuclear technologies and investing in base power. you cannot have to have one or the other. we need them all. host: patricia, good morning. independent. caller: thank you, thank you, a million thank yous for c-span. good morning, ms. whitman. i am thankful to you for your interest and the conservation of the environmental concerns, and thank you for continuing it in your retirement, or semi. i would like to speak to the program i heard on "60 minutes" a few weeks ago concerning a new technology that is being tested in california -- i think it came out of silicon valley -- i think wal-mart and fedex are two

of the california company's promised to be able to put independent energy in every building in the country without any kind of electrical web or whatever you call that -- the transportation problems -- guest: the infrastructure. i did not see that, i do not know about it, but i will tell you, there are really exciting things going on. i am on the board of the company texas instruments, and they are developing a chip that produces power out of a vibration. we don't feel it, but the -- host: we feel it sometimes. guest: constantly moving. these chips can go into the wall and produce the kind of power that makes the lights go on. there is no question that we will be so much smarter in another 10 years than we are today. but what we have to recognize is that we have a projected 23% increase in electricity demand but 2030. a lot of my friends, a lot of

people i know in the environmental community, say we will have electric cars and that will be great for the environment. that is true, but that will only be as good as the power produced and used to provide electricity. we will invest to bring these new technologies up to a scale where we make sense as a country -- makes sense and the country as a whole. we have to meet our immediate power needs so that host: thanks for being with us this morning. >> we go from the former epa chief to the current chief, lisa jackson who will speak this afternoon at the national press club. live coverage will get underway in a couple of minutes.

a live picture of the u.s. capitol. both the house and senate will double in this week. the senate at 2:00 p.m. today. they will return to work on unemployment and tax issues. harry reid hopes to complete the work this week. cq reports a lively debate is expected by jim webb to impose a windfall tax on bonuses paid to 2009 executives at financial institutions who received at least $5 billion in bailout money. a slimmed down jobs bill will be sent back to the senate for what supporters hope will be the final vote before moving on to the president's desk. the senate gavels in live at 2:00 p.m. eastern on c-span 2. the house returns tomorrow. the measure by an ohio congressman dennis kucinich

questioning whether to continue the war in afghanistan. another to impeach a judge in louisiana. yo can myu to live here on c- span. -- you can watch it live here. this is from a protest today. are homosexuals predicted by the first amendment? the supreme court will decide. the appeals court tossed out a reward to the father of the marine killed in iraq demanding sued for emotional stress an invasion of privacy. new york congressman blaming his resignation on the conspiracy by house democratic leaders to force him out before crucial vote on health care. he says he learned he was the subject of an ethics complaint by a male stripper who felt uncomfortable during an exchange with them. he is one of 39 democrats voted against the bill in december. -- the acquisition was made by a

male staffer. as we look at the stem as program which is now more than one year old, about $350 billion have been committed. just under $195 billion has been paid out. we have a web site devoted to following it. c-span.org/stimulus. . .

and insights about their lives. who is buried in the tomb? now available at your favorite bookseller that it would if the peace and discount at the publisher's web said. >> over 1000 middle and high school students interviewed this year's documentary competition with a short video on one of our country's greatest strengths or a challenge the country is facing. we will announce the winners on march 10 and show you their winning videos. >> chairman of the national press -- national press club. remarks by environmental protection agency administrator, lee said jackson, expected to get underway in just a couple minutes. guests are now being introduced. this is live coverage on c-span. >> our speaker today is at the

center of a lot of interesting issues of today's washington. epa administrator lee said jackson, who declared greenhouse gas emissions a threat to the public welfare, is being criticized by senators and congressmen from both parties and is being sued by a least three states. she is at the center of the debate between those who think the government should require businesses to cut global warming emissions and this is such a move would harm an already fragile economy. senator jay rockefeller and several fellow democrats are asking them to wait two years before regulating carbon emissions is it will harm their coal producing states. republican senators, led by a senator from alaska, one to go further and stop her from ever regulate such missions to the governors of texas, virginia, and alabama have all souter, claiming her plans will kill jobs.

in response, she has agreed to delay regulating carbon emissions by the end -- until the end of the year. still, she plans to issue rules for greenhouse gas emissions by next month as congress is held to create cap and trade program to cut global warming emissions. global warming is not her only issue. in her first year at epa, courageous is it the first new national small brutal in 35 years and his governing chemical use and consumer products for the first time in three decades. she sets to finalize next month's new mpg rules on cars. she finalize roles to cut cargo ship pollution by 80%. jackson is the first-ever american to serve as epa administrator. before relieve the epa, she was chief of staff to new jersey's governor and commissioner of that state's department of environmental protection. please welcome to the national press club, epa administrator lee said jackson. -- lisa jackson.

[applause] >> thank you so much for that provocative introduction. [laughter] and in afternoon, everyone. i happen to be a little bit sleep deprived this afternoon. like a lot of you, i was up watching the oscars last night. if any of you so much with your feet, you know i predicted "avatar" to win best picture, so i missed the mark on that one a little bit. but even if the movie with the environmental message did not win, i was so proud to see best picture go to the movie with the woman director. today i am happy to have a chance to bring you the best of both of those two experiences for our speech today. as i get into my speech, i ask you to remember that the movie with the environmental message has actually made a lot of money. [laughter] i truly am grateful for the

opportunity to speak about how the good people at the environmental protection agency have been making moves. we restored science is the factor in all our decisions. we develop rules that will protect old -- protect children, keep people healthy, save lives. we've taken long overdue action on climate change, including a revolutionary clean cars program built on the historic finding the greenhouse gas pollution endangers public health. on that last point, the overwhelming scientific evidence was recently met with arguments that washington, d.c., experienced an unprecedented blizzard in record snowfall this winter. this unexpected change in our climate somehow disproves climate change. today, i want to talk about a misconception that threatens to do more harm to our progress as a nation than the carping over climate science. that is the misconception that

we must make a choice between cleaning up our environment and our growing economy. i have worked and environment protection for 20 years. i have seen meaningful environmental efforts that time and again with predictions of lost jobs and revenue. lobbyists and business journalists have done such a good job of engraving and into our way of thinking that many of us believe, sadly, that we must choose between our economy and our debarment -- in vernon. people have not done the best of of communicating our side. we have lost the messaging war, and we have to work to present the alternative. but bell said history and the fact there is out. i am here to show you to the the choice between the environment in the economy is indeed a false choice. well conceived, effectively implemented in bern -- protection is good for economic growth. let me repeat that. in fairness to production is good for economic growth.

do not get me wrong. environmental regulations are not free, but the money that is spent is an investment in our country and one that pays for itself. internet to protection makes us healthier. it eliminates contributors to costly and often deadly diseases like asthma, cancer, and heart disease. we in this sun is one of 23 million americans with asthma. i know the financial and emotional burdens of hospital visits and doctors' appointments. when the air is dirty air the water is contaminated and people are getting sick, those kinds of health costs are multiplied by millions of families. they are burdens of small businesses trying to provide health care to their workers. good internal protection is critical to our health, and because of that, critical to our economy. second, environmental protection makes our communities more prosperous and our work force more productive. those of you with kids in college will understand the

words of a man who said to me, businesses come to communities like parents can colleges. they look at the environment to make sure it is healthy. the look of the people to make sure they're getting what they need to thrive. the want to know that this place means a better future, and they do not put their money down that they do not like what they see. this is something that we see all the time in our ongoing work on environmental justice. the idea is that environmental degradation is an obstacle to economic prosperity is a pillar of the environmental justice movement. in a place for new jobs are needed the most, in turn into degradation is an entry barrier for new investments in businesses. it is what we see in the inner cities where air pollution makes kids miss school. what we see on tribal lands were open landfills are rampant and drinking water is polluted. earlier this year i met with a tribal leader told me that his community was facing 50% unemployment.

what we see in mississippi, which is having trouble attracting jobs because their water, even though it meets federal safety standards, is brown. poison in the ground means poison in the economy. a weak environment means a weak consumer base. and an unhealthy air means an unhealthy atmosphere for investment. but the claim green help the community is a better place to buy a home and raise a family. more competitive in the race to attract businesses and as the foundation it needs for prosperity. these are two reasons why our environment is essential to our economy. but what -- i want to focus on the role environmental as a place for a critical driver of our economic success. our capacity for innovation and invention. just yesterday, it was written that america still has the best innovation culture in the world. he immediately followed that by saying, but we need better

policies to nurture it. this is was marred environmental protection does. it creates a need. in other words, a market for clean technology. and then it draws innovation and invention. in other words, new products for that market. this is our convenient truth. smart and furniture protection creates jobs. -- smart environmental protection creates jobs. that might be difficult for some people to handle. so let me lay out some common ground. everyone wants a clean environment. 10 out of 10 republicans surveyed want clean air to breathe. 10 at up to and democrats think safe water is important. as col 20, and they would actually agree. the boston globe editorial put it last week, even anti- government protesters know it is no fun having a two-party with contaminated water. [laughter] a received as many letters from

red states as i receive from blue states. from new bedford, massachusetts tatar creek, oklahoma. last year an amendment for epa to locate residents away from lead pollution in kansas was sponsored by republican senators. senator roberts called it one of the rare instances of true bipartisan support. oftentimes, the same offices that are blasting out press releases on the overreaching, faceless epa bureaucrats are also asking the same bureaucrats for help. it is a textbook example of irony and is all too evident in today's politics. when it comes to people's health, everyone wants a strong environmental protection. everyone also wants a strong economy. we all want robust job growth. no one favors higher costs for starting businesses are manufacturing products. i have two teenage sons which means that by a lot of stuff.

i am in active american consumer, and the last things i want to see are higher prices for food or utility bills or shoes or clothes. so we all want a clean environment, and we all want a strong economy. but you may not realize is that we have all seen proof that we can have both. in the last 30 years, emissions that this extenders are bullish as a cause smog, acid rain, lead poisoning, and more decreased 54%. at the exact same time, gross domestic product grew by 126%. that means we have made huge reductions in air pollution at the same time that more cars and on the roads, more power plants went on line, and more buildings went up. the question is, how does that happen? the answer is innovation. innovation is the sweet spot. it is where our economic and environmental interests meet. it is or businesses and

conservationists can come together to hash out solutions, solutions that have filled american history with environmental achievements and help us lead the global economy. americanism to were leading environmental technology industry. by conservative estimates in 2007, environmental firms and small businesses in the u.s. generated $282 billion in revenues and $40 billion in exports. supported 1.6 million american jobs. and that number does on include all the engineers and professional services firms to support those businesses. take for example new jersey's corporation which landed commercial production of the catalytic converter. if you drove here today, your car had a catalytic converter in it to burn unleaded gasoline. today those things are standard, but 30 years ago when epa used the clean air act to phase in unleaded gas for catalytic converters, they were extremely controversial.

many major automakers oppose them. the chamber of commerce claimed "entire industries might collapse." using the clean air act in this way was said to be a poison kill for our economy, as in the midst of all too familiar around washington today. yet the auto industry survived. dangers of lead pollution in our air is 92% lower than it was in 1980. by 1985, reductions of lead in our environment estimated health benefits of $17 billion per year. the initial cost of the rule was paid back 10 to 13 times over. in 2006, the corporation was bought for $5 billion. that is just one good example of how it works. the new environmental group led to new innovations would lead to -- will lead to new innovations with lead to new jobs. you may remember the phase-out of ozone depleting cfc's.

there were the chemicals in aerosol cans and other products that led to a growing hole in the ozone layer. i remember people wondering if there were going to have to give up hair spray or deodorant and not being too happy about it. and they were not the only unhappy ones. the chemical industry predicted severe economic disruption. refrigeration company's forecast of shutdowns and supermarket coolers and chiller machines used to cool office buildings, hotels, hospitals. companies that use cfc's in manufacturing believe the transition would be next to impossible. the demand destruction never came to pass. refrigerators and air conditioners stayed on. when innovators to cut the manufacturing challenge, they found alternatives that worked better than cfc's some develop new technologies. by making their products better and cleaner, the american refrigeration industry actually gained access to overseas

opportunities. these examples speak to a long history of innovation, new jobs, and better health care environment protection. yet, many still claim that regulation is too costly and believe the scaling back is the best thing to growth. we have already seen that in action. this theory that less regulation should be good for the economy was put to the test in the last administration. in that time, there was no apparent benefit for businesses or consumers. prices on most products went up and costs of fuel increased astronomically. in a savings and men have been expected for businesses certainly did not translate into higher wages for american workers. in fact, the health impact for millions of americans suffering from asthma, cancer, and heart disease coupled with a steady rise in health insurance costs created yet another level of

success for families and businesses. today where is slowly but surely pulling up and out of the economic downturn. but many of their communities do not have within need to rebuild. it is no accident the so much of the recovery act is environmentally focused and noma -- no wonder so much of it is based on clean energy innovation. the wind, solar, and margaret innovations to be made -- clean energy community cleanup jobs in the recovery after just the beginning. the question we face now is, what can we at epa do to protect our environment, strengthen our communities, and foster prosperity. we have to abandon old disputes when working in partnership on new innovation. partnership like the clean cars program which took shape and president obama brought together automakers, autoworkers, governors from across the

country, and environmental advocates to craft an historic agreement. cleaner car standards will mean at 950 million tons of carbon pollution cut from our skies. $3,000 in savings for drivers of clean cars and $2.3 billion that can stay in home in our economy rather than buying oil from overseas. it will also mean new innovation. american science is can step up to produce new composite materials that make cars lighter, stiffer, and more fuel efficient. our inventors and entrepreneurs can take the lead in events battery, technology for plug-in hybrids and electric cars. manufacturing can produce this new components, which begins up to all the makers in the u.s. and around the globe. new environmental protections, and new innovations means new jobs. this is the direction we're moving in 2010 as well. epa is already proposing smog

reduction and finalizing the first standards and 35 years. we're developing air pollution standards that we know will foster innovation. and we're working in partnership with utility companies to figure out how we get there. boosting production and use of advanced biofuels. to double our use of renewable and break our dependence on foreign oil. that will benefit world communities, smart -- sparked new demand, and the clarity on regulations stand, promote investments to expand in effectiveness and uses of renewable biofuels. and of course, we will continue to face down in our climate crisis and move into the clean energy future. as you might expect. we are running into the same old tired arguments. once again, industry lobbyists are trying to convince us that change will be absolutely impossible. once again, alarmists are

claiming that this will be the death knell of our economy. once again, they're telling us we have to choose. economy or environment? most drastically. we're seeing efforts to further delay epa action to reduce greenhouse gasoline. this is happening despite the overwhelming science on the dangers of climate change. despite the supreme court's to dozens of a decision that epa must use the clean air act to reduce the proven threat of greenhouse gases. and despite the fact that leaving this problem for our children to solve is an act of breathtaking negligence. supposedly, these efforts have been put forward to protect jobs. in reality, they will have negative economic effects. the clean cars program could be put on indefinite hold, leaving american auto makers once again facing a patchwork of state standards. without a clear picture of greenhouse gas regulations, there will be little incentive to invest in clean energy jobs.

america will fall further behind our international competitors in the race for clean energy innovation. finally, the economic cost of the unkept climate change will be orders of magnitude higher for the next generation, and it would be for us to take action today. i can in good conscience support any measure that has the burden on to my two sons or to their children. i find it hard to believe that the parent gets it to their child, we're going to wait to act. this debate also has this argument over something that the american people and many businesses have already decided on. recent years have seen a growing grass-roots environmentalists and that is directly tied to our economy. informed consumers are demanding more of their products. business leaders are recognizing cost savings potential of energy efficiency and sustainability, and they're putting serious money into innovation.

this is a grass-roots environmental movement that votes with its dollars. seven in 10 consumers say the they will choose brands uttered doing good thing for people and the planet. 74% believe that our companies should do more to protect our planet, and more than half of americans will look for environmentally friendly products on their next purchase. these changes are healthy and not on the margins of their economy. wal-mart, the largest retailer in the world, has said goes to use 100 peace and renewable energy, to create zero ways, and to sell health year, sustainable products. two weeks ago, the announced a plan to cut 20 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions across the life cycle of their products in the next five years. they made the announcement on the webcast on, of all places, treehugger.com. procter and gamble produces

products a touch almost 3 billion people per day. they are planning an announcement next week encouraging all other brands to shrink their environmental footprint. a general mills factory in minnesota is recycling old homes from their serial for biofuel. they're sitting $500,000 in fuel costs in the process. green giant is reducing pesticides and chemicals, water pollution and, with sustainable farming. these are companies we all know and use. best buy, starbucks, and they are responding to consumer demands. consumers want to know that their products do not have a hidden health and environmental costs. companies must respond to parents who refuse to buy baby bottles with bpa in them or that leaves dangerous chemicals in their dirty water. industry can try to resist and ignore epa, but i know and they know that they resist the forces of the green marketplace at

their peril. time is put to rest the notion of economic growth and karen michel protection being incompatible. it is time to finally dismissed this. we need a new approach, one that plays to america's greatest strengths of ingenuity, invention, and innovation. we need to regain the leadership and development of new products that protect our health and our environment. and we need to capitalize on the growing green marketplace here and around the world. that approach would be a return to basics which is a program for the epa in 2010 because this year marks epa's 40th anniversary. when epa began 40 years ago, the first administrator, wrote that the technology which is bulldozed its way across the environment must now be employed to remove impurities from the air. to restore vitality to our roots and stems, to recycle the waste that is the head with a byproduct of our prosperity.

that is just as true now as it was then. we cannot retreat from a rapidly industrialized planet in the global economy. we must integrate conservation and a passion for planetary stewardship in a global rush towards economic growth. on us and good, the anti- government crown must understand that ever expanding economic opportunity is not possible with the house's inability. without protection for the water, air, and land that people depend on, we can only go so far. without clean energy, the global economy but will be running on empty within our lifetime. time to stop denying that to be those stop play on the politics of delay and denial, and start thinking more broadly about what is going to help us all move forward together. which brings me to my final point. another piece of common ground we all share. we're all counting on the ingenuity and creativity of the

american people. now i am done with the false choice between the economy and the environment. i want an epa that is a leader in innovations that protect our health and our environment, and expand to new opportunities. i am not interested in leading an agency that only tells us we cannot do. i want to work together on all the things we can do. this is about rising to meet our most urgent environmental and economic challenges. not shrinking from them, with the sphere -- with the excuse that it is just too hard. that is not a good enough answer. at no point in our history has a problem and solve by waiting putting our heads in the sand. progress is the opinion of the possibilities firm building a healthier, more prosperous future, and bringing the best we have to offer to the table. it is what we have done before.

it is what we have to do again today. it is not something we can leave for tomorrow. i want to thank you very much. i am happy to take some questions. [applause] >> and thank you for your time, administrator jackson, as their numerous questions dealing with climate change. the first question, if you'll step up here and we will address the audience. christine was on c-span this morning, and she was in the climate change the bid is so politicized that the argument for legislation should be entirely about clean air and not about climate change. are you concerned that recent controversy about climate change science will hurt chances for legislation this year? you think the climate message needs to be downplayed in favor of clean air?

>> as that of the environmental protection agency, and will not be in favor not giving the best science to the american people. the science is crystal clear. there is certainly an organized effort to throw doubt in people's minds. there's some indication that may be working on some level. it said of the epa, after continue and stand here and make it crystal clear that the science is not unsettled, that we do know that our emissions of greenhouse gases are accumulating in our atmosphere and interfering with the way our atmosphere is supposed to work. it is changing our climate. it means a catastrophic problems for us going forward. so i cannot, as head of the epa. surly legislatures will do what they will do and politicians will do what they think is necessary to make progress. but i hope we all keep our eye on the ball here, which is to transition to a cleaner energy. >> given the epa's knowledge of

the science and priorities, why hasn't the administration send a legislative principles to capitol hill regarding its preferred approach on climate change? >> i do not think there has been a bigger cheerleader for a transition to clean energy and a need for comprehensive clean energy legislation than president obama. i have joined him several times and we will do again today, that we need congress to act. we have seen the u.s. house of representatives act. now we're frankly waiting on the u.s. senate. the hope has been all along that the continuing efforts in the u.s. senate, and we have some continuing to go on as we speak today, will result in legislation that can pass that house and in a bill that the president and look at. >> is cap and trade the necessary system to slow climate change or with a carbon tax rather admit -- other methods work as well are better? >> is a trick question.

the truth of the matter is that people have varying ideas on how best to deal with climate change. also, how best to use the marketplace. my speeches about the marketplace, to incentivize the move to clean energy. between losses that exists today, exist for now, and the fact that there is no price on carbon, that is essentially free to put as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is you want. but there is a chilling on the investment in this to happen nine clean energy technology. the recovery act. lot of public money in to clean energy technologies. but this will not take off. the kind of innovation i just spoke about what happened if we do not see private financing follow. so i think there other ways to put a price on carbon. clearly the president has talked a lot about the ease with which a cap and trade program fits into our economy. >> and the topic of market

oriented mechanisms, your agency's budget for 2011 says the epa wants to examine this for cutting greenhouse gases. some have taken that to mean that the agency might pursue carbon trading programs for some ministries of the legislation for cap and trade to the whole economy cannot get through congress. with the epa tried to forge ahead with carbon trading as they do not pass that? >> first, i refuse to speculate because they believe congress will step up to this challenge, hopefully sooner rather than later. i think people are over reading the budget lakewood. epa has a history of relying on market-based incentives in our regulation as it is. i do not think he should read into that that we have some plan people do not know about to enforce a cap and trade regime. we do not at all. what i have been strong about this, and i think you have heard in this speech, the ability of the clean air act to be used reasonably in sensibly to help move markets and help drive

innovation, to help bring along the transition to clean energy economy. i've gone further. i have said the clean air act and its use rainout can be entirely consistent with legislation to come. there is no reason we cannot do that while watching what is happening on the legislative front and make sure we do not get to that place. >> following on your statement that happen trader carbon legislation will be passed sooner than later. let's a comprehensive plan and said being later the 2010. with a sector specific bill for in areas such as utilities be possible this year? >> there are all kinds of alternate plans that people are talking about now. coughlawhen energy truly does tr economy -- entire economy in some way. so much of our energy is fossil fuel base. as we move to cleaner forms of energy, we will have to judge practically all of our economy.

it will be important as the bullhook a route -- of alternatives to realize the more you move away from an economy wide approach, although you can make some progress, you lose opportunities to harness the private sector investment to look at approaches that are win- win on all sides. that is the one issue in know we have to deal with. >> final question on climate legislation, for at least a bit. questions are still coming in. there is discussion and rid the senator kerry and senator gramm made release a draft plan a bill next week. if they were to do so, how quickly could epa have an economic analysis completed? >> all right, who is here from senator kerrey's office? [laughter] one of the strings epa has is an incredible staff with people who have worked on years for water generally thought to be said of the art models. we model every regulation we put in place. we do it to look of the impact on the economy.

my argument is we have never looked of all the benefits in the economy. but the modeling takes six to eight weeks. it takes a long time because the models are interrelated and complex. and the time, now that we get legislation, but as we get specifications -- [inaudible] >> several months ago, the epa postponed a decision on an ethanol label to raise the amount in field to 15%. they said a final decision would likely be made in mid march, which is next week. since we are about their, do you have news on the issue today? are you still expecting a final ruling in march? >> i am sari. i have to back up a little bit. p epa has already been final rules that encourage the next generation of biofuels. and grandfathers' in the current supply of ethanol. it is made in this country. that has big an issue and one of

real concern. people were afraid they would lose that industry. the waiver issue is different. it is how much of the law can be in gasoline that you put in a variety of applications. cars and other engines. it depends on testing. but i have said that that testing is to be complete. we do not want to find out that the ethanol plant has any and known adverse consequences to engines. that is not good for ethanol. it would not be good for its future and certainly not good for the consumers, the american people. the testing will be done in march or april with the department of energy. >> the u.s. auto industry has been given numerical fuel economy targets to meet for new cars and trucks built. new and modified power plants, oil refineries, and stationary sources of been told they need to use the best available technology to control emissions. what is that going to be? could you give specific examples

of the technologies that a new or modified power plant would use to comply with epa rules? >> i am an engineer by training. it is very hard not to talk about technology all the time. i believe technology is key to the challenge of climate pollution, just like every other challenge we have. the other thing about technology is is, especially in this space, rapidly evolving. i think the best available control technology comes from the clean air act. it comes from an act that foresaw the need to constantly be ratcheting standards depending on where best available control technology is. i will not make news on what technologies are best for dealing with carvin today. but you have heard about a range of them. president obama has been is the co-chair in charge of the task force to get carbon capture in sequestration technology, the eddied that we need to be able to capture carbon dioxide

pollution and then put it somewhere where it will not enter our atmosphere. >> how do you respond to republicans such as senator and hospices without strong moves by china and india to curb global warming, the u.s. would be harmed economically? >> first, i would ask them to read my speech. i really think that we're missing an opportunity if we do not realize that the technologies that they're going to be used to move us into cleaner energy, lower carbon, less water use, all those technologies are going to be born here and to the world. i would say there's no reason to wait for china and india to act if we truly believe that there is a reason, environmental and economic, to act now. there is every reason not to wait. there is every reason to move forward as expeditiously as we can so we do not see what seems to be happening continue, which is that we innovate, we invent, and then it goes overseas to be

manufactured in used because there is no market for it here. >> how do you respond to what some audiences overseas will say about a climate debt? that rich companies, like the u.s. and europe -- soviet union, cause global warming and should have to split most of the bill? >> their arguments about how, on an international stage, to attack a problem like climate change. i think those discussions will continue. i do not have a specific answer on that. you can understand the underlying concern which is when you're talking about developed countries and in talking about nations trying to develop, you can understand the equities and the needs of those nations to try to develop in a way that gives first and foremost their citizens access to energy, something we probably take for granted in this country every day. the ideal is that as those

countries develop, they develop in a way that jumps over dirty energy and moves to cleaner forms of energy. so that as they're growing, and i think technical assistance is a wonderful way to help to insure that. epa has been doing a lot of that word. so have other parts of the government. we can try to avoid some of the problems and some of the issues that we're having to deal with. >> you recently announced a review of the rules surrounding the use of chemicals in consumer products. do you plan to require companies to disclose to the public research showing that the chemicals used in the products are safe? >> well, i think the news is that consumers are demanding to know what is in the products that they buy. more and more the kind of right to know, based on the old right to know legislation, which is been so powerful for environmental protection as a whole, is foremost in their minds. and companies see that. my speech talked about the needs

for companies to prove to consumers, the ultimate end users, and not just individual consumers but even corporate consumers, the products they're buying are safe unsustainable. i believe we're on the brink of finally modernizing the chemical safety laws for this country. when you think about the fact that there 30 years old and about the fact that they have been widely perceived, not just by epa, but by industry as well, as toothless, i think we owe it to the american people to answer their increasing concerns and police for help. and certainly for me, as a mother, as a consumer, it is one of my seven top priorities for epa. >> you have long said you make your decisions based on sound science and the law. how do you make decisions when the science is concerned? >> the science on climate change is not concerned, but there pieces of science that are uncertain.

and as a scientist, as an engineer, i have great faith and comfort level with the india of peer review, independent peer review. i call for peer review all the time. i talked to my staff and i will first ask where the data is from and if it has been peer reviewed. as we learn about chemicals never knew existed and byproducts of processes that we never measure before, we have to. we owe it to the american people not to take that information and estimate for the worst but to test and rigorously studied. we also want to sum up what we know in a timely manner, not years to now when it is too late, to give them the best information they have. that is what we are insisting on every day at the epa. >> your agent to make decisions every day that affect every american, which means communication is vital. on a scale of a to f, how would

you grade the effectiveness of the epa and how would you improve it? >> in my communications staffer here in my audience -- great job. [laughter] i do not want him to get complacent, so i will stay strong b +. i do nothing that is very tall. i do think that epa has to step back and realize that epa is organized bird. about 90% of what we do as an agency is under the water line, a really invisible to the average american. the 10% above the line is the 10% as says there is a plus and the federal government which has 01 mission, and that is clean air, clean water, safe products. that part of our mission, i think, we sometimes take for granted. probably there is no challenge greater as we looked at our mission and to make sure that people do not think that because we have an epa, i do not have to worry about it.

we are rapidly reaching the time where epa cannot do it without citizens taking actions in their own lives. we can talk about cleaner cars, but what will make this thing goes consumers to purchase them. i think it is very important that we not only continue to expand our conversation and not just with environmentalists but with people from all backgrounds and all walks of life, people who do not think of themselves as environmentalists. but making clear that just because those with the epa that they do not have a job to do. >> how does one in baltimore stakeholders be on public interest groups and industry groups in the discussion on epa? >> i think that question is a nod towards the fact that one of -- another of our seven parties this year is expanding the conversation on environmentalism and working toward environmental justice. expanding the conversation is a

mouthful. it means to do you talk to and what you say to them? have a staff member who tells a story about how every year his grandmother would get the buses started to get called and put plastic sheeting over her windows. i always tease him and say she is not part of president obama's weatherization task force. it was probably not about clean energy, but she knew it affected her utility bills. she now limited difference in her quality of life. she is helping our agenda on clean energy and energy efficiency. we have to move to communities come to consumers, and all state and local governments speak to those people and to speak to all people. i am is special interested in speaking to people of color because i think there is a myth out there that is sometimes true but on always that we have other things to worry about as communities of color. i am an african-american woman who grew up in the subway in new orleans. for me, i did not come to the environmental movement because

of its beauty. i came because i believe we have to fight pollution. as prosperous as where's the country, we have to also insist on clean air, clean water, and claim land. >> do you see offshore drilling is part of is more climate change strategy? >> you know, the president has called for it. in understand and agree with his belief that our energy strategy has to be buried in should include increased offshore drilling when it can be done in a way that is protective of the environment. i also think it is important to remember that he is called for other forms of offshore energy. i come from new jersey, a state that has embraced the idea of offshore wind power as part of what it would like to see as its offshore energy mix of the future. i think the conversation about asking communities to think again about resources that it might have as well as about energy efficiency, cutting down on how much energy you use in

the first place, is really important. >> the epa put out a list in late december identified four chemicals that would face stricter labeling and reporting requirements. why was bpa not one of them? does this mean the agency will not regulate the chemical? if >> will answer the question stubble-second question first. it is a chemical commonly used in plastics and in many consumer products. epa is planning to finalize an action plan on bpu in the near future. so if people are worried that we're backing away from it, they should not worry. the bigger news was the fda's change in its records of the chemical. i do not remember the actual bureaucratic term. but essentially, we're finally it a place where our government says there is real concern. it is starting to do the work to determine the level of that concern. it is even going far enough to say to consumers in the meantime, here's how to minimize

the chances that bpa will end up in water you drink the water you might consume or in your body. >> howdy plan to structure permitting for agricultural pesticide applications? >> these are pretty good questions. the sixth circuit ruling on national council basically says you need a permit to apply pesticides that have any shot of running of the land and in digging up in water. oftentimes in agriculture, pestis as are applied and not meant to end up buying water, but they can end up in water. people especially need to have the right to know that pesticides are being applied and the rate at which they are applied. tell people they need a permit. that is a huge undertaking. we are doing it in partnership

with u.s. department of agriculture in many state agencies. you can rest assured that permit, when it goes out, because so many people are concerned about it, will be out for comment and will be done in a way that i think shows we're building on programs that are already out there as we comply with the court rules. >> reducing emissions from a large oceangoing ships to cut carbon dioxide emissions dramatically. will the epa regulates global warming pollutants from ships at enter u.s. ports? >> you know, we have already taken, i think, historic steps on oceangoing vessels. there are a couple things to remember. that work has to be done in conjunction with the international maritime community. so we could probably regulate 3 miles or 10 miles or something offshore. many states of said that. but a real comprehensive legislation will come from regulating the ship engines in a

way that we change the fleet over time. so a cleaner, more efficient fleet. the real success story with oceangoing vessels as been around particulate pollution. our science has shown that if you reduce the sulphur content of the fuels burned in those ships 100 miles of shore, you have impact's if you do it in california all the way to kansas in terms of air quality. you will see improved air quality from a simple stuff like that. that is up right now in front of the international maritime organization for approval. epa is proud to work with the coastguard and our partners in canada to insist on probably the most stringent -- i think had it not been for the united states efforts to put on stringent standards for the kind of will bring the ships, we would not see it change. we're certainly happy to

continue the kind of thinking. >> how would you characterize the progress of the superfund site cleanup, and what is your strategy for dealing with the more difficult sites such as large mining sites? >> superfund is chugging along. the president's fiscal year 202011 -- 2011 has a budget request for cleaning up sites. that is right on par, just tiny bit under last year's amount. but it continues his call, the president's call for reinstatement of the tax on chemical feedstock that supports the superfund. certainly i do not think there is any argument that we have this magnesite, whether they are mining sites or others, that require an incredible amount of work to clean up. we did the canal in new york city, for example. while we're proud of the fact that we are at a point in the superfund program molesting this that makes us optimistic that

all parties are going to get it cleaned up, it will be a very expensive undertaking. i think more money for the program dedicated so that those in need to do cleanups' know that the government has monday to step in is a very good thing. i think we will continue to not only work on superfund, but there's an increase in the president's budget proposal for brownfield sites. many communities are lucky not to have a major superfund site, but they have these little brown phil sides, this old dilapidated places that have since closed down. they're standing in the way of economic growth. there's more money in this budget because we recognize that a little bit of seed money from the public sector can unlock private investments in those sites. >> another money question. whether the epa's plans for a dressing on top removal money in its environmental index during 2010? how likely is it that the epa will succeed in toughening mining regulations?

>> the epa is currently in the process of reviewing those mountain top mining permits that have been held with three years and years, almost decades would be a fair way to say it, of litigation. this is a practice that is quite emotional for many people in america. there are thin streams of coal above mountaintops, in appellation exclusively, and the practice that is most cost- efficient is to simply blow off the top, a level it, removes that, and then all the rubble from the top of the mountain gets put into valleys and almost inevitably filled streams. what we're finding at epa is that the process of filling the streams as a detrimental impact on water quality. as you might expect, the more you feel, of the more likely you'll see problems with water quality.

i am proud of the fact that epa will review each and every one of these outstanding permits to try to minimize if not end in the environmental degradation to the water. after all, for epa, we fight for clean water under the clean water act. our role is limited to insuring that these projects, if approved, do not have a detrimental impact on clean water and will continue to do that. i have promised senator byrd that we would get clarity of guidance out for those companies who have permits that are in the process. that'll be happening very shortly. >> leave the epa be moving forward with a low carbon fuel standard under its authority under the supreme court decision with massachusetts? >> now i wonder if these questions are coming from my staff. [laughter] i do not know. i think the several states --

the idea is that states, most recently a thing california, but other states have talked about it as well, will simply ask that feels good less carbon intense overtime. and biofuels and advanced biofuels are part of the picture as well. we will continue to have discussions. in many cases, these are led by the states. but we will continue to have discussions about the right way to move to lower carbons. >> moving back toward a broader question. do you worry that in the current fiscal climate that state budget cuts will lead to their inability to enforce clean air and water ax? >> as a former state commissioner, my most recent job was head of the new jersey department of environmental protection, a little detour with governor corzine. of course i worry. i know that budgets all over the country are being squeezed.

i know what is happening in new jersey. and i will say this quickly to the nation's governors as they make the hard choices, clean air, clean water, the people who work on those programs leaners they are incredibly important. here is better news. the president's budget includes money, more money than they have ever seen, to support them. it is not a good place to cut. you're turning down federal funding for the people who go out and write the permits, that businesses will need it the want to expand or go on and enforce the regulations that citizens call with the concern. of course i worry. when not in the in the governor. it is a tough job of producing a balanced budget. but we heard that loud and clear from the states. that is what the epa budget has more money than ever this year for states. >> we're almost at a time. before asking the last question, i have a couple porn matters to take care of. first, to remind our audience of future speakers.

tomorrow, we have ambassador wrong occurred, the u.s. trade representative who will discuss the trade agenda. on march 15, a week from today, we have dick armey, the chairman of freedom warriors. on april 5, the commissioner of the internal revenue service, will be speaking to us as the clock ticks on your tax returns. for a second item, the moment we of all been waiting for. i would like to present our guests with the traditional and coveted national press club mog. [laughter] >> my goodness. i will have to check with ethics officials. >> regardless of whether you can accept it, we thank you for coming today. >> thank you. >> i would also like to think the national press club staff including its library and broadcast center for organizing today's events. our last question is, in the program "the some sense," the environmental protection agency is portrayed as an agency with

no fear controversies than the one today. -- that is in "the simpson's." would you put a bubble over the city like they do in the show and what is your feeling toward the to trail of the agency in that program? >> first, i love that show. lisa sims and rocks. when i first came in, last april 1, i called all my managers together, was small band we were back then, and all the mysterious meaning. and we watched "the simpsons." we did it because some of them had not seen it. but if you are an epa employee, it hurts a little bit of its picks to the effect of the american people got to the point where they lost trust in the agency. but the agency could be corrupted enough, if you will come to think of an idea of light doming of this city as a way of protecting the environment.

epa is back on the job. we challenge their cells are the past year to make sure we reearn the trust of the american people. i hope we're doing that. i cannot think of a better job to have. all this bring films out there, says i am von the pointing out, no matter where you think of the clean air act, air is all of ours. it is just as important to your said of mind that we all pitch in to keep your air sixth. >> thank you. [applause] >> and as the air is filled with springfield size they're really, remember, for more information about joining the national press club and of how to acquire a copy of today's program, please go to our website towww.press.org. thank you for being here today.

thank you for viewing and listening. this meeting is adjourned. >> you have been watching live coverage of epa administrator lisa jackson speaking. last month she was before the senate environment committee to talk about her department's fiscal year 2011 budget request. this is just over two hours. >> before we get started, i want

to take a moment to express that they have a full committee. our sincerest condolences to the family of the fish and wildlife service's director, sam hamilton, who passed away suddenly over the weekend at a young age. we were all deeply saddened to learn of his passing and our hearts go out to his family and his friends. mr. hamilton brought more than 30 years of experience with the fish and wildlife service and a lifelong record as the committee conservationist, and he brought this to his work. his loss will be keenly felt by the dedicated professionals at the fish and wildlife service. and frankly by every american who cares about protecting our nation's wild and natural treasures. .

>> so now i'm going to begin my comments. i told senator inhofe if i go over five minutes he can have every second that i take up. come, administrator jackson. i appreciate this epa's budget commitment to clean air and drinking water. and to the party funding for the office concerning health. the children are especially vulnerable and we must ensure that they're protected from pollution. i have a couple of concerns.

i will address them in my question time. the super fund program -- i don't think we will clean up enough sites and i am concerned. some of the grants will also bring up during the question time. the president has taken important steps needed to begin to address global warnming. we know from your letter that you will not enforce the rules for one year, but you need to prepare as the supreme court has instructed. while the world is going green, the one place we cannot seem to address climate change directly by legislation is my good friend and colleague had a great time inviting al gore to his very well-crafted igloo that

he made during washington's big snowstorm. >> that my grandkids made. >> yes, it was a very good job. there was more than a hint there, that because it snowed so much in february in washington, that proves the climate is not warming, but scientists know that weather and climate are two different things. here is how nasa explains. they say that in most places weather can change from minute to minute, day to day, and season to season. climate, however, is the average weather over time and space. to illustrate, let's look at what happened in other parts of the world while the igloo being built. in rio de janeiro record high temperatures including three days in a row of over 100 responsible for 32 deaths.

we will show you a photograph of a machine moving snow on vancouver ski slopes. it was the same day as the igloo was being built. slips that had seen an average of 8 feet of snow over the past four years had a mere 36 inches. i cannot claim that any of these weather events approves or disapproves climate change, not the snow here, not the hot weather there. that is not a scientific approach to this issue. the way to evaluate current trends is to look at scientific records over time. the national oceanid and atmospheric association tells us that the 2000-2009 decade is the hottest in the last 130 is since

records were kept. we have a chart of the melting ice sheet. every ice front and the southern part of the peninsula has been retreating overall. [reading chart] in september 2009 the northern hemisphere sea ice event was the third lowest since 1979. so, these are the facts on the ground. this is not speculation. scientists tell us that one of the marks of climate change is extreme weather. let's look at this chart. extreme weather in the united states. demounted brings in the heaviest storms has increased nearly 20% in the past century. [reading chart]

now, one of the reasons i'm so pleased that the epa addressing climate change is that we create millions of jobs when we do so. as "the loss angeles times" report yesterday, jobs are being lost as we allow the rest of the world to surpass us in developing new technologies. i really urge my colleagues to read this article. uncertainty over proposals in congress has held off on investments -- this is the paper. [reading chart]

at a time when the economy is desperate for jobs, a slew of projects are on hold because of political stalemate in washington. so this is everything that the majority of this committee has been saying for about two years. administrator jackson, i want to thank you for starting to address the threat of global warming, and for understanding the need to move to a clean energy economy. again, i know that you' putting off enforcement. we understand you would prefer a legiativeolution here. my last point is, i am very happy to report that senators kerry and graham d senator

lieberman are making progress in getting to the vote thresholde need on a comprehensive approach. senator kerry brief you this week on the efforts. certainly look forward to this hearing. wi t inhofe extra one minute, 46 seconds to respond. >> thank you very much, madam chaian. and thank you, madam adnistrator, for bngi really do. we snt time my office, have talked about our kids. i sayhat from my hear it is true. i also want to thank you for what you have done, and your predecessors have done to the most devastating super fund site in america, the patar creek.

you have carried the ball through, done even more, relocated residence. so, thank you very much. that is good news. now 1 to talk about a different topic. this morning i am releasing and epw minority report. yone who wanted nothing good to the website of inhofe. senate.gov. it is the report on the scandal that has become known as climategate. the minority stepped down some of the leading climate scientist engaged and potentially illegal and unethical behavior. many have manipulated david to fit preconceived conclusions, obstructed freedom of information requests in dissemination of climate data, and concluded to pressure

journal editors against publishing scientific work contrary to their own. in other words, they cooked the signs. going back to obstruction of information. that is serious. it was found to be true in the u.k. the only reason they cannot prosecute is the statute of limitations. the british government found a scientist from the climate research unit at the cru who are at the center of this scandal violated the act. i know people, i notice imported for people who have 15 years wrapped up in this hoax to come up with, say this is just a miscommunication. but if you look overseas at the u.k. telegraph, one of the largest newspapers, says this is one of the most significant scientific scandals. also, the minority report shows

many scientist involved worked for the un's ipcc and up to compile its 2007 fourth assessment report. that is imported because this report is aa primary basis for the founding of the iepa's basis. it undermines the credibility of the ipcc signs. let's look closer. the ipcc said that "the global warming would melt the himalayas, the bush years by 2035 -- not true, that it would destroy 40% of the amazon rainforest -- not true, melted mountain ice in several mountain ranges -- not true, drastically increase the cost of natural climate-related disasters -- not true, 22% of the species to

extinction -- not true, till the mall, that's right --/crop production in africa by a certain time by a certain amount -- not true, and these erroneous claims works of good will sail without the administration's checking it out. it rests on bad science. this is further proof that the epa needs to scrap the finding and start over. that is not what the epa doing. we have $43 million in new funding to regulate greenhouse gases. this is seed money for the most economically destructive regulatory initiative in the nation's history. the nation is mired in unemployment.

people need jobs. once this separate commences those fortunate to work will be out of work. those looking for jobs will not find them. the obama administration is still pressing ahead. we have been told the signs still stands. we have been told that the ipcc's stakes are trivial. we have been toldgat beene is just cause of the mills between a few scientists. yet alarm is and has been sold on the notion that -- alarmism has been sold on the notion that green discusses are causing international catastrophe. now there's no objective basis for these claims. furthermore, there is no consensus among scientists. the obama administration is moving ahead with the massive job-killing tax for no good reason. the majority report shows the world's leading climate scientist acting like a political scientist. the bottom line is this.

every effort was made going back even before the mccain/lieberman bills of 2003, 2005, and all the rest. they did all we could to get a majority or up to 60 senators to embrace the idea that man made gases cause global warming. they could not do it. there are maybe 20 votes. so, it will not happen. obama's administration says it will do it on our own. now i think that is interesting. the chairman stated that the supreme court is mandating this. they are not. the supreme court said you have three choices. you can either find endangerment

finding, or not find it, or you can say the science is not certain. we will ask you during the question and answer time to find is not certain. you can have an engagement funding that can change. y did notou know of the time that you are basing this on the flawed science of the ipcc. nonetheless, it is where we are today. -- you did not know. we will make the request that we go back to look at this. also, that the epa this looked into the same as all the other nations are at this time. >> thank you, senator. senator crupper? >> -- senator cardin. >> that's ok. many people mistake s. -- us. >> to go very much.

and thank you, administered a, for your strong leadership at the epa. we see your influence on the president's budget. we're pleased to see that it advances the party's important for the ep in thea and with threats of climate change, protecting great water bodies, and investing in our nation's water investor asher. the budget includes three funding streams dealer with climate change. taking action now is required by the supreme court. an investment of $25 million to help state agencies to develop capacities to deal with pollutants. and the further investment of $21 million to support the reporting rules. they will ensure high quality data. >> the scientific information supporting global climate change is i think pretty convincing. we can also just take a look at the facts of what is happening

around the world. we have lost an area of sea ice equal to the size east of the mississippi. just this month the defense the berman called climate change and after of instability could have significant geo political- impact and exacerbate future conflicts. that is where we are today. the global climate change is real. i am pleased to see the budget reflects the common-sense investment in protecting us from greenhouse gas pollutants. i am also pleased to see the investment to protect and restore great water bodies. the ep proposesa an additional $300 million for the great lakes. they are the largest source of

fresh water on the planet. when need a concerted long-term investment to restore this critical ecosystem. we will have a hearing tomorrow about the great lakes. $70 million invested in targeting source pollutants for the mississippi river basin to protect the gulf of mexico. -- $17 million. most important of all, you'll recognize the investment in the chesapeake bay. record $63 million. as your testimony notes, the centerpiece of the effort is the implementation of the nation's largest and most complex, total, maximum daily load program. it is a clean-up plan to do with the cumulative impact of more than 17 million people, 80,000 farms, 483 waste water treatment

plants, and many other sources in the 64,000 square mile watershed. i have introduced legislation with senator carper restore the chesapeake bay to its rightful status. i will work with my colleagues on the committee in coming weeks to give the new authority and funding authorization to get the job done. finally, let me take note of the request to have made in regards to water and frustration. $2 billion to the state revolving fund. $1.3 million to the state water drinking revolving fund. based on recent history these are large increases from prior budgets submitted by the previous administration. we appreciate the continued commitment. we could even do better than this request. a number of colleagues including many sitting on this committee

are supporting our request of $5.4 billion in infrastructure funding for water for fiscal year 2011. we look forward to working to see if we can get the number even higher, knowing the backlog. so, for the climate change to my great water bodies, i think the budget you submitted sets the right priorities. i look forward to working with you to make sure the budget passes the congress and carries out these commitments. thank you. >> let me read the list. on the republican side -- on our side -- ok?

>> thank you. i appreciate those kind words from my good friend senator cardin. i happen to live in maryland. i'm glad he did in today. i was 15 minutes late getting around the mountain of snow have never seen before. i realize that heavy snowfall canceled one of the global warming hearings -- is not in itself any evidence that there is uncertainty and climate change. my what broke the snow shovel in this third storm. >> send it up to vancouver where they need it. >> the one thing that concerns me is when dr. phil jones, the head of the climate research unit told the bbc on february 13 "there has been no statistically significant warming over the

last 15 years." that may warrant some discussion. let me get on to the bipartisan concern over back door epa carbon regulations to circumvent the stalled cap and trade in the senate. on february 19 eight democratic senators wrote to you, madam and mystery, with serious concerns. these are from several different states. they expressed their serious economic, energy, and security concerns. the road to "bill-time or imprudent regulation may squander critical opportunities for our nation, including the investment necessary to create jobs." their concern about the possible impact on american workers and business in a number of industrial sectors.

they feel "they have responsibility to workers in the industry's" of their stakes to question their plans. so do i.. during consideration of legislation we learned it would kill millions of jobs, raise energy prices for everyday necessities. it would collect trillions of dollars from american families, farmers, and workers for new, bigger government programs. we have seen that some of these are not created, but balked. too often they're bought in asia, not here, to build this equipment. in many ways, backdoor regulations will be worse because whenever flexibility in the cost savings could come from a market-based program would be replaced by -- by government control.

we all know the epa's and events to make up new law and to the clean air act to exempt small emitters will be swept away in the first court challenge. any legislation to codify rules along with back door regulations will result in the millions of lost jobs and higher energy taxes. it is not a question of if but when. your letter yesterday announcing a plan to implement rules in 2010/2011 can be seen as a recognition of these concerns where some have said it may be a cynical ploy to delay the job- killing until after fall collections.

anyone supporting your legislation is merely saying that they want to kill jobs in 2011 instead of 2010. ironically, we do not even need a back door regulations. we can get reduction from vehicles through congressional and dot regulation. the back door carbon regulations will have no effect on the " endangerment" some perceive. cap and trade without similar actions by china and india will have no measurable impact. it provides pain without purpose. we have a better way to cut carbon emissions. clean coal technology, clean- burning natural gas hybrid, and all-electric vehicle technology, energy efficiency, and other steps that make economic sense. this is a bipartisan agenda to create jobs.

thank you. >> thank you. senator carper? >> yes, on the heels of a we heard, in a major proponent of expanding independence on nuclear power. in a country where we have more coal than saudi arabia has oil, it does make sense to use those resources. one of the best ways to help fund expansion of nuclear power and expanded use of clean coal is through putting into place market bases but unlike those when bush was president with respect to sulfur dioxide. i want to go into the record

with unanimous consent a statement from the folks who publish the journal science. i will read the first sentence. "has reaffirmed the position of the board of directors and leaders of 18 organizations who concluded based on multiple lines of scientific evidence that global climate change caused by human activities is now under way and is a growing threat to society." it is not just a question of whether the planet is growing warmer. we see a distortion of weather patterns. it is made perfectly clear by the enormous snows in the mid- atlantic and by the dearth of snow in vancouver. >> we will put that in the record. >> thank you for joining us today, administrator jackson. i understand you have come with

a budget that is a little under the current budget proposal. you have indicated a willingness to increase funding for portions of the budget that i am especially interested in, queen of the air. you make some good investments in state and local governments to clean up their teak diesel emissions and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. i want to say one other comment. very smart people, investors. john may get a fortune investing in the internet, technology businesses in the 1990's. before this committee and a number of other audiences he said if we want to unleash a tsunami of jobs, we need to put

a price on carbon. not a tax on carbon -- he says we need to put a price on carbon. my preference is to do that through legislation as opposed to through regulation. one advantage is to encourage the congress to do what it needs to which is to pass legislation. thanks for your testimony today. >> senator? >> thank you to you all for being here and for your work. i am happy that at least the great focus and subject of the discussion so far is the uncertainty and debate about climate change, and particularly the recent revelations which are very significant in terms of questioning the basis of the science.

we'll talk about the science and the facts. it is beyond dispute that the epa in reaching its endangerment finding relied first and foremost on ipcc work. it is also beyond dispute that these recent revelations of the last year raised very serious and very legitimate questions about that work. we can cite many things. i will mentionga one from willte e-mails one of the parties involved stated "i cannot see the red these papers being in the next ipcc report" -- about papers inconsistent with the conclusion they want to reach. kevin and i will keep the not

somehow, even if we have to redefine what the peer review literature is - close quote. there is a legitimate spectrum of opinion about the legitimacy of these revelations. that is still developing. i believe this notion that we can simply ignore, forehead, like it never happened -- forge ahead -- is not within a reasonable spectrum. unfortunately, i hear it from the administration and too many in congress. just ignored as if it never happened. it is significant. i hope that this committee looks hard and long and does the due diligence about these significant recent findings. secondly, i certainly want to echo the concern from a host of numbers -- members, bipartisan,

about the administration forging ahead with the endangerment findings. i welcome any delay. to that extent i welcome your announcement. i am completely opposed to forging ahead on that administratively. i believe the only proper route for the policy is through congress. i encourage the administration to focus on that route exclusively. i look forward to following up on all these issues today and in the future. >> thank you, senator. senator? >> thank you, madame chair. i really appreciate you holding this hearing. some of the senators here today have been very critical of the un climate program. i just want to remind them that the los alamos national

laboratory in new mexico has done two of the four models used by the program. it used the same super computers used to secure our nuclear stockpile. when we say to secure that stockpile, every year it must be certified that it is safe and reliable. it is done with these same computers. there is very, very extensive scrutiny of these types of models. i believe we should have confidence in them. administered jackson, reducing pollution and protecting public health is one of the best protections governments make. clearly they are sorely needed. the budget is $3 billion in the

clean water and safe drinking water funds -- only a small portion of the great need. we need to do more on that front. i am personally familiar with many of their rural and tribal communities in new mexico with aging or incomplete water structure. i commend the president and administrator for rallying small, but significant resources to these activities. global warming pollution is also one of the greatest threats to public health and the environment, and our reliance on foreign oil is one of the greatest threats to our national security. any epa action should be targeted, transparent, and allow for smooth transition to a lower carbon economy. administrator jackson's recent public description of the agency's planned course of action was very helpful, and i

look forward to working with the epa in the coming year. i do not think we should forget the place we are in america right now looking at in terms of the world. we are all looking at what is going to be the second industrial revolution, and the competition is going to be for clean energy jobs. the way to get their as senator carper, the chairman, and others have said, is to put a price on carbon and carbon dioxide emissions. it will move us in the right direction. we need to be cognizant of where we are in the world the in terms of the kind of competition out there. we have countries like china

which do not have to go through the democratic process es that we do. they order factories to move in very short period of time. we need to act quickly, with deliberation. we also i think need to be careful. madam administrator, you have shown that in your letter and approach. with that i yield back. >> thank you. >> thank you. under the president's proposed environmental protection agency's budget, the agency will continue its unprecedented high levels of funding. the agency will receive $10 billion of u.s. taxpayer dollars this year, substantially higher amount requested under any other previous administration. this it will strengthen the

program implementation, research, regulation, and comprehensive enforcement activities. at a time when funding is scarce and other agencies are taking a hit, it is clear that the epa will continue unprecedented growth. this is a clear signal where this administration's priorities are. funding goes to the ramp up of regulatory and enforcement efforts. the president has always made clear that expanding environmental regulation is a priority. with this funding of the agency can expand its regulations on small and large businesses, rural and urban towns. these are job-killing regulations. there will cost millions of americans their jobs. it is an administrative party. it is a special interest priority. unfortunately, it is not an american priority. unemployment is now at 9.7%

nationally. regionally many states have a higher rate. this does not factor in the unemployed who have given up. we need jobs, not just a green jobs, but red, white, and blue jobs. the biggest example is the agency's endangerment finding which states the process of taxing everything americans do. small business is the key to economic growth. in the past 15 years small- business owners have been responsible for 64% of all job creation in america. i returned from a meeting with state small-business owners who are afraid of the involvement of

government and the epa in their lives. the budget of the epa says it all -- they are right. the only people who will benefit are lobbyists. i believe that we can protect the environment while still providing for economic growth. the kind of growth creating the green, and red, white, and blue jobs. let's get this right and get priorities straight. >> thank you. senator? >> thank you, madame chair. as i'm listening i am reflecting back on how everytime in this edition when we have confronted great damage to our air or water it is always the same mantra -- it will kill jobs. when we look back 10, 20 years later we're so thankful that we

created jobs by createdwater ways, the air. we will create jobs by cleanup carbon dioxide pollution as well. it infuriates me that we're spending $1 billion per day on oil in the middle east and countries like venezuela that cannot share our interests. i just returned from kuwait. they're building gorges towers with our american money. if you want better dollars to go out of this country and build towers in kuwait, then go on fighting for the policy. but if you want to create jobs in america, keep the money here. let's create red, white, and blue jobs in america accreting renewable energy and keep those dollars in our economy rather than spending and overseas so that dictators and faraway countries can build shiny, new towers. i think we need to have a direct conversation about the damage to our national security with

dependence on oil overseas. we need to have an honest conversation about the hemorrhaging of dollars going overseas rather than creating jobs here. we need to have an honest conversation about the impact of carbon dioxide pollution. the epa is right in the middle of that conversation. thank you for putting together a budget that presents a responsible and honest, straightforward approach to taking on this challenge and that of creating jobs. we can create jobs as we work to change the use of carbon dioxide produced by vehicles. we can take and produce a tremendous number of jobs as we pursue energy-saving retrofits. we have the chance to take and develop energy here so that we are making energy payments to americans, not to citizens of kuwait. i look forward to your presentation. let's get on with it. >> thank you.

>> senator sanders? >> thank you, let me concur. we have the potential to create millions of good-paying jobs in energy efficiency. when we finally have the courage to say there is something observed about bringing into this country $350 billion worth of foreign oil every year. it makes us will marble from a geo-political point of view, does not give us energy independence, and makes the saudi arabian royal family one of the richest families in the world, even richer. this country faces many problems, not the least of which we have national leaders who are rejecting basic science. china is growing engineers and scientists. india is growing by the tens of thousands scientists and

engineers. we have a bashful leaders who are rejecting basic science, scientific work. i find that incredible, i really do. in 2010 on this committee there are people who are saying that there is a doubt about global warming. there is no doubt about global warming. the scientific community is almost overwhelming the united in the same that global warming is real. in fact, our own national academies of science and joined with academies in all g-8 countries to issue a statement in 2009 that an "climate change is happening even faster than previously estimated." our research program led by top scientists of the federal agency have stated "global warming is an unequivocal primarily human- induced." from an mit report, shows we

face an increase of up to 11 degrees fahrenheit in this century. yes, among many thousands of scientists working on it, people make mistakes. you know what? even my republican colleagues make mistakes sometimes. i have heard republican colleagues said the stimulus package created new jobs. that is a mistake. among many other mistakes my republican colleagues have made. it is dangerous to reject science from scientists. let me comment on oklahoma. i don't know much about that state, but the climatological survey from oklahoma, the stick climate office published in an official statement on climate change 2 and the climate007/08 "warning that the climate system is unequivocal bull is now evident from observations.

widespread melting of snow and ice, rising global average sea level." this oklahoma survey has been mandated by the oklahoma legislature to provide climate information and expertise which could be of value to the public as well as the state policy and decision makers. that is with the oklahoma legislature has mandated. i frankly think that when we are debating the reality of an issue that can bring devastatingly negative impact to this planet, we become laughingstocks of the entire world. using for political reasons the fact that there are few mistakes among thousands of scientists, and distorting reality does this country and the world no good. if you want to protect the oil

interests, get up there and say so. if you to protect coal, protect coal -- that is not a problem -- we understand where a lot of political contributions come from. but let's not argue about what the overwhelming majority of scientists in this country agree on. let's go forward to a clean energy future. i would say to lisa jackson, keep up the very good work. our children and grandchildren depend on the transformation of this energy system away from fossil fuel, and we have the potential to make huge changes to grow the kinds of millions of jobs that we desperately need. if we are prepared to listen to scientists and go forward with the energy efficiency to end unsustainable energy. thank you. >> i believe we have gone through our list of senators. so, administered a, you have been patient. we welcome you and the floor is yours.

make sure that you put your microphone on. >> thank you. greetings to you, and to senator inhofe. i would agree to the senator with a hearty who dat. please convey my wishes to my home state senator. i was miss his presence. thank you for the opportunity to appear before you concerning the proposed budget for fiscal year 2011. i heard all of your opening statements and appreciate the opportunity to reflect, present a budget that fully reflects president obama's and my commitment to environmental protection to ensure all families across the country have access to clean air, water, land. much work has gone into this budget over the past year and i'm proud it supports my key goals for the agency. it is a framework to address climate change, to improve air

quality, to ensure the safety of chemicals, to clean up communities, protect america's waters, expand the conversation on environmentalism, and to work for justice, to continue to build strong stake in troubled partnerships. let me touch on highlights to protect human health and the environment and late in the foundation for prosperity. let me begin by being direct. the science behind climate change is subtle. human activity is responsible for global warming. not only of america's top scientific institutions come to that conclusion, but so have numerous other industrialized countries. that conclusion is not a partisan one. the senate has twice passed a bipartisan basis of resolution funding a greenhouse gas accumulation from human activity poses a substantial risk of increased frequency and severity of floods and droughts. many on this committee, including from the minority, supported that resolution. this budget reflects the signs

and positions epa to address it in a way not to cause an adverse impact to the economy. the budget includes the requested increase of more than $43,000,000.40 efforts aimed at taking action on climate change. the bulk of this funding, fully $25 million for state grants focused on developing the technical capacity to address greenhouse gases -- the bulk of these $43 million. it is a rule i'm pleased was supported by the state, but the auto industry, and by many stakeholders. this budget also requests an additional $3.1 million to promote work on current and future carbon capture projects. while addressing global warming, this budget also takes steps to ensure the local air quality is

good for all, including for those with respiratory problems. we will continue support of monitoring efforts. this includes $60 million for state grants. also, this budget provides $6 million to include monitoring capabilities and address compliance issues and local communities. texans are found not only in air emissions, but in many of the common chemicals that we use every day. we have an obligation to ensure that these chemicals are safe. at the end of the year, the agency released the first ever chemical action plan for four groups of substances, and more are in the pipeline for 2010. $56 million is proposed. it includes continued development of management plans

to ensure that no unreasonable risks are opposed by new or existing chemicals. it promotes a new and innovative strategies to clean up communities and protect sensitive populations. this budget proposes $215 million for a brown fields. an increased amount to support clean up, jobs training, redevelopment. especially for underserved and disadvantaged communities. it proposes $1.3 billion for a superfund cleanup efforts across the country. it takes up pollution and replaces it with jobs. protecting america's waters is a top priority. due to their tremendous impact on human and environmental health, for 2011 this budget reflects the commitment to upgrade the infrastructure of water. to billion dollars for clean

water in the state revolving fund, and $1.3 billion for the drinking water fund. that will initiate approximately 800 of one kind and 500 of the other kind of projects around the country. [reading budget report] we have also begun a new era of of reach in protection for committees historically underrepresented in decision- making. we're building stronger commissioned chips with tribes and economically distressed cities. it is only a start. we must alter relationships with a stake in travel partners. it calls for innovation.

unchallenging all employees to bring vision and creativity to the program. thank you. i'm happy to answer any questions you may have. >> @ thank you. i wish that senators vitter was here. he said he is very pleased that we focused on the uncertainty over climate change -- those were his words. a want to make it clear for the record that "uncertainty about climate change" is coming from some colleagues on the republican side, and not one colleague on the democratic side has expressed in any way any feeling of uncertainty. on the contrary, they feel very certain. we have voted out a strong bill on this committee which i am very proud of. i want to say to senator inhofe who is an eloquent in his

denial, that in my opening statement i did not quote one international scientist or ipcc. rather, acquitted noaa, nasa -- i quoted noaa and nasa and the national association of the vans meant of signs. i will continue to collect the defense establishment, including the cia, doa, and many retired military people who tell us this is a great threat. so, i really want to point that out. it is fair to disagree on whether or not there is climate change. but the facts are the facts. i'm cutting american scientists. secondly, i also quoted what is happening on the ground.

-- i am quoting american scientists. we have been keeping records for 130 years and have had the warmest decade in that time. we can track the ice. two things i want to dispel -- we are collecting the american scientific community, and talking about the facts on the ground, what has been observed over the past decade. it is decade to decade, not the today. i appreciated this opportunity on both sides to express our views, but let me be very clear -- the majority of this committee in the strong numbers believe we must act. in fact, we have acted. in this the center being here. i know he is on the mend. i speak for everyone i know and sending him our very best. administrator jackson, the san walking district in the california has some of the most

polluted air in the nation -- the san joaquin district has some of the worst polluted air in the nation. it exacerbates health problems of certain people, and children are especially vulnerable. has anything changed on the pollution levels in these areas? >> the pollution in those areas is certainly a predatorypriorit. yes, you are right in noting that this budget does not propose to continue the earmarks. >> but there are earmarks for other areas. for example, a alaskan native villages. map for the the conversation and

write to you about this? we are worried. there are certain areas that are not named. this area because it is a valley is really hit hard. i want to ask you about the superfund. we're going for 22, 25 cleanups. i am a little bit concerned that we are not aggressive enough. can you explain why it is the case that we're only going from 22 up to 25 cleanups? >> the additional money provided both it in the recovery act, the stimulus funding, as well as the straight line funding and the proposed budget does not allow for a huge increase in the number of sites to be completed. i share your concern that the program needs money.

this is certainly a year of tough choices. working with the white house to craft a budget, we tried to find a level of funding that allowed the program cleanups to continue realizing that more money would be great, but we have tough choices to make. >> i will talk with you about some of those choices. another one we have been working on -- arsenic has been found in the water in some of the poorest communities in the california. while they get ready to do original water quality control, we're just not helping these communities now. they cannot drink the water. it is a doubling of the allowable amount of arsenic. can we work together to find a solution while we clean up the source of the problem? we need clean water for these

kids to drink. can we work together on that? >> i look forward to working together. >> thank you, madam chairman. i have sat here for years now listening to this. i know the distinguished senator from vermont wants badly to believe that the science is settled. the signs is not settled. phil jones is the scientist at ipcc, the top guy. he is under investigation right now. he said two weeks ago, i don't believe the vast majority of climate scientists believe the debate is over. this is a clear statement by the guy who is in charge of this stuff. you can want to believe something so badly, that you do. i will ask two questions

requiring only yes/no, or i do not know, or i do not want to answer. whayou said that the agency's vw is that "the scientific assessments of the ipcc represent the best reference material for determining the general state of knowledge on the issues of climate science." do you still agree? >> it is out of contextt, senator ofhe ipcc is important and it represents a multiple lines of evidence. >> ok, the media has uncovered significant errors. that includes mistakenly claiming that global warming would melt the himalaya wishers by 2035, in danger 40% of the

amazon rain forest, slaxh crop production by 40%, and other things i mentioned in my opening statement. c-span.or. . then called to launch a full investigation or institute reforms on how to reduce

scientific work. i would think at least we would agree that if everyone else in the country and the magazines like "time," "newsweek," and others are calling on investigations, would you be willing to ask to investigate c ipcc science? -- investigate ipcc? >> the reviews they did, it is incumbent on me as administrator to review any new information as it comes out and if anything changes the multiple lines of evidence for many, many things that i would call for a review. >> i do not think that is totally accurate.

the statement you said in response to me in a letter was -- where is that chart? this is the chart where we were showing during the last hearing, and we had about 40, that the u.s. action alone would not impact the carbon dioxide levels. your " was, "-- your quote was, "i do not think the u.s. acting alone will help." you point out to them that even if we were willing to pass some kind of cap and trade legislation or do this legislatively or through the administration that it is going to cost all the jobs. people have denied this, but mit, cra, all of them agree that

this could be a $4 billion tax increase that would destroy our economy. with all of that in mind, i was just say this. i want you to be thinking about this. how in the world do we justify doing something administratively that congress overwhelmingly rejected and saying defiantly that we do not care what you say, congress, we're going to go ahead and do this clean air act this side of the fact that the endangerment signing by your own a mission is due to the size from the ipcc. that is what i was talking about in the next round. >> do you want me to answer now? i will be brief. just to be clear, the supreme

court, the law of the land, found that a green horse get -- greenhouse gases are a pollutant. they determined -- it ordered the epa -- >> they did not order. >> they said the epa must make a determination whether or not greenhouse gases in danger to human health and welfare. rather than endure that obligation i chose, as administrator, and i believe i had no choice but to follow the law. >> the three choices were to go ahead and find endangerment, do not find endangering, or find the science. those for your choices. >> we reviewed the science. in my mind, the conclusions we drawn are based on the best science we have and are backed up by numerous bodies who are a lot smarter on these things than i am. my favorite quote on this is by

senator alexander. he said, "11 academies say that climate change is real and humans have caused most -- caused most of the human -- climate warming." >> the debate has been going on for seven years. seven years ago that statement was made. are causing catastrophic global warming is probably the greatest hoax perpetrated on the american people and i think it is true today. >> it is interesting that you still hold this is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated because i would like you to debate that with nasa and noa. i think it is incredible. >> think you, madam chair. one of the things that might be

helpful is the cost benefit analysis. we argue as to the science on climate change and i think it is pretty clear. one point is indisputable. clean energy in ways that will reduce greenhouse gases will be good for our economy and create jobs. the number-one issue right now facing the american people and economy is creating jobs. there's an article in the paper that showed the u.s. is falling way behind china, for example, in green technology and jobs. this will not only help us with energy independence and dealing with the issue that you must deal with, greenhouse gas emissions reduction, but will also help create jobs in america which i think we all want to do. the cost-benefit analysis is something that the very helpful for us. i hope you do this in a broad

context. if we do this right and that is what we're working on with other members of the senate to develop legislation done right that will create jobs in this country to put america back to work and at the same time they're responsible as far as our greenhouse gases and climate change commitments are concerned. i want to get on the record for the water infrastructure budget which i think is very important to our commitment. i want to get the numbers out. the budget request would actually be a slight reduction of the current year from $3.5 million to $3.3 million. it is less than and still more than doubles what the program received in fiscal year 2009. as the administration has pointed out, there's money available in the recovery act.

i want to get your reaction on the continued investment on the water infrastructure act. we authorize these programs at the higher level. there is strong bipartisan support and we understand the importance to invest in america's future and how we need to make sure that we have a proper waste water treatment as well as safe drinking water. >> thank you, senator. maybe i will let the state actions speak for themselves. the $6 billion in the recovery act had to be under contract. 100% of our states and territories made it. not one dime of the $6 billion that went to drinking water and sewage infrastructure had to be reallocated. that is because there is such a need. states do this in different ways whether it is to help world community's -- help rural

communities were cities that are facing ongoing concerns about antiquated sewage systems or drinking water. the water is there. the need continues to be a real. we make sure that money, along with the money we get in this year's budget, gets out the door. >> and thank you. that is good work. you are absolutely right. you would have gotten more money. the demand is there. we need to move forward. it is needed in so many ways including cleaning up chesapeake bay. i went to get on the record one other issue which is similar to the debate on greenhouse gas emissions which the supreme court ruled on. the tmdl for the chesapeake bay is a result of a case in 1999.

these programs must be implemented under current law. the legislation that senator copper and i have introduced is an effort to give additional tools so it makes it easier to accomplish these goals in an orderly process. could you review for us why the tmdl is being implemented now and reactions to the 1999 court case? >> we could talk about lofty regulatory action, but the truth of the matter ease that the popular -- the to the matter is that it is not being cleaned up at the rate of congress saw when we first started paying attention to the chesapeake bay program. it is why obama issued an executive order 4 chesapeake bay. initially contemplate that epa will remain steadfast in propagation -- in promulgation.

>> think you, senator. >> thank you, madam chairman. -- think you, senator. >> epa chief lays out timetable for regulating the green? -- greenhouse gas emissions. last year in california you spoke at the global climate summit in los angeles. he said by using the power and authority of the clean air act, we can begin reducing emissions from the late -- from the nation's largest facilities without placing an undue burden on the businesses that make up the vast majority of our economy. he went on to say that this is a common-sense rule that is carefully tailored to apply to only the largest sources, those from sectors for response will -- who are responsible for 70% of the emissions. now you say the epa does not

intend to inject the smallest sources of this bill until much later. schools, nursing homes, or all of these going to get -- going to be captured after role in the just a few years by going beyond your tailoring world and now incorporating this and capturing others? >> i am not sure i understand the question. let me know if i do not answer this. >> in the past you said we were only going after the big emitters because that is 70% of the problem. now it seems you are saying we will only go after the big guys now but come in 2016 we are going after everyone. >> i would refer you to beat the rules proposal -- to the rule's proposal which talks about the phasing in and it going towards

the large forces now and moving into the full implementation of the clean air act. i think that a very important thing to remember is that the united states supreme court told us that we had to follow the long and in using the clean air act i acknowledged that we had to do that. the other thing is when the things that has happened as a result of public comments, especially from the states who would have to implement the clean air act and those who want to implement this act, about how administratively they would do this, how much time they need, and how to avoid an adverse result. all these things are reflected in the information i gave yesterday. >> so i take it as a guest he will go after small emitter's. >> we will use --

>> so it is still 8 yes? -- a yes? we have heard from the chairman about how you used noa and nasa address climate change. i want to know if you are aware of the report called "surface temperature records, a policy driven recess -- deception." that rescue the global temperature trends by ignoring greetings of the thousands of local weather stations around the world in colder altitudes and more northerly latitudes such as canada. it alleges that no systema matter if we eliminated a lot of the stations for high altitudes and rural altitudes which tend to be cooler. this includes devastations in the united states, russia, and

china. -- this includes temperature stations. changes of land use, improperly calibrated equipment upgrades. the result has been a global service temperature record is higher than normal. we'd be willing to review this study and make future decisions based on these findings? -- would you be willing to review this? >> i definitely heard about the study in the press and we are planning to respond to it. we will work with them as a part of the global research program. the data on which our claims are remain valid. >> he would not tolerate it if they released data to the

public that contradicted their studies? -- you would not tolerate it? this included -- intentionally included non peer review work? i am not going to ask you yes or no. if you are looking for scientific integrity to make sure we are basing this on sound science and not what is being agenda driven than scientific reality. thank you, madam. >> thank you, senator. >> i just want to say to my colleagues whether you buy into this science or not, we can agree on the idea that we have this huge dependence on fossil fuels. we can agree that we use all of this petroleum from other countries and give our money to others. it is like good thing for our

country. the idea that we are not energy dependent is not a good thing for our country. we need to figure out what we can agree on to reduce our dependency on foreign oil and fossil fuels which would create a lot of new jobs. if we could figure out how to do that that would be a wonderful thing. thank you again for being with us. i am happy to see additional money to help state and local air control programs to meet strong reverberations standards. -- stronger standards.

our bill will save over 2 ended $16,000 -- save over 200,000 jobs. where they are putting all sorts of pollution up in the air. i would wonder if you could take a look at our legislation. >> the agency has not finished a full review of the legislation but a share your desire to submit in reduce emissions from mercury and other pollution from power plants. i respect your ability to work with various stakeholders to keep them at the table and realize that this is a threat to our health and our children's health that will not go away. thank you. >> give us a time line, if you will.

willett and this year? -- will this end of this year? >> how about if i get back to you with a more accurate timeline? >> i look forward to that. does this provide more legal certainty than will making region rule making? -- more certainty than rule making? >> we have achieved this through regulatory efforts. legislation at the certainty to the process which is true of climate or any pollutants. >> in the budget there is $13 billion for greenhouse gases which should be finalized by march. these are standards for america's car companies to be put in place back in 2007.

the that the greenhouse gas emissions, can we implement this new mobile rule? -- without the greenhouse gas emissions? >> the answer is no. the actual rules are predicated on a finding of danger. that is how the clean air act is worded. >> says this only applies to manufacturers -- since this only applies to manufacturers will they be required to meet these emissions? is that correct? >> that sounds correct to me. >> do you have concerns about that? >> i have great concerns about losing the deal that everyone embraced around cars and a road

map for automobile manufacturers in this country. i do have great concerns about competitiveness and it regulatory certainty at a time when this industry continues to need as much certainty as it can as it comes to rebound and grow. >> lastly, i understand the budget request for the easter reduction act has been very successful. for every dollar spent we get $13 in benefits. why is administration provided additional funding for this program? >> the stimulus program provided some. i do not agree with any program -- any of the numbers that you cite. it is a reflection of the tough choices that have to be made in terms of where we spend our

environmental dollars. >> thanks so much. >> we have people coming in and out. sanders, white house, -- is that all right? we will reverse it. that is fine. you can have five minutes please. >> let me begin by reading an editorial from a "the washington post." >> the earth is warm. the chief cause is the increasing of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. humans are a least in part responsible because of the oil, gas, and we " releases these gases. if current trends persist it is likely in coming decades that the climate will change with potentially devastating of billions of people.

contrary to what you may have heard lately, there are few reputable scientists who will disagree with anything in the first paragraph yet suddenly we are hearing that climate change is in doubt and actions to combat it are likely. what is going on? politicians, nonetheless, have seized on both the trouville mistakes -- trivial mistakes and the complexity of the science to cash out on the underlying and undisputed truth of human caused greenhouse gas accumulation. in many cases it is hard to know whether they are being obtuse or dishonest and hard to know which would be worse." the reason that this debate is so important is because it reminds me of the debate taking place around the world in the late 1930's.

with nazism and fascism growing, a real danger to the united states and democratic countries all over the world, there were people in the british parliament saying not to worry. they said it will disappear. fortunately there were other people in this country, roosevelt, republicans who said that we will have to be prepared for a war. mr. churchill in the inland led this there -- mr. churchill in england. global warming is real. if we do not get our act together it will be a devastating impact for our children and again -- children and grandchildren. this will cost trillions of dollars to prepare if it will be repairable at all. the longer we have this senseless the debate the worse off we will be.

china is not delaying. they're going forward with wind, solar. countries all over the world are investing heavily in energy efficiency and sustainable energy and are creating millions of jobs. i suggested that if we do not act that it will be awful for our children and harmful for our economy as well. having said that, let me ask the administrator about an issue which is a real concern in vermont. we are downstream, so to speak, from a coal burning plants in the midwest that emits a very harmful pollutants. people are coming down with asthma and other health problems. what are you going to do? >> i'm going to continue to keep up the work we're doing to put in place a replacement rule for

the care program, the clean air interstate rule, which overturned by the courts during the bush administration. we have been operating with a holdover and much of the pollution in places like vermont are from out of state. it is interstate transfer. the courts know that epa had not put for a role to put forth a rule to end that kind of solution. >> when i speak to school nurses, and i don't think this is just in vermont, i would urge you to do everything that you can to help us clean up our air and prevent our kids from getting asthma and other diseases. thank you very much. >> thank you, senator.

>> think you, madam chair. good to see you again, administrator jackson. zero to thank you for the work you're doing on the renewable fuel standard. this has taken a lot of modifications based on science and we have worked very hard on this. i truly believe that while we are in the infancy for biofuel that there's a lot more to be done here in terms of where we can done -- where we can go with this. we do not want to pull the rug out. after touring my state last week and talking to a lot of local municipalities about water infrastructure. we are facing an investment gap. the budget request for clean drinking water, could you talk about how this investment will mirror and invest in the gaf.

the epa has told very small towns that they had to get a new water treatment plants and then congress did not offer is -- authorize the money. it has become very difficult for them in very small communities to pay for these water treatment plants to comply with the mandates from the epa. i could sure use some specific examples, but could you talk about what you see as the future of the water infrastructure investment? >> the estimated need for water infrastructure is because we are chipping away at a pretty big man of $500 billion to up to $600 billion. -- a pretty big mountain of money. we have spent on our

appropriations and we will spend that much money. when you are looking at hundreds of billions of dollars in need you are still chipping away. i want to point out that one of the things you saw last year was loan forgiveness for small communities free and the sewage sites were following the model of the drinking water program. although there's not enough money to help all the small communities in your state or any state, the idea is that for those who have an inability to play there is an opportunity for states, and states decide how to give out this money, to really provide assistance to smaller communities. and can be in the form of grants. >> we will continue to work on specific projects. i am glad to see your announcement of the great lakes restoration plan. i am a co-sponsor of the great lakes legacy act with a focus

on contamination and clean them up. can you tell me how the epa is going to address these concerns and what is happening with asian carp? >> one of the things the president asked us to focus on in focusing on the great lakes initiative was on top 6. the legacy contamination that serves as a continuing source of pollution even if we stop everything else, there is still pollution. with this money we are focusing on action and not more studies. we estimate we will be able to clean up four or five hot spots completely with the money in the project. those of the kinds of action oriented outcomes he is demanding from our investment in the great lakes and i think we will be able to deliver those and intend we ido. carp and species are covered as

part of the initiative and certainly we would like to see a decline of invasive species and reverse that trend. as you know, separately the epa has taken about $60 million from the great lakes restoration money to cut physically to words -- physically towards the asian carp issue. be sent to deliver and -- once an answer and i are concerned about the-waist -- e-waste. some of these are difficult to recycle. best buy is encouraging incentives to have customers bring in there all the recycled

products. the other piece is getting the research going to develop products that will have less environmental hazard when they are put into landfills or discarded. could you talk about any e-waste solutions coming out of the epa? >> obviously, there is a domestic is to international issue. states are taking matters into their own hands. the industry is seeing a patchwork of different ideas to deal with the problem of disposal. there is an increasing number of devices that pose a serious risk. this includes $1 million for new research efforts for some fundamental redesign of electronics devices to try to get to a pollution prevention side of this problem. we will continue to do that research now continue to work with mine solid waste and

hazardous waste regulatory arm at to see where we can help to guide the industry by companies who are distorting the electronic waste. >> thank you very much. >> thank you, chairman. thank you for holding this hearing. administrator jackson, thank you for your important for. i hope that you do not take away from this particular room any new doubts about quality of science that supports any legitimate concerns about climate change when organizations such as no anad nasa -- and nasa and our department of defense are all

aligned. i think it is safe to say that it is mainstream science. i will not do it again because i have done it repeatedly, but there's also a letter from the major scientific organizations laying out very clearly the signs on this which is undisputed and a very uniform view of this. set against that science is an industry and there is a book called "merchants of doubt" about the propaganda to raise doubt to create political maneuvering room for these industries. i think that is very much what we are seeing in the sector of doubt that some are attempting to raise a that the villain -- the validity of this science. if you want to grow out the scientific method it is about as solid as it gets. -- if you want to throw out the

scientific method. i think neville's chamberlain -- level chamberlain's blindness is [unintelligible] the efforts of what needs to be derailed by the harsher because of the special interests overlay of the industries that have made themselves merchants of doubt when the science is secure. one of the problems that we face in rhode island on a bright, clear summer day is that the radio in the morning as people died in to work will announce that this is a bad hair

day for rhode island. -- bad air day. the elderly, people with breathing difficulties, young children should be kept indoors. if you look at the source of this it is not from within a room island. not much we can do about it in the state. it is coming from other states, the midwest. one of the starkest admissions is the height of some of the smokestacks that have been built in other states in order to to get it high enough into the air column that it will not land in their state but will be transported in comes down in rhode island. i would urge you to be as

energetic as you possibly can in the enforcement of those areas because exporting the pollution to other states, these companies have taken themselves out of the loop of local consequence. some of them have better air quality nearby the smokestack and we do in rhode island sending it over to us. we really depend on our federal agencies where there are these interstate pollution exports, if you will. i would like to ask you to say few words about that problem, your role, and what we can expect. >> thank you, senator. i will repeat my commitment to seeing the clean air interstate rule promulgated and instigated this year in the coming months. earlier in the year and not

later in the year because we are without a way to protect interstate transport. the previous rules were found to be illegal. also, i think you know we have a proposal to lower the national standards for our ozone. that was not a happy day to admit that the science says that even lower levels of the ozone are unsafe and we have to be honest with the american people and tell them like it is even when it means it will be harder to get to. the clean air act remains with the greatest success story out there becomes a fighting pollution. although we have challenges, we also know that if we squarely face those challenges that we find cost creative ways we will be was the our job.

>> thank you very much. an envoy to build the case that this in danger and finding they have made was built on the findings and the work of the bill should ministrations. i am going to recuse and evidence that you did build on a lot of their work. i'm one to put into the record a letter sent to us by jason burnett who is the associate devi the administrator to the epa under george the the bush -- who was the associate to the epa. he sent this to the white house. he received a call. he was asking us not to send the findings. i was asked to send a follow-up note saying the email had been

sent in carrier -- sent in error. i would put this into the record. it is clear that there may be major findings. i want to put into the record a couple of pages of the head of the cdc under george w. bush. her testimony was redacted in part and i'm going to read from the redacted part because we got this from a whistle-blower. she said scientific evidence supports the view that the earth's climate is changing. she talks about federal, state, local, multilateral, and other ways to address in despite the activity the public health issues remain unaddressed. the cdc considers climate change a serious public concern.

she goes on. direct effects of heat, health related to extreme weather, air pollution, allergic diseases, water borne infectious diseases , food and water scarcity, mental health problems, and long-term impacts of chronic disease. i will put these pages into the record and i'm going to ask you if, in fact, you were able to find anything? >> yes, the endangerment finding was done in large part when i walked in the door at the epa. we did update the findings and review the science. we did broaden the findings to include human health and welfare. we rely essentially on the same science moving forward.

i do believe the incumbents should be looking at sites as it evolves. science changes, but you have to look at the mountain of evidence that says that the climate is changing and there -- they are man-made causes. every time this issue comes up, we allow it to the american people to take a look at it. >> yes, and that is essential for. we said that there has not been one agency in america, nasa, dod, cia that has backed off on their views. i'd like to put into the record an article in "the independence" where think tanks take money and use it to fund climate deniers. an orchestrated campaign is being waged against climate change science to undermine

public acceptance of man-made global warming, experts claim last night. this goes on. lastly, i want to put into record three studies that were made on job creation. if we move forward with climate change in legislation, the clean energy of the economy in america predicts millions of jobs in the nation. they did a study in california where the clean energy jobs are the only sector that has been growing in providing jobs through this recession. a university of california study also attend the same conclusion. i want to ask you about the brownfield funding. you are requesting an additional $41 million. i think the senator worked with us as well. can you describe the job

creation benefits you expect from the brownfield program under your budget? >> history has shown that brownfield money is heavily leveraged with private sector money. the way to start the engine, economically, around a particular site or community from the increased from the refunding is a recognition of that fact. not all committees are dealing with super sites. oftentimes there are smaller sites that are holding back economic growth. the money will be used to do the assessment to determine the nature of the problem, do cleanup on sites including storage tanks, and to do job training. the brownfield job training is a little gem that uses communities that have been impacted by pollution and train them to get good paying jobs to clean up

pollution. i am very proud of the fact that we were able to squeeze a little bit more money in. >> my time is up, so i want put a question on the record. i am increase -- i am impressed with the increase of funding for children's health. >> think you, madam chairman, let me respond to some of the comments. one senator talked about reducing our dependence on foreign oil. we can do it. we can do it overnight. right now we're the largest recoverable reserves for coal, natural gas, and oil of any country other including china, and russia. we are the only country in the world is, allow us to explore our own resources.

that is an easy thing. i would say to senator whitehouse that we can argue about this as long as you want to. the people have said that the science is settled over and over again are hoping to believe it. the guy in charge of all the science ofipcc, dr. phillip jones, says he does not believe the vast majority of climate science is correct. that is the guy who is in charge of the ipcc. feature real mistakes, i think it was senator sanders, we think it is trivial here but if you look overseas and what is happening the have called for an internet -- investigation of the the ipcc. the corruption is overpowering.

they're calling this the greatest scientific scandal of our generation. there are doubting the un's credibility -- their doubting the u.n.'s credibility. "the guardian"says they were too trusting. they said they would be better journalists if they would have investigated more closer. the same is true of "the washington post." i will have been submitted into the record. one of the things that has been said over and over the the question that it is really not a question of the ipcc. i have read administrator jackson's reports that they're relying on reports of the ipcc.

i believe that. if you look at the various statements, noa, dod, lawrence livermore is saying that. the technical support document of the endangerment findings refers to 67 different documentations from science of which 47 are the ipcc. so the others reported, the other 20, they are also ipcc but not identified as such. for example, one doctor is the current offer of ipcc.

this one from nasa is also an ipcc reviewer. she is also one of the authors. when it gets down to this, the bottom line is that the signs came from the ipcc. all scientists were there. my concern so goes back. i fought for years to keep us from going down the road to financial destruction and have a cap and trade kind of approach. warner-lieberman, mccain- lieberman, all these bills that were cap and trade. it would be doing it through regulations. what is the cost? i do not claim to be an economist. and 90, the wharton school, cia, and all of the rest say that in

the range of $300-$400 billion in by the admission of administrator jackson this would not reduce carbon dioxide production if we passed any of these bills. the same is true with doing the same thing for regulation. here we have endangerment report based on the science of the ipcc which has been discredited. i think someone needs to say this. when the hard times come and there is overregulation because this will not decrease carbon dioxide that someone will need to stand and say the science is wrong. >> my answer is i disagree. let me respond to three things senator -- three things, senator.

i do not agree. i do not believe the ipcc has been discredited. it is important to understand that it is a body that is impartial, open, and objectives. they have had concerns about email. i do not defended the conduct of those who sent the emails. they are. -- they are peer reviewed. there are numerous groups of the teams and independent researchers coming up with findings such that that even the ipcc says while we need to investigate and made sure they are held to a level of conduct we can be proud of that we stand behind our findings. i'm sure you're not surprise i cannot agree with you. i do not agree with you on job killing. i believe, as the president says, that we have had the

foundation for growth in this country and that americans want clean energy and see the value of investing in a future for generations to come. if you want to make that investment we have to change from being totally dependent on fossil based power, without a price for carbon, without control for carbon. we have to do that. i have to tell you that it strikes me when i hear about these doom and gloom forecast for economic ruin -- the clean air act amendment predicted a quiet death. a program to -- reduce pollution to market incentives. what really happened is that the economy grew by 64% even as acid rain pollution was cut by 60%. there are ways to make smart environmental investments in

policy. i would do nothing less. to sit here and say that these policies -- to say that these would not create jobs in this country. >> this is mit, the wharton school, there are talking about the economic destruction of our country. i do appreciate your comment except that is the reason that i quoted all of these newspapers and publications who are now saying that the science was not right. it is not me saying this. i am quoted others. i do not have the credibility. when a whole nation and turns around and people say that, it should be a wake-up call. we are facing this major step on signs that we know now is flawed. that is the reason i quote other sources.

>> i think we have to " the national academy of science. >> how about the ipcc? >> we just talked about them. you can e-mail them any allegations that come out. science can be messy and the dust will settle the. i have not seen this point -- i have not seen anything that will settle the point. >> the science is not settled in the ipcc. >> sinister whitehouse? -- senator. >> oh, i am sorry. i think that senator imhofe is right about one thing. it is that history will be our

judge. i just disagree with him on the judgment of history over this time. i think if we do not take action that history will be extremely harsh. i think that the combination of willful blindness and corporate special-interest creates a unique risk. i think it is very important that we stand true to the basic principles of the scientific method and recognize that doubt is a product that is here on purpose in this debate. i cannot think of an area of my personal life where i would refuse to act until i was 100 percent sign certain -- 100% certain. if i had heard an alarm in the night, i am sure it malfunctioned. if there is a gas leak in the

house, there is a chance it will never go off, but you take reasonable and thoughtful mentors. with the scale of the problem we are potentially facing, i would encourage you to hold firm to the science and what you are doing. i think most people who have looked at this gets very clearly where we need to be. as challenging as these moments might be for you, hold on for the judgment of history. thank you for your efforts. >> we are thankfully bringing our hearing to a close, administrator jackson. this has been an important

debate because, frankly, i think we have reached a new point in this debate. the debate is shifting. my republican friends have shifted from attacking the international scientific panels to attacking the most respected organizations right here in america. from noa, the oceanic administration, to nasa, state administrations, to the cia, the department of defense, to the cdc, department of transportation. we're talking about a tax on the department of agriculture that is very involved in helping us with this. the interior department. we are now seeing colleagues attack america's most respected institutions. this reminds me of some other times we have had where people

turned on our most admired institutions. they are attacking groups like the american association for the advancement of science, the american geophysical union, the american meteorological society, the society of the plan biologists, the american chemical society, the american institute of biological sciences, the american society -- american statistical association, the crop science association of america, the organization of biological field stations, the natural science coalition, society for industrial and applied mathematics, the society of systemic biologists from the university corporation for atmospheric research, the

society -- the science society of america. observations brought the world make it clear that climate change is occurring and rigorous scientific research shows that greenhouse gas is emitted by human activity as the primary driver. there has been a shift today. this is big news. we're now seeing the other side attack our own people. these people in america are not political who care about this country, love this country, dedicate themselves to making sure that we get the fax. . .

>> i appreciate your being here today and in your very calm way telling us the truth about what you know, how you have built on that, bush administration scientist as a basis, and to me, this debate today has been a turning point. the vast majority of this committee, we will continue to

do our work based on the facts condemn the last point i would make is we are entitled to our own opinion but not to the facts. i have one chart that i want this -- that i want to be shown. this is what has happened in the last decade. we do not have that one. we will go with the spread of the extreme weather. this is not conjecture. the amount of major storms has increased 20% the frequency of drought has increased over the past 50 years. difference a large wild fighters and length of the fire season has increased substantially in recent decades. in the last 30 years, surface

temperatures have increased by2 degree -- increased by 2 degrees. we have the facts on the melting ice sheet. we know about the temperatures. we know all of these things. they have already happened. the last decade was the highest ever recorded. nobody can dispute these. this has already happened. where we are now as legislators, we need to make policy based on the science. we intend to do this. we have great respect, the majority of this committee, for noasa, noaa, the dod, the epa, all of these departments. nobody is perfect. we see the trends. the good news is that when we actively do the right thing, we

are going to leave this world better and we will create these jobs. the challenge stands before us and i appreciate your testimony. we stand adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> i want to thank my family for the applause in the back of the room. [laughter] you are watching c-span, created by the nation's cable companies and presented as a public service. coming up, from today's

washington journal, a discussion on trust in government. president obama stops just outside philadelphia to talk about health insurance. later, tsa administrator talks about the administration. >> taking a look at the $787 billion stimulus project, about $345 have been committed to -- about $345 billion has been committed. you can find news conferences, and debates and links to government and watchdog groups who are tracking the spending at c-span.org/stimuluts. >> are content is available on

television, radio and on line. you can also connect with us on twitter, facebook and youtube. you can sign up for our schedule alert e-mails c-span.org. >> how much to u.s. citizens trust the federal government? that was the subject of this next "washington journal" segment. it is about 45 minutes. continues. host: we welcome bill galston, senior fellow at the brookings institution. he had an opinion piece -- in that opinion piece you quoted numbers from "the new york times the tier a recent survey. it said 70% of those they polled were dissatisfied with washington, 81% believe members of congress don't deserve reelection and the president obama's approval rating is at 46%, according to this poll done

in mid february. how, according to your view, can political leaders restore trust in government? guest: the first thing to understand is this is not a new phenomenon with the obama administration. there has been a long period of declining trust in government, really since the middle of the 1960's. many factors contributed to this long term decline in trust in government. the standard culprits are the vietnam war, watergate, inflation of the 1970's, corruption in government, changes in media coverage, etc.. the reason i am saying this is to under score of the fact that because it took us a long time to get into this situation where only 20% of people trust government, it will take a long time to get out of it. but there are some things, it seems to me, that government can do, starting immediately.

first of all, the american people care a lot about corruption and the perception of corruption. it is very, very important for government in all of the branches, i would say, especially the congress of the united states, to police itself more effectively. and the scandals that seemed to erupt on a monthly basis the not contribute, to put it mildly, to public trust in government. secondly, government has to get into the have it -- have it of promising no more than it can deliver and then fulfilling its promises and more. right now, we have exactly the reverse going on, where governments, in order to make things happen, and makes promises to the american people that are not fulfilled. i will give you one example from this administration. the promise was if the stimulus

were enacted into law last spring, unemployment would peak at 8.5% and of course it broke through that ceiling and 10%. the stimulus package have them -- done some good but the perception created by a promise that was not fulfilled was quite damaging. a host of you go back, did say 40 years. in that period leading up to that, was there a good will feel left over from, say, the new deal, the post world war ii era about what government can do, about folks trust in government? guest: was there ever. we went through a 30-year period in which the national government was seen as tackling huge national and international problems and dealing with them pretty effectively. the depression, world war ii, containing the soviet union,

building the biggest middle- class in the history of the world, presiding under an unprecedented period of economic expansion and prosperity that period from the mid-1930s to the mid-1960s was the period in which trust in government rows and rows. it peaked, amazingly, at 76% in 1964. the comparable figure now is about 20%. host: bill galston is with us until it o'clock 30 a.m. eastern with your calls about trust in government. we would get to your calls momentarily. you also spoke about one of the key things you think is a problem, the scandals, a reaction to scandals. last week you had several events. charlie rangel stepping aside in ways and means committee as a

result of an ethics investigation. you had the house ethics committee clearing in number of members, the connection between lobbying and campaign donations. then you have the issue with governor paterson in new york. in reaction to that, how do you think that democratic leaders faired in reaction to these scandals? have they done the right things in the wake of these certainly ethically challenging times? guest: they moved in the right direction. you could have a pretty robust argument as to whether they moved quickly enough. for example, the charlie rangel affair has been building for a long time. obviously, he is a senior and respected member of congress. he is entitled to his day and what counts as court in congress. on the other hand, the allegations have been swirling around him for months and months

and months now. a and i think -- and i think that congress needs a more effective mechanism for asking people to step aside time brierley, to accuse -- step aside temporarily, recruits themselves until they are cleared. innocent until proven guilty is a wonderful principal for court of law. but when it comes to the court of public opinion, congress may have to adopt a more stringent standard. not just congress, but the executive branch as well. host: lakeland, florida. democratic line. caller: well, i'm wondering if the problem is government, as ronald reagan said, or -- are you including in your assessment of the contract on america? while it may have developed --

delivered a balanced budget, it delivered massive deregulation around here? and this criteria, do you also include weapons of mass destruction -- is that a scandal where thousands of americans were sent to their deaths looking for these weapons of mass destruction? millions of iraqis were killed? do you include contracts with kbr? we include -- let us forget about the deficit as dick cheney said and just spend, spend, spend. what part of government are you complaining about? it seems to me you complain about -- is it the federal government that you complain about being big or something like state governments when they get big -- for state and local governments, it seems like there is no complaint about that? guest: i am barely in control of my own daily schedule.

look, all the things that you mention have contributed to declining trust in government. the point i was making is that this started well before the 1980's and 1970's. you can see trust in government declining starting in the mid and late 1960's. long before ronald reagan was even imaginable as a presidential candidate or a president. trust in government plunged to roughly where it is now the day roughly where it is now the day ronald reagan guest: the problem we have, in the past 30 years, the government has been functioning in a context of public opinion that has been deeply mistrustful. granted, when politicians run

against washington as politicians of both parties have been tempted to do in recent decades, that hardly contributes to trust in government. it is the equivalent of one airline running negative ads against another saying if you get on the other airlines it will crash. that will not create trust. host: on the republican line, they could from san petersburg. caller: to walk. the government makes promises and they can never deliver on. the best examples are medicare which is a liability. the great society of abject failure. the new deal was an abject failure. unemployment was 20% just like the beginning. those are two games of the world series the american -- the united states lost.

we are looking at another promise that cannot be kept which is this health care reform. another entitlement that will burden our children. the you think the american people are finally ready to wake up and cut government down at all levels? state, and federal, 20%, 30%, 40%, so they don't have the power to hurt us as they have in the past century? guest: well, you pack a lot into the question. let me take some of the pieces in reverse order. first of all, no, i don't think the american people are ready to cut government substantially. i remember vividly in 1995 and 1996 when newt gingrich and the republicans had just taken over congress and they were sure that the american people were ready to cut government. so sure that they were willing to shut down the government in order to prove their point. of course, it blew up in their faces. the fact of the matter is,

americans may want to cut this or that but in the main, they are not unhappy with what government is delivering. obviously they would like the federal budget to be balanced. we all would. and i suspect they will take steps in that direction in the next five years or so. with regard to your history. i have to say that i don't agree with. the new deal was not a failure. it was an incomplete success. but the american people applauded the progress that was made during those eight years before the start of world war ii. lyndon johnson's great society is a more complex phenomenon but i did not think americans want to get more -- i do not think they want to get rid of an education system that works better for all children and not just a favored few. host: is there sort of a level of congress -- we all see the

approval of congress and they never seem to be very good, whether president obama or bush. is there sort of a level where you could say, if it gets to 30% of the people approve of congress, that is a good number? guest: 30% is about twice what is right now. i remember there was a novel when i was an undergraduate at cornell called "been down so long it looks like up to me." i expect lots of members of congress feel that way. host: from the time they have been doing these ratings, what is the highest congress has ever gotten? guest: i don't remember exactly but i suspect congress does not break 50% very often. my colleague and his co-author at the american enterprise institute published a book not to long ago called "congress: the broken branch." there was not much push back against the title.

host: poland, ohio. ron on the independent line. caller: john adams said if the legislature becomes corrupt, the people are undone. i believe this is true and i believe the american people perceive this. and i think we would be better off without congress. in this day and age with the internet, our credit cards are managed, there is no fraud or anything -- i think we could just eliminate congress and as a vote on everything ourselves, let the executive proposed the legislation and let us vote. i am sick and tired of have representatives who never vote the way i feel. what was but " you gave us -- what was the number? 80% of the people are not in favor of congress? host: 81% is " the new york times" number. 81% believe members of congress

don't -- reelection. are you gone? caller: obviously, they are corrupt. they take money. if they take money, they are corrupt, and they all take money. . this was a very robust debate as to whether we should have a more

direct system or a more representative system. the founders decided that for all sorts of reasons, it would be better to have a representative system. as a constitutionalist, and i agree with them. i do not think the history of plebiscites has been a very happy one. the idea that money does not have an influence on those plebiscites is just wrong. a lot of people do not have an opportunity to review all of the details of the language. some of the resolution date are asked to vote on are extremely lengthy. and with a tape of the site, there is no opportunity to amend or approved. i do not think that is a good

way to make public policy, a lousy way to craft legislation. for better or worse, we are going to have to live with a system where legislation is drafted by elected representatives. our challenge should not be to eliminate congress, but to improve it. host: earlier, a column from the politico. john from new york city. democrat. caller: good morning. i can tell you one reason why people distrust government. people this represents state and made by the government. you did so this morning when you made the assertion that the obama administration promised that unemployment would not go above 8% if stimulus were

passed. in fact, with that statement originated from was from a report from the council of economic advisers. in that report, there was a qualification of the statement that said that all of the estimates presented were subject to significant margins of error. obama never said those words, never made a promise. that has become a talking point on the right wing. they promised, he promised, he broke his promise. he never did that. this was a highly qualified estimate from christina romer, and that is repeated as a broken

promise, so people should not trust government. guest: that is the source of the original prediction, but i think if you look at the market more carefully, you will see that that number was used with fewer qualifications in order to persuade people to pass the stimulus package. by the way, i supported it at that time, and i support it now. my point is that it is unwise to create expectations that are not fulfilled. i am speaking as a political scientist, not as a political advocate. the consequence of the public perception that government has not delivered what it said it was going to deliver it is discussed. it would be better not to put out any predictions at all than

to put up numbers that are going to be misused in a way that will increase the distrust of pond -- government. host: in your piece in the "new york times" you talk about economic equality. it has been the most disparate since the 1920's and that political partisanship is as bad as we have seen it. what are the two related? guest: they are not necessarily related to each other, although we can have a discussion on that. each one is clearly related to rising this trust in government. let me take one example. political polarization. a study done by the brookings institution and hoover

institution found and demonstrated that political polarization between the political parties and in congress is at the highest level since the 1890's. the american people do not understand that, and they do not like it. if you go to the countryside and you do focus groups, you will hear something like this. a round here, when we have a problem, we roll up our sleeves we talk about the problem, and we agree. why can they do that in washington? after they take up their fancy cufflinks, why can't they get serious? i think people do not understand the level of the ideology that

permeates washington. they see it as an obstacle to problem-solving. first and foremost, they want their problems solved. host: in the "christian science monitor closed botmonitor" -- is this a societal shift? guest: there is no question that changes in the media over the past quarter-century have amplified the voices of the more shrill and extreme individuals and groups. when you move from broadcasting, which was the norm, to narorow markets, you give voices to the people away

from the center and identify them. if i may be so bold, you see that every day on cable television. at the same time, there is evidence that fewer american people associate themselves with the middle and somewhat more the left and right. so this is simply not a media phenomenon. there is not a huge disconnect between the elected officials and the american people. there is more support for the geological voices than there used to be. host: shelby township, michigan. len on the democrat line. caller: i have a few things going through my mind this morning. one of the things is the fact that we have the media that now

seems to be a fourth branch of government. it permeates itself through the political process and leans too far to the left. even in the 2006 alexian's -- elections, getting to where they are today in congress and in the house, it seems the republican party polices itself when we ha. when we had that republican playing footsie, it came down pretty fast and the republican party disconnected themselves from that individual. you do not have that in the democratic party. that is why charlie rangel has

lasted as long as he passed. i think there is so much going on. you do not really have the journalists anymore. i know there are other people who want to get on . have a great day. guest: i doubt very much that the democratic leadership believes the press is on its side. for what it is worth, my impression, and i am no specialist in the media, is that what television stations, radio stations, publications, print and online, what they like the most is a good, juicy story.

a scandal is a scandal, whether it is perpetrated by democrats or republicans. the governor of new york, a staunch democrat, has no reason to believe the press is on it ihis side. they have been hounding him, for good reason, so i do not see the bias you are talking about. nor do the american people believe the republican party in 2005, 2006, had worked to police itself. that was one reason why republicans were voted out of office. host: we had someone talking about the political process. erin tweets into us and says --

you spoke about role of the media. particularly, these types of the accountability website. are these better resources for people? does it make trust in government better or worse? guest: the great irony of our current circumstances is that the media is both better and worse than it used to be. you gave a good example in the respect that media is better. it works much more actively now to bring information to better on problems to allow citizens to judge for themselves the accuracy and validity of campaign promises, for example let's drill down more

specifically in to that example. a campaign is not just an effort to gain election. in my view, it represents a solid contact with the american people. they have the opportunity to hear from you directly, as a potential president, center, a member of the house, and what you will do if they trust you with the power to do it. i believe that you had better not write favorable contract which the american people sign, which you signed with your words, unless you intend to do your level best to fulfill it. now, circumstances change, and promises entered into with good

faith, may become impossible because of the circumstances. if leaders are honest about that, they understand -- they have good sense -- if they say in good faith things that they cannot do, and they hope for adjustments in expectations. but still, politicians need to take those problems seriously. every time they promise something, knowing that they have a hard time to fulfill it, they contribute to the slow erosion of trust in government. when you get down to it, we have no choice but to govern ourselves through those institutions. host: creating promise this is sort of what you have to do to be elected.

guest: i am not sure that people buying for elected office have to do quite as much in the way of making attractive promises. call me an optimist, but the american people are ready for truth telling. they are ready to hear the hard truth is that they know, in their gut, are valid, but no one has had the courage to say aloud. host: your comments in the "christian science monitor" from a scientist saying -- guest: i think there is a lot to

that. there is an ancient distinction between what people want and what they need. in recent decades, too much of our politics has been about what people want, as revealed by public opinion polls, and too little of what they need, stable and sustainable government that can pass on a better government to their children and grandchildren. i think people are ready to hear that message. host: jim in new york. caller: i want to address the underlying problem, i believe. 1913, the u.s. created the federal reserve in the dead of night when all the politicians went home for christmas.

1918, the country went broke. since 1933, when the u.s. went into emergency operating procedures, since then, it has basically been death. we have been owned by the politicians of the federal deserve. the united states, according to this speech, has been run as a socialist, communist country ever since. when you think about it, our rights were derived from the fact that we were born, as free people. freedom of speech cannot be taken away. in a socialist country, the government can take those rights away.

guest: i would hesitate to learn my history from a convicted felon, but i guess impressions can differ on that point. as to these federal reserve -- the federal reserve, i think we have to disagree. i think the federal reserve board is one of the great creations of the 20th century. i would certainly prefer to have our monetary policy managed by the federal reserve board as opposed to j.p. morgan. and beyond that, i simply do not agree that the american republic disappeared with the concept of the new deal.

there were a lot of republicans who did disappear at the same time -- republics who did disappear at the same time throughout europe. governments were toppled and replaced by authoritarian governments. i think a case can be made that the new deal did not undermined either capitalism or constitutional government but saved both of them. for that, franklin delano roosevelt, for whom ronald reagan voted four times, deserves our credit. host: larry on the democratic line. caller: i cannot agree with you more saying that it is asking for trouble when the government makes a promise and cannot fulfill it. that is the first step to mistrust. i think you are right also in

not politicians put their special interests before the citizens'. they have lost sight that they do work for us. i think they had it backwards. i know it is weird to say, but it would be ironic to see these politicians have to live three months on what ever it is they could qualify for on social security with little or no insurance. i think that would give them a reality check. there are all lot of hurting people out there, especially senior citizens who are disabled. when you do not get something that was promised to you, you begin to promise on that, and if you do not get in, they might have a sense of what is really like.

guest: i do not think it is a bad idea for politicians to have to live by the circumstances ordinary americans do. that is a point benjamin franklin made. having said that, i am not convinced that politicians are as detached from those circumstances as you might imagine. very few of them get rich. some of them are rich when they enter political life, but if you want to get rich, it is not a particularly good career. if you want to become rich, become an investment banker. i would say millions and

millions of americans are paid more than their senators and representatives are. before we beat up on them too bad the, let's give them credit for choosing a line of work that does not impoverished them, but does not put them into the upper reaches of our economic stratosphere. host: patty on the democratic line. caller: america, he is trying to sound like a moderate, but he is a far leftist. look at how many millionaire and there are in congress and senate. as far as us american not trusting the government, it is because they cannot do anything competently. take a look at post office, bankrupt. fannie mae, freddie mac, they needed to be bailed out.

if his, or as conservative as he were liberal, you would have a conservative commentator as well. as far as the media is concerned, are you kidding me? they did not vet john edwards, president obama. the media is ignoring the global warming hoax. how rich is al gore? how many millions does president clinton have? they are multimillionaires. look at the two senators in california. guest: i think you will find if you look at the u.s. senate, the reason there are so many millionaires is because they were millionaires before they got to the senate. the question on the table was

whether they were using their office to enrich themselves. i think the answer to that question, by and large, is no, with a few exceptions. but that raises an additional question. why is it that so many wealthy people run for office and win? there is an answer. namely, it costs a lot of money to run in contemporary politics. the supreme court unfortunately is making it harder and harder to reign the costs of politics in. that means people who are wealthy to begin with, and have connections with other wealthy individuals enjoy a an advantage at the beginning of the race.

that does not mean people of ordinary means cannot win. they do all the time. but there are advantages to being rich in the united states, and having a leg up in the political process is one of them. host: william galston, now a senior fellow at the brookings institution. what is your role there? guest: there are 5 research divisions at brookings. one of them is government studies. we study political institution process these. as a senior fellow, i work on various political and institutional questions. particularly, how our institutions function or malfunction in the production of the kinds of policies that the american people need. host: you heard the examples of

failures of the institutions. she mentioned the post office. is it better or worse than it was in terms of failing to deliver when they promised? guest: better and worse. some agencies are doing better than ever. the social security administration is first rate. the veterans administration which was considered to be a basket case a couple of decades ago has straightened itself out. that does not mean that there is not work to be done. you can point to a number of agencies that are doing a first- rate job. unfortunately, many of us or other institutions got caught with business models that are no longer functional. the post office is under siege because of changes in

technology, competition from the private sector. that is why they are talking about dramatic changes, like scaling back the number of actual post office outlets there are. they are even talking about moving from a six-day a week delivery schedule today five-day a week schedule. those institutions were fundamentally misconceived and their behavior during the housing boom just made things for this. host: new england, -- new orleans, tyler. caller: i would like to know what they think tank is. the brookings institute is formulated on the heels of the federal of the surf. maybe that is a good reason why you are supportive of it.

when the first bailout came, everyone was against it. when we look at the wars we are fighting, the majority of people are against it. in vast majority of people want nafta done, but politicians keep supporting it. we are looking at over 50% of the people want a new investigation of 9/11, but our politicians and you, sir, are going against these policies. why should we trust our government, why should we trust our press when they are owned by the same people that own the banks? guest: well, there are lots of think tanks in washington and across the country and we do not

all speak in one voice. in fact, in the brookings, we do not speak with one voice. there are people that are strongly in favor of the iraq war, making that argument the best they can. people strongly opposed to it, making their argument the best they could. it is a mistake to think of the think tanks as monolithic or part of the government. we are part of the dialogue of democracy, as are you. it is from this dialogue that public opinion is formed and public policy emerges. you regret what i say and stand for, and the feelings are mutual, but we are both citizens, we both had a chance to speak. that i is the way it should

>> here is what is coming up. next, president obama stopped just outside philadelphia to talk about health insurance. the homeland security secretary announces president obama's choice to have the -- had the tsa. >> almost 40 years ago, as lead engineer at motorola, martin cooper led the team that developed the first hand-held mobile phone. a look at the history and future of the wireless industry on "the key indicators." >> over 1000 high-school

students entered this year's documentary competition with a short video on one of the greatest strength of the company -- of the country or a challenging we -- a challenge we are facing. >> president obama pressed his case for passing health care legislation this year. speaking in philadelphia, he described the general structure of the bill. this took place at acadia university in pennsylvania. it is about 40 minutes. >> thank you. [applause]

>> what a wonderful crowd. [applause] >> i am fired up. [applause] [applause] >> this is an extraordinary crop. i love you back. there are some people that i want to point out that they're here who have been doing great work give leslie a great round of applause. [applause]

somebody who has been working tirelessly on your behalf and doing a great job, secretary of health and human services kathleen sebelius. [applause] >> one of the finest of governors in the country, ed rendell. [applause] ports everybody notices how good he is looking, but the brick. he has been on that training program. he is eating and whites and keeping his cholesterol down. [laughter] >> york's senior senator who -- your senior senator who has been doing great work, arlen specter

is in the house. [applause] >> somebody who support me when nobody could pronounce my name, bob casey. [applause] >> your congressman, the person who give me confidence that i could win even though nobody could pronounce my name, he is in the house. [applause] >> and it could of elected him -- they could have elected him. a couple of the outstanding members of congress, from pennsylvania, alison schwartz.

[applause] one of the sharpest members of congress, just connect or from new jersey, he is practically from here. there are some new jersey coast. -- there are some jersey f olks. and the great mayor of philadelphia. [applause] >> it is getting a little warm. [applause]

>> to arcadia university. [applause] >> thank you. i thought the white house was nice but that castle is something. [applause] >> it is great to be back here in the keystone state. it is even better to be out of washington d.c.

the people of d.c. are wonderful. they are nice people point of that are good people. a lot of monuments and everything. but when you are in washington, people respond to every issue, every decision, every debate, no matter how important it is, with the same question. what does this mean for the next election? what does it mean for the poll numbers? this is good for the democrats or the republicans? that is just a washington is. they are obsessed with the sport of politics. that is the environment in which elected officials are operating. you have seen of the abundance pontificating and talking over each other, yelling and

shouting. they cannot help themselves. that is what they do. out here, and all across america, people are worried about bigger things. they are worried about how to make payroll, how to make ends meet, what the future will hold for their families and for our country. did and not worrying about the next election. we just had one. [applause] >> they are worried about the next paycheck or the next tuition payment that is due. they are thinking about retiring. you want people in washington to

spend less time worrying about our jobs and more time worrying about your jobs. [applause] >> despite all the challenges we face, two arswars, aftermath ofa terrible recession, i am absolutely confident that america will prevail. we will save our destiny as past generations have done. that is who we are. we did not give up. we do not quit. sometimes we take our lumps but we keep on going. that is who we are. that only happens when we are that only happens when we are meeting our challenges squarely