deserve an up or down vote. will the republicans use procedural gimmicks to prevent a vote on this bill? >> i thought he was referring to the senate bill. there are two problems. the senate and the house will have to come up with enough votes to pass the bill. then there is what i call the pay of bill. -- the pay off bill. there will have to buy enough votes to pass this thing. . . people have forgotten that the senate is involved. their problem is that there has to be trust. half i do not think that people trust nancy pelosi and harry reid in coming through with a payoff.

>> stress from fellow democrats -- trust from fellow democrats? >> what they're going to do in addition to the senate bill being sent to the president, before they vote the one to make sure they will have this in their. -- there. that will go into the recreation bill. how do we know that they will do that? it means that all of a sudden they have to be trusted. trusted to do it later rather than at the same time. i do not think that the level of trust is there. >> you are saying that the house bill will be defeated? >> the senate bill is before the house right now. it has to be passed as it is to get it through. there is a lot of opposition that it will be voting through. >> i would like to follow up on that. if the house passes a bill and there is a second bill that you

are talking about, corrective, it will have to get through the senate with 61 votes. how successfully can republicans stop that bill from moving through on various points of warburg deaf >> it will be a problem -- various points? >> it will be a problem. harry reid has to hold together eight democrats with him. when they start counting the democrats that took heavy hits during the recess, they will have a hard time doing that. >> do you think they could get to 51? >> stop and think about all the hysteria that took place during the august recess. people have not forgotten that.

myself, i enjoyed it. republicans look like heroes. i have spoken to many democrats who will not say publicly what they say in private conversation. >> amerthe house has talked abot reconciliation and these other solutions, the possibility of using rules to have the house vote without actually voting. is there a political ramification for democrats if they are using what seemed to be strong arm tactics to get this through? if so, how he made that an issue politically? -- how do you make that an issue politically? >> we do this for a living, we live this every day. all of the real people paying for this up here, they are back working full time.

they cannot just have a vote on this. what is reconciliation? can you take a bill that is going to be a total change in policy and put it under reconciliation? most people say that that is trickery. going outside of the wheels to get something passed that the american people do not want. going on outside of the rules to get something passed that the american people do not want. >> this entire issue of process, some say, will be something the public does not care about. >> i do not buy that. first of all, if they're going to like it, they are told it will do all of this stuff but it will not happen for four years but the cost is now. all of these years they are not

getting benefits, again, i really think that the democrats are making a mistake. they are jumping on two things in the president is right there with them. the president said he did not care what anyone said, they were going to do the health bill and the cap and trade bill. to me that is politically very stupid. something americans do not want, solidifying who they will vote for when these past. >> the house has done a cap and trade bill, the senate will clearly not be doing at any time soon. you have a bipartisan group working on something slightly different. does that change the way that you look at things at all? is there a way to do that on a sector by sector basis? >> you are probably talking to the wrong person. i was the 17 years ago, when i

made the statement that the idea that co2 and methane was causing catastrophic global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the american people. that has not changed. if they want to accomplish what they want to accomplish, shutting down fossil fuels, you had mccain, lieberman, warner, boxer, sanders, all of those bills. now you have got this thing with john kerry? they're all the same. look at the evaluation that was put on by the wharton school, mit, the cia. what would it cost america? somewhere between $3,000,000,000.-294966343 dollars every year. constituting the largest tax

increase in the history of america. what do you get for it? the people understand. even lee said jackson says that if you pass it, it will not reduce co2. obviously. that is only the united states. china, india, mexico, they have no restrictions, so it would increase co2. honestly, when i look at what little i have seen specifically from lindsay gramm and john kerry, there's nothing specific they're, but what they are trying to do is pick. they tried this before. start out with natural gas. the idea of cap and trade, if you stop to think about it, if your desire was to reduce co2 emissions, just put a tax on the

emissions, right? that is what james hansen said, the only thing i've ever read with a month. why do they not do it? because people would then understand what it costs. cap and trade is just a way of making everyone thinking they are a winner. >> i forgot your question. [laughter] >> duties initiatives have any impact on the ant -- do these initiatives have any impact on the environment? >> and know. everything since kyoto was just unilateral -- >> no. everyone since feet -- everything since kyoto was unilateral. barbara about -- barbara boxer, saying that we are going to accept these examples, finishing ourselves first, and everyone else will line up. >> is part of this not to get china and india to follow a certain set of standards? >> china and india are laughing

at us. the best thing to happen to china would be for us to pass something unilaterally. they are still cranking out coal-fired generation plants every week. they are anticipating a lot of jobs coming from the united states to china. they will impose restrictions on themselves? not a chance. i spoke to these people when i was in copenhagen for my famous two hour visit. >> senator kerry said that this is about creating jobs in a green economy and climate change legislation is along for the ride. the finding that could make you vulnerable? >> i do not believe that it is creating a new economy of jobs. right now we are leading in jobs in the specter -- spectrum where we are creating the most energy. right now we are dependent on

coal for our generation. next in line as oil. and gas. we are starting to work on nuclear, something that is good. that would produce a lot of jobs. but green jobs, it sounds so good, but when we get specific, even barbara boxer cannot come out with anything sellable in terms of increasing jobs. if they are successful, and keep in mind that the undersecretary of education said that until we do away with fossil fuels will never have enough resources concentration nonrenewable. to me that is like saying we will lose the jobs that are there today. >> lindsey graham reach across

the aisle on climate change and guantanamo bay. he told "the washington post" that purity is replacing the principle of compromise. is this a risk for republicans, flat out refused to work with democrats on these big issues? >> it depends on the issue. let's concentrate on the two, gitmo and cap and trade. he and i do not agree. we do not agree on most things. keep in mind, it was john mccain and lindsay gramm driving the effort on cap and trade. i hope that we have a chance to talk about gitmo, but on cap and trade, no matter what they do to it, it is a massive tax increase that does not reduce co2. this is not me speaking, this is the epa speaking. i think that maybe purity is not

that bad. i think that the american people are on the side of purity. >> clearly you do not want to close guantanamo, that if it is not one place in the united states, it will be another. what is your solution to dealing with the people at guantanamo, in that graze owy zone? of what is your solution for dealing with them going forward? >> a fair question. keep in mind, the ones that are left at guantanamo bay right now, gitmo, 200, they are the hard-core. they were disposed of in one way or another. they're estimating that 20% of those that were there that are released back to their country of origin are back in the battle

trying to kill our soldiers. if those were the low hanging fruit, i was as close to them as we are to each other. the only thing that every one of those people wants to do is kill americans. you have two problems. the obsession of the president on closing gitmo. when you ask the question, they talk about the torture. that is mind-boggling. terrorists want to kill us. in gitmo there has never been a documented case of waterboarding or serious types of torture. the biggest problem right now is of the city because they are eating too well. -- obesity, they are being

treated so well, they're eating too much. a military tribunal costs $20 million. we do not have the facility in america. lindsey gramm, he said we had to build some kind of facility in the united states. we can say that trouble and leave them in gitmo. >> we are handling the worst kinds of war criminals, but we have been able to incarcerate the worst kind, like the oklahoma city bomber. is this saying that the system will not work properly? criminal or war criminal? of is there a way to dispose of

them properly in our prison system? to handle these folks? i know deatthat when you have a terrorist detainee, he is not a criminal. they are totally different people. if you try to prosecute those people in our system, and the rules of evidence are different. their miranda rights, all these things people have been reading about, so they have now come to the conclusion that the court system is not going to effectively do it. they are going to have to have some kind of military tribunal. that is what they are trying to set up in the united states. i draw a clear distinction between how we should treat these guys. at terrorists detainee -- a terrorist by definition is in

the business of training other people to be terrorists. if they are intermingled in any way, then they end up -- is not going to work. they are going to be training the guy stealing hubcaps to be terrorists. early on, the president in his efforts did he found 17 places in america. one of those was in my state of oklahoma. i went down there. i spoke to sergeant major carter. he wanted to know -- she wanted to know what was wrong with the people in washington, she said it would not work there. gitmo has served us well.

one of the few places america has like that, why get rid of? i do not think it will work. the american people, people do not want them here. how many states in the legislature have already passed it? i do not want them in my state of oklahoma, i am like those people. >> is the senate blocking what is needed? >> we have already done that. we were the authors, it was not all republicans, saying that we would not appropriate any money to allow the transfer or

temporary housing of these people to come into the united states. a place where we can vote, it will not happen. >> making a deal with the white house over khalid sheikh mohammed, do you think of that would be successful? will there be republican support? >> i would not think so. >> something that your former house colleagues are doing, you're marks, democrats said they did not want to see any for-profit your marks, saying that it will lead have much of an effect. i wonder about your house republican colleagues. what are your thoughts on that? you have been different from senator colburn, your home state colleague, talk about where you think that debate is headed and

what the house republicans had done? >> i wish you had not asked that. i have a lot of conservative friends. keep in mind, i took on global warming seven years ago. for the first six years i was the worst person on the planet. now everyone understands and i am a good guy. this is a phony issue. your marks, stop using them. article one, section 9 of the constitution, clearly says that it is the legislature's responsibility, that is what we are supposed to do. authorize and appropriate. all of a sudden we say that we are not going to authorize or appropriate? if we do not do it, it automatically goes to the executive department. read the james madison papers.

they propose, we dispose. we have heard that many times. if we kill an earmark or an appropriation and it does not face 1 cents, allah does is go back to the president. there is an interesting article on the hill today about lobbyists and the unelected bureaucrats that are doing this. i think it is educating them on our responsibility. keep in mind, when you run for office, you have an oath to uphold the constitution. i would hope that most people realize two things. i am a conservative. last week was rated by the national journal as the no. 1 most conservative member of the senate. we are supposed to be defending

america, we are suppose to be doing that. i do not want to give barack obama one more sense that he already has control over -- that is what happens when you try to kill earmarks. he will make that decision, not congress. >> should congress be taking a more active role in determining where the dollars go? does congress abdicate by not be your marking more? talking about what they should be spending across the board? >> we are talking about non- discretionary spending. earmarking is 1.5%. i am concerned about the rest of it. that is why i introduced a bill to look at. this bill does what obama said we wanted to do.

weeding out non-discretionary spending. i looked at that, thinking that is an increase from last year. it went up 20%. so, i felt we should bring it back. i introduce the same bill, saying we should treat it at the 2008 level. bat saved just under $1 trillion over 10 years. we are going to push that. i will try to get some democrats to support it. that is the discussion against the point i am making, that if we shirk our constitutional responsibilities and do away with any kind of appropriations on our part, that will be shifted to the president, you have obama plus a bureaucrat making the decision. >> clearly congress is trying to

make some effort to show that they are addressing the debt. is this debt commission going to have any effect on reducing the debt and deficit? >> it is a distraction. you put together these bipartisan things, people saying that they will study the issues. you do not have to study the issues. just do not spend in the areas where we should not be spending. that is why the system works well. it does not take a rocket scientist to say blame the republicans. one of the worst votes, in my opinion, was october 1, 2008. the bailout bill that gave $700 billion to unelected bureaucrats with no accountability. >> did you vote against that? >> yes, but not many did. i was lonely. obama took the reins and all of a sudden we had $787 -- $787

billion in stimulus. less than 3% actually stimulated. roads, highways, bridges. barbara boxer joined me, she tried to quadruple the amount of money in that bill. things that would take care of a crumbling infrastructure. in oklahoma, not long ago we had a bridge just start falling down, it killed one lady, a mother of two. that is what we are supposed to be doing up here. we are not supposed to be going through this social re- engineering. we are supposed to defend america. susan, i positioned myself on afghanistan when that legislation came out. i knew that -- i knew what he

would do to the military. he terminated our fifth generation fighter. he terminated the third site in poland that would defend the eastern half the united states. he did all of that, and i did not hear that he was disarming america. we have elected a person who is going to go down as the most anti-military president in history. he has all of these social programs that are costing us more. i have 20 children and grandchildren. they will be paying for all of this. >> how is he doing? >> first of all, he is spending us into a situation that will be very difficult to recover from. i honestly believe, and most people believe, that the house will go republican in the november election.

i kind of think that the senate will as well. we will have to make sure that we do not forget about this stuff. going back and undoing as much of the damage as has been done. to give him a grade, it depends on who you ask. if you ask me, someone who is considered the most conservative republican in the branch, that we have left the role of our government and are reducing our defense systems, what he is doing right now is clinton's -- the same thing that clinton did. remember, he reduced the level of defense by 40%. the same as jimmy carter. we need to undo those things. the only way that we cannot get it done, you cannot change or judicial appointments. that worries me most.

>> senator mccain has overlapped with the president of the military committee, cutting some of those programs you mentioned out. would your chairmanship be different? as a follow-up, would you like to see him winning reelection, senator mccain? i know he is getting a conservative challenge. >> i support the people running republican at this point. keep in mind, if the republicans took over, i would be the chairman of the environment and public works committee. the largest jurisdiction of any of the committees. if done properly, it could promote a strong economy. taking of the unnecessary regulations.

i would rejoice in being able to do that. of course, when we became a minority, i was the ranking member. barbara boxer and i, the only thing that we agreed on was infrastructure. >> do you support senator mccain for reelection? >> yes. >> is there more there? >> no. what i want is a republican majority. to do that, i remember what i thought we could get one before these changes took place. at that time we need 11 seats. now we need tens seats with 14 possibilities. times have changed. >> will you campaign for senator mccain? >> he went along with carl levin and the president on everything except the one issue. >> will you campaign for senator mccain?

>> we are not really good friends. >> calling up on environmental issues, there is a bill in congress, one of which would strip the epa of its powers to regulate greenhouse gases, which they now have and are ready to act upon. the latter bill has a far greater chance of moving. i would you vote for the second if it was just a two-year rates? >> yes, i would, but you're getting to an extremely significant issue. what the president has said is, we know you're not going to vote for cab and trade. we are going to make a finding, and we will regulate it. that is fine. an