committees. host: let's go to charles. hong caller: good -- caller: good morning. will the gao offer an overlapping list of the programs on their web site so we can watch the year after year? guest: we are still working out the mechanisms for that, but i suspect we will have that on our website. as i said, will be issuing a report every year. i expect that we will update the status of each of the areas that we have talked about this year and be adding new ones. it will be in a single place on our website. if you have checked our website, you will also see that we have published this report in an electronic format so that for each one of the issue areas that we have talked about you can actually drill down into all of our work about that issue.

and for each one of the areas we have issued multiple reports over the years. host: and that is gao.gov and the report can be found on line there. guest: guess. host: -- yes. host: and final thoughts. it would be success here? -- what would be successful here? guest: i think success would be that we actually tackled some of these areas and that we can see improvement, that we are not reporting the same thing year after year. hopefully, next year at this time we will be talking about some of the successes and accomplishments that have occurred, at least in some of the areas. i do not think it will be in all, but definitely some. host: thank you for joining us.

that is all for "washington journal" today. we're back at 7:00 a.m. eastern time tomorrow morning. we will go now to the center for american progress action fund. the speaker there will be representative henry waxman. host [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> we have live pictures this morning. bill banning the epa's authority to regulate greenhouse gases, a tough democrat is congressman henry waxman. he is speaking out against the epa's authority to regulate green house gas. we will hear from them shortly. he is expected to talk about our dependence on oil. this is live coverage on c-span.

we expect congressman waxman shortly. >> good morning, everyone. welcome. i'm john podesta. i am pleased you could join us for us this morning's

discussion with congressman henry waxman. we all know he has his hands full of defending against a barrage of attacks on clean energy and public health programs. it is is special thanks to the congressman for taking time out of your busy schedule. speaking to us this morning. i want to start by taking a moment to recognize congressman waxman's hard work on the clean energy and security act in the previous congress. this was a historic success. the first limits on carbon dioxide pollution. it would avoid pollution caused by spurring investment in clean energy production. hanks to congressman waxman's

leadership and determination. unfortunately, republican opposition to reducing carbon dioxide pollution prevented the congressman from passing of the legislation. we are unlikely to seek a similar comprehensive package come up in either house anytime soon. i think the bill put the country in the right direction. i think the yen stays will move down the path outlined by chairman waxman and congressman markey. to get started, the center for american progress will focus on building our clean technology industry by shaping strong markets and investment in world- class infrastructure. these moves will create more certainty for businesses while building a foundation for robust

futures and growth. this will help the largest polluters keeping their pollution that was set by the environmental protection agency. another area of focus remains ending our dependence on foreign oil. did we need another wake-up call? oil prices are the highest they have been in two and a half years. imported oil already accounted for half of our trade deficit. you think congress would act with haste to prevent technologies to less volatile domestic supply. it was the house -- what was the house's most recent response? they cut programs to help u.s. factories retooled to make much

cleaner cars. that, in my view, it is insanity masquerading as fiscal discipline. we are without hope -- we are not with helout help. sending strong fuel economy standards for 2017 model years and follow-up on initial improvements that were going into effect this year and were settled in 2009. it needs to complete the first fuel efficiency standards for heavy-duty trucks. it can encourage congress to increase the availability of incentives for people to buy efficient cars and electric vehicles and create incentives -- to run on --

[no audio] >> we are having some technical problems with our signal from the center for american progress action fund this morning. we look to continue with our live coverage today here on c- span. now back to the center for american progress action fund and more remarks from john podesta this morning. he will be introducing henry waxman. >> export them to the rest of the world. american workers can succeed at the millions of new jobs that a clean energy will create. our competitors are at it. we need to be added as well.

-- we need to be at it as well. we to be stronger in the long run. representative waxman has more to say. it is my pleasure to introduce the congressman and to get the conversation started. henry waxman represents california's 38 congressional districts. he chaired the committee as well as the committee on oversight and government reform. congressman waxman has championed the environmental and public health protections and introduced the first climate bill in congress in 1992, serving as the primary author of the clean air act that stopped acid rain. he coauthored the american clean energy and security act of 2009. he is a longtime advocate of

health care reform. the congressman was a tremendous leader in crafting the historical act and affordable care act. there is no better champion on capitol hill working to make the visit the clean energy vision i talked about a reality. we are excited to how the congressman with us today. after he speaks, kate gordon will initiate a q and a. it is an honor to have you here. the podium is all yours. [applause] >> thank you, john for that kind introduction. i am delighted to be with you and your colleagues. i want to salute all the outstanding work that you do. i want to speak this morning as bluntly as possible. during my career in congress,

protecting -- i have been in many battles during those years. i fought president reagan's efforts to roll back the clean air act in the 1980's and went on to passed the clean air act over the opposition of many industries until we were able to work out a bipartisan consensus. i battled efforts by vice- president dan quayle and his council on competitiveness, tom delay, and president george w. bush and vice president dick cheney's efforts to roll back the law. i have never been in a congress where there's been such an overwhelming disconnect between science and public policy. the republicans in congress have become the party of science deniers, and that is profoundly dangerous.

exhibit a is the upton-inhofe bill that overturns the scientific determination that carbon emissions in danger healnd we had a hearing on this legislation laston, senator inhofe was the lead witness. he told us that climate change is a hoax. the new republican majority in the house has a lot of power to write and rewrite the nation's's l laws. republicans cannot cure cancer by passing a bill that declares smoking save. they cannot stop climate change by declaring it a hoax. overturning epa's endangerment funding will not stop carbon pollution from building up in

the atmosphere. it will not stop the drought and floods that are ravishing nations across the globe. will not protect the air quality of our cities when summer temperatures soar to record levels. it will not stop the strange weather patterns that locked much of our nation in a deep freeze this winter. the republican rejection of science is visible in the concurrent funding resolution. the cr is a reckless assault on our health and environmental laws. its trips back protection for care and public lands. they do this by slashing the funding for the epa by almost 1/3. epa and the states will up neither the authority nor the resources to carry out the clean air act and protect rivers and lakes and protect waste

contamination. but that is not all. when the legislation hit the floor, republicans adopted an amendment after amendment saying no funds could be used because it could not change the law. they could say no funds would be used to do a lot of important things like requiring cement kilns, cleaning up the toxic mercury emissions, barring the epa board from considering the impact of air pollution from oil and gas drilling along the arctic coast. they defunded efforts in the chesapeake bay and florida. they prevented regulation of toxic caloal ash. they are set to block to protect

against life-threatening air pollution. with a direct attack on federal efforts to understand and prevent climate change, they to fund epa's efforts carbon emissions. this prompted the "new york times" to write, who needs of the facts? it does not matter in congress what scientists think. all that seems to matter is what industries think. i want to cover three topics today. i want to describe the disconnect between science and political belief that is so prevalent in congress today. i want to share some thoughts about the forces behind this. this disconnect.

i want to talk about what we can do about it. the growing gulf between evidence and facts on the one hand and political positions and believes on the other is not limited to environmental policy. there is a consensus among economists that federal spending under the recovery act saved millions of jobs and pulled our economy back from the brink of a depression. but during the campaign in november, republicans ran on the platform that the economic stimulus undermined our economy and destroyed jobs. in the current debate over the cr, republicans claim slashing federal spending will create jobs and grow the economy. the consensus among economists and market analysts is exactly the opposite. enacting the cuts the

republicans have proposed will cost hundreds of thousands of jobs. one of the sharpest memph manifestations is in the area of climate change. every year the scientific evidence on climate change grows stronger. last year our national academy of scientists reported that climate change is real and it is a serious threat. the cabinet found climate change poses arring, because clear significant risks a broad range of human and natural systems. this is the same conclusion reached by the premier of scientific organizations of all the world's major economies.

the findings they have come to is at the impacts are beginning to be felt. last year was the hottest and wettest on record. floods in the united states killed dozens of people in arkansas, mississippi, and tennessee. bigger floods emerged in parts of pakistan and australia. other regions of the world experienced drops. we have food prices rising to record levels because of drops. this is politically convenient because if you reject the science, the imperative to act vanishes. it is incredibly irresponsible. last week it was reported that half the republicans in the half and 3/4 of the republican senators believe climate change is exaggerated or a hoax.

those are staggering numbers. there is an overwhelming scientific consensus that climate change is real and a serious danger. in most republicans in congress reject this consensus. when representative was the ranking member of the energy and commerce committee when i was chairman. i approached him about working together and to produce a bill that would be bipartisan. he said, i do not believe in the science. what do i want to work with you to solve a problem that i don't think exists? this year the chair of our environment subcommittee is representative john shimkus. he is also a science denier. he said god said the earth would not be destroyed after the flood of noah. a key question is what our new

chairman things. he agreed climate change is a serious problem that necessitates serious solutions. he told a reporter that he did not believe humans have a role in causing climate change. the gulf between what science tells us and what the governing party of the house believes makes it difficult to find common ground. when the members of the other side of the aisle dispute the science, how do you start a conversation about solutions? they say if there is no problem. there'll be no need to reduce emissions. we do not need to set clean energy standards. we do not need to invest in new technologies. a common perception is that energy and informant of issues are more regional than partisan. for most of my career, that has been true.

but this is no longer true today. the republican party is increasingly the anti- environment party. it is one of the root causes of the rejection of science. during the debates over the 1990 clean air act there was a democratic and there were republican environmental champions. president george bush campaigned on strengthening the clean air act. republican representative jerry lewis was a close ally of mine on the provisions to reduce smog and control of vehicle emissions. a representative from new york was a close ally on the provision to reduce acid rain because of the impacts on new england. ed madigan was a close ally on the prisons to reformulate gasoline because of the potential market for renewable fuels. our major obstacle in those

fights was not partisan politics. it was u.s. industry. the car companies said they cannot meet new tailpipe standards. the provisions to limit ozone- destroying cfc's would shut down hospitals and businesses. they could, cleaner-burning gasoline. the acid rain provisions would cost electricity rates to skyrocket. we were able to forge bipartisan regional coalitions and enact the lot in 1990 that was stronger than the leading environmental bills from the previous congresses. at once the laws were enacted, the industry found way to meet the standards at minimal cost. this guy did not fall. it got a lot cleaner. -- the sky did not fall.

on the democratic side, regional differences still mattered. ed markey and i needed to forge compromises with coal state members and will stay members and members represent industrial states like mike doyle from pennsylvania. industry and republican members approached the issue in new but divergent ways. the new industry approach was it welcomed the change. they wanted a clear direction for the nation. they said they could achieve aggressive goals as long as the policies were well structured. they could put a lot of people to work doing it. what was motivating support for business was the desire after years of debate for certainty about the way forward. the u.s. climate action

partnership was formed by ceo's from business and environmental organizations. they acknowledged global warming must be addressed. they issued a call for action proclaiming each year we delay action to control emissions increases the risk of unavoidable consequences that could necessitate even steeper reductions in the future that attempt -- at potentially greater cost and social disruption. and the recommended the prompt enactment of national legislation in the united states to slow, stop, and reversed the growth of greenhouse gas emissions over the shortest period of time reasonably achievable. that was a remarkable change. it was not easy, but we entered into a processed wood industry stakeholders and we forge a comprehensive energy and climate policy.

we had a remarkable coalition urging passage when the american clean energy and security act came to the house floor. but like our previous fights on the informant, we had a bill that was endorsed by energy companies and utilities including exxon, shell, and bg&e. we have support across the manufacturing sector including ge, general motors, corning, and rio tinto. major agricultural interests were on board including the national farmers be your, and the national association of wheat growers. what proved fatal to the bill was in the senate, there was a republican reaction. despite support from industry, which republicans used to pay attention to, republicans in

both the house and the senate made a decision to turn the energy bill into a partisan battleground. our legislation was modeled on the successful cap and trade approach used in the 1990 clean air act to control acid rain. this was an approach that president george h. w. bush and other republicans had championed as a market-based way to achieve environmental results. even though we were using a republican idea as our cornerstone and hat industry support, no republican in the senate would support the bill. as a matter of strategy, the republican efforts to demonize our bill may have made political sense. but it set back our efforts to address climate change and achieve energy independence by many years. protection of the environment is

now in partisan battleground. on the preeminent environmental threat of our time, climate change, we cannot even agree whether there is a problem. another thing contributing to the science to nile is the growing power of some special interests. and that is also changing the nature of our politics. special interests have always been part of the political landscape. our campaign finance laws always placed limits on the extent of their influence. but now, as a result of supreme court decision, the company liked coke in industries to pour millions of dollars to elect legislators who agreed with their agenda. an article was written last october in "the new york times"

about the tea party and climate change. our right to not of global warming and skepticism are among the articles of faith in the tea party movement. he quoted one leader who said climate change was a flat out lied. another movement, some say it is extreme but they said the same thing about the john birch society. the article described how fossil fuel industries provided backing to the tea party movement and encourage them to adopt these anti-science views. again, money seems to have a lot to say about these views. americans for prosperity played a leading role in these efforts. they say here is some money. we are against government. we want freedom to do whatever we want. we do not want government regulation.

we do not want people telling us how to behave. we do not want them to telos that science is on their side. we are against them. it is a hoax. the last election was the addition of new members with extreme views that reject the consensus of our top scientists. science the nile, partisanship, and a rising power of special interest -- science denial. they feed off each other. coke industries benefits. it backs republican candidates who abdicate this position. it funds groups that attack science and organizes and tight regulation demonstrations. republican strategist see a partisan advantage in attacking efforts to address climate change so that leads to a exceptions of science denial.

this is not a happy political reality for it is what we need to face and figure out how to change. i want to offer three suggestions for the path forward. we need to preserve the administration's existent authority. congress has been debating what to do. president obama and his administration have been taking important steps administratively in pursuant to the recovery act legislation. as a result of the administration's leadership, the vehicles will be cleaner and more fuel efficient than ever. this has eased our need for oil and oil imports. even if we are able to take no more action, we will need no more oil than we needed in 2007. this new reality turns the old debate about the need for

relaxed environmental requirements and new oil or fireman's -- and new oil refineries. we are seeing plug-in an electric vehicles are being domestically manufactured for the first time. advanced battery manufacturing. asia has solely dominated this for year. it has begun in the u.s. we have a policy to encourage energy efficiency efforts. congress is not likely to enact a new energy policy this year or next. that means whatever progress will be made needs to come from the obama administration. we need to encourage the administration. to take full advantage of their existing authorities and make sure that they are not reversed in the congress. that includes protecting the in

our model protection agency. secondly, we need to educate the public about what is happening in washington. it is a republican mantra that they are pursuing the will of the people. that is not what they are doing. they are anti-science and it may be the will of the oil companies. it is not what american families want. the republican leadership in the congress is over reaching. we need to take full advantage of that fact. an informed public is our best weapon for advancing clean energy and reasonable regulatory policies. we need to tell the american people that not only is climate change at stake, but as well is clean and safe food, pharmaceuticals and devices that are effective, that all the

places where they looked to government to regulate needs to be strengthened and not stripped. and then finally we need to find a way to work together across party lines to address these climate change and our dependence on foreign oil. you might think at this point that it's going to be impossible. well, neither democrats nor republicans can solve these problems by ourselves. we need to find a way to forge a consensus. that takes time. i know as i worked on many bills over the years, it took time to develop legislation to confront a chevy chase. it took a lot of time to get legislative to regulate tobacco to confrontion hiv/aids. i remember when we were looking at the tobacco industry.

we had science so clear. the tobacco industry still denying the science, leaving a doubt. we're now seeing climate change. some people think perhaps the science was not all that settled. the cost of the light of tobacco policy was enormous. millions of people became hooked on tobacco and died. what alarms me about climate change is that we do not have the decades to wait. our international competitors know that economic success in this century it depends on winning the race to develop clean energy technologies. but tonight's have been invested over $2 billion each week in renewable and other green technologies. they have become the world's largest manufacturers of solar panels and wind turbines. europe is racing ahead of us in developing advances in solar

energy and green buildings. if we don't act soon, we will lose these markets and the jobs they create to china and other countries. now, congress and the american people need to be educated about the science. but they also need to learn about the economic disadvantages to us as a nation. if we do not seize the initiative. last congress, this is the message we heard from ceo's from the leading companies. companies like general electric and duke energy said billions of dollars in private capital have been frozen because the united states to stop having long-term plan for reducing carbon emissions. i remember after the election one of my colleagues said we should never have been dealing with climate change because of what people wanted back home

were jobs. there was a complete disconnect between the jobs that would be created if we took the action to deal with the climate change problem. that is the a firmer reason that we have to act -- dennis the affirmative reason. there are other costs for inaction and they can be more profound. our weather is getting more extreme and more dangerous every year. droughts are affecting the world food supply. floods in pakistan have displaced millions in the west. many of our forests are dying in. scientists warn of tipping point that can be impossible to reverse. that is why i keep coming back to the science. if the scientists are correct, we're facing a problem that we cannot avoid. we cannot delay action and we cannot strip epa of its authority. we cannot hope that this problem

will go away. in fact, we know doing nothing will make these problems worse. we know that carbon emissions remain in the atmosphere at 4 hundreds of years and more. that means a delay today it will meet for costlier reductions tomorrow. speaking of tomorrow, on this tuesday, we're having an important hearing in our committee, the energy committee. democrats used our rights under the rules to insist on the hearing on climate science. to their credit, chairman upton scheduled the hearing for tomorrow. we have invited four leading scientist to testify. we did not think senator inhofe should be the only person to talk to our committee about science before we pass legislation.

i am going to tell my republican colleagues, as we must continue to do come that i'm not wedded to the rating from last year. i'm willing to work with them on new approaches and creative ideas. we can start from a blank piece of paper. there are many ways to make progress on climate change. we can invest in research and development. we can promote energy efficiency. we can set a clean energy standard and build a smart grid. we could put a price on carbon. i have my own feelings on these issues. i think the bill passed the house last year is the most effective approach. we need to find a way to work across party lines. we want to work with our republican counterparts if this

can bring us together. i am hopeful, as i was on those other issues where were ran up to a wall that seems impossible to overcome. that we will start to work together. we need to be working side by side on a bipartisan basis. i want to conclude and not to give up hope that that could happen. i want to conclude my brief reflections on the historical context. climate change is an environmental and economic issues. it is also fundamentally a moral issue. we have an opportunity to act now to forestall great harm to our nation and to the world. we had that kind of an issue during the civil rights debate. leaders like mike mansfield

stood up and said, this is an issue that will not go away. it must be resolved. the time has come. and i think climate change is such an issue. if we do not act, we will not need our moral ability to shape our future. we will not meet our moral obligation to our children and future generations. and history will not judge just kindly spirit our path for me look for bidding. our journey may be longer than we hoped. but we have to keep in mind the moral imperative to act. the economic imperative to act. the environmental an imperative to act. and not turn aside. we have to keep pushing. we have to keep working.

we will overcome. i just hope will not take so many years that we will find that we will be putting more money into adaptation to deal with the harm from climate change then we will in developing the technology that will allow us to deal with this problem. thank you very much for this chance to address you. [applause] >> thank you so much, congressman. that was inspiring. i am going to ask a quick question. we do have a microphone floating. you made an important point about the shift from this being a regional issue too partisan issue. i was wondering, you also made a point about some emerging industries that have been helped by investment in clean energy. d.c. any way forward -- do you

see any way ford were industry can be talking to some of these congress members and senators about their own districts and states in a way that might bridge some of the ideological gaps? >> that is an excellent point. people need to hear predict our representatives need to hear from the people they represent. there is an issue on the floor where people did not start off, we need jobs, jobs, jobs. then they go off into some other topics. [laughter] but we do need jobs. this approach to deal with these problems will produce a pushing our economy forward. in maybe the only way that we're going to close the deficit. it will bring in more funds. i am open to the idea of using some of the funds -- that we put

a price on carbon to reduce the deficit itself. but we have to get people who have a stake in all of this back home to tell their representatives, democrats or republicans, that this is a jobs issue, not something that is based on some theory that environmentalists thought up to scare people. that is what a lot of people believe is the fact of the matter. >> thank you. i want to open to press first. you got a shot out during the speech. you get the first question. >> you spoke only briefly about the role of the administration now the congress appears to be paralyzed. are you persuaded they have the tools and resources and the political will to take the actions that are at least possible in this country clement? >> i believe the administration has the tools and the ability

and the determination to act. they have kept in mind the political opposition which has led them to modify some of the proposed regulations. when the modified the recent regulations, i think they made it quite strong and eased up on some of the industry concerns. there is nothing wrong with the epa and other agencies looking at the cost of regulation and trying to figure out how to fashion the regulation to achieve the result with the least amount of disruption and cost to the people affected. the administration has got to stand up to the republicans. i cannot believe that they will accept any of these riders for the cuts to epa. they will have to fight this out. the republicans have made the

funding resolution a battleground. they will make the other bills in about a ground such as raising the debt ceiling and appropriation for the next fiscal year. but they cannot shut the government down on this issue. they have to have their bluff called. so i expect the administration to stand up and be counted. it is one of the key planks up by which the president said he wanted to become the leader of our country. he wanted to lead on education, on health care, and the environment. if we cannot get a major bowl throw in the environment as we did in health care, we of these have to use all the tools at our disposal. passed laws have been adopted. the clean air act which the supreme court has told us on a

5-4 basis includes regulation of carbon. i thought the way the epa has handled putting forth a tailored rule to stop emissions from major sources that make newt improvements or have yet to be built was a thoughtful approach and will be an important contribution to reducing the carbon emissions as best we can until the congress and the american people insist on doing more important key-in legislation, which i think requires at some point putting a price on carbon. >> thank you. go ahead. >> i am from politico. uva been talking cut and one of my colleagues reported that the energy and power subcommittee will start the markup of that

bill on thursday. what are you going to do to stop it? can you stop the? -- can you stop it? >> it will be hard to stop legislation with which i disagree. i will have to make the argument as best i can. we will lose the vote in committee. we may lose the vote on the house floor. but we're making the argument for the senate and for the administration and for the american people. passing a bill out of committee and from the house does not produce a law. that is something like re- learned last year and the republicans will learn this year. >> any other press questions? right here in front. >> good morning, congressman.

i'm a freshman at george washington university stunning political science. i am richly from los angeles. your home turf -- i am originally from los angeles. upon the resignation of jane harman, several people have declared their candidacies. my question is, you describe yourself as a bipartisan legislative, what criteria do have for candidates who ?olicited endorsements - in your history, have you endorsed a candidate across party lines? >> i want to work with those who get elected from the other side of the aisle. i am a democrat and i support democrats. it makes it easier to get things done with people who share a

basic political philosophy, even though we may not agree on every issue. my first choice is to get a democrat elected. and we will get a democrat elected in that district. redistricting is a more complicated subjects. we have a lot in california with the top two candidates will one off against each other and they could be even in the same party. we will select a democratically placement to -- democratic replacement to jane harman. i think elections are the key to our democracy. but they should be conducted an after they are over, we have to govern, not contain the election campaign. a contribution from someone like newt gingrich when he took over the house is that the election campaigns never ended. he and tom delay thought it was all political all the time. it was always for the next

election. at some point, we have to say, all right, that election is over. we have to deal with each other. we can stop them. that does not serve the interests of the american people. so what can we do? that is my partisan philosophy. >> right here. >> i recommend to you as a student of political science, see my philosophy about bipartisanship, read this terrific book. "the waxman report." >> now he has to. >> in each chapter, i grew after a different issue and talk about how we were able to get bipartisan support. i can say preclude that almost all the bills that i offered that became law have republican support.

it might not have been what they would have put on the agenda, but it was legislation that we were able to work together to pass. >> you planted him in the audience. >> i do have a future in politics. >> i am a retired nih scientists. there is a national security issue. i believe the defense department realizes this and have done studies. we do as it the military to come to congress and explain what their views are on climate change. maybe it would have some influence on the republicans to collect that is an excellent point. we did have testimony in the last congress from the military about the national security threats. it was an error on my part not to raise it in this moment of time when there is some much

tumbled in the middle east and oil prices are spiking. our dependence on foreign oil makes us beholden to those countries, most of which don't have our national security interests in mind. we have to worry that a revolution in libya can drop the price of oil even when there is no apparent shortage of oil. the psychology is so important. many people will say that means we have to become dependent by drilling more here in the united states. we need to keep in mind that we consume 25% of the world oil resources. we drilled and make available to our own people 3% of the world's resources in oil. we're not going to match that 25% consumption.

it is impossible to contemplate becoming energy self-sufficient by drilling our way out of it. we can move away from our dependence on oil overall. that will have an important impact on lowering the prices on the world market for oil. it will have an important impact on making our country much more secure in an international framework. >> next question is from back here. >> my name is george walter. one of our concerns is -- it is a grave situation. the spill that happened in kingston that destroyed over 300 acres and put people in dire straits and the reverse had arsenic and mercury and the

heavy metals in it. we have been trying to devise a solution for that. we have met with epa, usda because if you can read mediates the toxic metals from the fly ash, we have looked at take an intermediate fly ash and combining it with manure and coming up with an organic supplement with a reintroduction of trace minerals. what it does is optimized production. plant growth and production. at this stage, we are battling with epa, usda to look at what we have. they have invited us to, and they have looked at it. it is still that waait.

people are still, as you probably know, there are probably over 600 fly ash when fields -- land feels over 35 states. >> there was one call to stop epa in acting in this area. epa is talking to about what to do with this. this is toxic air pollution problems. this causes cancer and birth defects. in the case of mercury, it poisons our kids. the republican majority wanted to stop epa from enacting. pure frustration was to get epa to act. there are some rules and regulations that the republicans want to stop that have been in

the process of being developed over a 10-year period, which is incredibly long punta of time when you recognize how many people have been heard over that 10 this year period. we need the administration to move forward. i think the epa is determined to deal responsibly with their obligations under the law, and we will continue to conduct oversight to be sure they are doing what they need to do. republicans may be doing oversight in the opposite direction. we're going to continue to push the epa and see if we can get those kinds of toxic pollutants regulated appropriately. >> we have a bigger question. you talked in your speech about holding the line. we have talked about holding the line on existing regulations. we d.c. specific opportunities

to move that want to start addressing -- where do you see specific opportunities to move that line in these areas? >> i want to hold the line so epa can move the line for ward. i want them to continue to spend the money and to adopt a corporate regulations under existing law, and to use whatever tools that they have at their disposal that don't require congress to pass additional legislation. at some point, we will pass additional legislation. hopefully in a positive direction and give them even more tools to do their jobs. but they do the job they can do now and are proposing to do. it will move us forward and i will let you in on a secret. it will only be two years. [laughter] >> one more question from the

audience. back here. >> wait for the microphone. >> i am sorry. on the question -- you said in your speech that you were finding the industry was much more on board in 2009 with some kind of positive greenhouse gas bill. then you said that industries y-ers.ehind tea party des where are you seeing support on regulation? >> i mentioned the collation we had behind us. they were an impressive collation. they met to discuss the problem. if it were not to be addressed now, it would be addressed eventually. two industries come to mind. and the other is

oil. they did not like any of this. at one point, we were so desperate to get legislation passed that would reduce the sulfur emissions >> to answer the plight of the people in the midwest that have to bear the cost, we said, look, we will have a charge on electricity across the country. a small charge of pennies per family could add up and pay for it. the coal industry said -- there's no problem. leave us alone. we asked the -- past the cap and trade legislation on sulfur emissions. we did not give them any subsidies. we just said they had to figure out a way to reduce the emissions previews market for this -- reduce the emissions.

use market forces. the result was reaching the goal at a fraction of the cost of what people were testifying before they thought would be the resulting cost to them. well, the biggest change was that those high sulphur people who said there was no problem were displaced by the low sulphur coal. rather than protect high sulphur coal, we let the market forces worked -- forces work. industries can overplay their hand. i'm afraid the coal industry may overplay its hand, especially when we are reaching their hands out and saying, "we will try to develop the sequestration -- coal captures sequestration and

we will help pay for it. and perhaps they will have to pay for it." the oil companies are unique. they're not disinterested in their financial well-being. they're interested in -- not just interested in their financial well-being. they are financing the tea party movement and the republican party and they are making the politics pay off for them both ideologically and economically. there are industries we're never going to completely satisfied. we will do our best to hear their concerns and try to be responsive to them. if their position is -- nothing, no way, know how -- its, -- no how, it's hard to compromise.

>> congressman, thank you very much. [applause] great to see you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> exactly. exactly. >> this again. now i have to have that response again. >> oh, yeah.

>> huge, right? >> how long is it? >> great. >> right, right, right. >> [inaudible] >> yeah.

>> how are you? >> good. >> how is it going? >> good. >> take care. >> [inaudible]

>> good to see you again. yes. >> [inaudible] >> yeah, yeah, yeah. >> [inaudible] >> right, right. >> what is your name? >> paige. >> i think i've seen your name.

>> i write a lot of stuff. >> [inaudible] >> nice to meet you. >> yeah, exactly. >> [inaudible] >> thank you. ok. >> as congressman waxman leaves the room from "the wall street journal" -- republicans on the house energy and commerce committee will be holding a hearing tomorrow that challenges the silence -- dallas is the

science behind climate change and the decisions to start regulating some of the heaviest emitters' three is unclear whether we will be covering that hearing, but you can also go to our web site, c-span.org, to find out the schedule information. attorneys general from across the country are in washington today for their annual spring meeting. today, they are looking at ways to better work with the federal government. we'll have live coverage of today's discussion starting at noon eastern. the president and ceo of national public radio, vivian schiller, will be at the national press club this afternoon. you can see that at c-span2 at 1:00 p.m. eastern. at 8:00, former house speaker newt gingrich, former minnesota governor pawlenty and former pennsylvania senator.

we will have coverage on c-span starting at 8:00. >> we see a world of broadband and broadcast. some see a world where broadcast goes away and we think that's a huge mistake. >> tonight, the future of broadcast television with gordon smith. "the communicators" on c-span2. >> over 1000 middle school and high-school students entered this year's student cam competition. c-span will announce the winners on wednesday morning during our "washington journal" program. >> as we wait for the start of that meeting among attorneys general on how to work with the federal government, a discussion now on how republican governors are challenging the white house. "washington journal" this morning talk with the executive editor of the on-line news

organization hot line. josh kraushaar, thank you for being here this morning. we were just talking about the strategic oil reserves. how are the politics playing out? guest: the administration's decision to potentially open up the strategic oil reserves -- host: they are putting it on the table. caller: that's right, but the politics of rising gas prices is very treacherous. john mccain led when we had a temporary spike in gas prices. the white house knows that when the economy shows some signs of improving, the one thing that could hold the recovery is if voters look at the price at the pumpnd is is over -- and it is over $4. the administration has not been

very energy friendly. the time of high gas prices, they're looking to change their views. host: democrats are calling for the administration to open the reserves. lamar alexander was on one of the talk shows yesterday and said it is not time. he said he was going to buy an electric car instead. how are the politics flee now, not just at the white house, but that the capital behind us? caller: it's somewhat of a strategic issue. merry land drew has been one of the biggest critics of the administration for not opening up -- for not opening up strategic oil reserves after the bp oil spill. in the cap and trade debate of 2009, we solve a lot of democratic members of congress that voted -- we saw a lot of

democratic members of congress took it at the ballot. everybody's going to take it out on the white house. it's very treacherous for the administration. host: josh kraushaar, even writing a bit about republican scott walker of wisconsin. as republican governors battle the white house -- are fighting the white house on anything from the health insurance law to epa regulations and high-speed rail. is it happening piecemeal? guest: biggest opposition is not coming from congress, but it is coming from the states. there's no secret meetings that are goinon.

the crop of freshmen governors are not meeting and having private conversations, but they ran on a similar platform. there are pension deficits in many states. they are trying to put their fiscal houses in order and they are offering -- walker and christie are offering the most stark contrast between what the president is planning when it comes to entitlements. they are aggressively contesting the need to do something. they say we need to do something now and get these pensions and benefits in line. host: what do you think the -- you think the main crisis is coming from the state's -- main cry coming from the states? caller: -- guest: republicans

have a history. george bush came from texas. welfare reform was a cause of the conservatives. tommy thompson in wisconsin -- they we at the forefront of those issues. i think we're seeing that again. reblicans control a majority of the statehouses in the country. they gained a record number of state legislative seats in the midterm election. they realize that they have a real opportunity to check president obama's influence. it's not so much coming from speaker boehner and the republican leadership. host: what are the implications for 2012 and the elections? guest: the biggest names so far -- you have mitt romney and he made big news over the weekend. the one candidate running on that fiscal confidence platform is not a candidate yet, and that

is governor mitch daniels. he has a record of restraining collective bargaining. he has a record ofaking on labor in the state. he is trying to get a major education reform bill passed. if he ran, he would be most in tune with the message from a lot of the republicans. host: this story in "the washington post" -- how much does his voice matter in a time when publican governors who are in office are grabbing a lot of headlines right w? guest: it matters. he is the front runner. he's the most prepared to run, based on his performance last year a he is well staff. he has the money and a team together.

it is striking. he does not want to make any mistakes. he is very conservative. his speech over the weekend in new hampshire was striking because he actually took on the health-care issue, which he has not mentioned that much recently. the fact that he said he wanted to repeal obamacare was notable. it would not be knowledgeable -- it would not be a notable coming from any other candidate. host: josh kraushaar, executive editor at hotline. jesse on the line for democrats in chicago. good morning. caller: good morning. i wanted to give my view of the opening of the strategic oil reserves. i think it's very important that the president acts quickly in doing so. our economy is so fragile right now that the consumers have less

to spend. as long as this thing keeps on going, they are going to spend less and less. i own a business. it's reallyurting me. i'm going to park my truck until something is done. however, i also want to see legislatn -- whenever these speculators go crazy -- the american people have to recoup something. we are just taken to the dry cleaners. guest: there's an awfully strong correlation between the price of gas and the president's approval. a lot of people that will be voting in 2012 will look at the price of gas and that will have a large correlation between how they view the economy, even if the economy is recovering. host: i think that reflects a

lot of americans use -- guest: i think that reflects a lot of americans views. host: the numbers to call if you want to speak to josh kraushaar -- you had a recent piece from last week. "that vision thing." host: elaborate on that for us. guest: the problem republicans will face in 2012 taking on president obama -- if you are just going to are that need to cut spending and make arbitrary cuts, that's not a winning message. republicans are one to find themselves in trouble if they do

not have a reform message or a growth message. you cannot just say i'm going to cut stuff and take things away, especially when it him -- especially when it comes to entitlements. if you ask voters whether you favor takingway benefits on social security and then -- and medicare, they will look at that negatively. they need to couple it with a reform message. gov. walker in wisconsin has en doing that at the state level 3 he says -- that the state level. what he has not saidhost: how ic perception of unions playing out? guest: it is a rally cry for republicans. it is taking on union rules.

teacher unions have become a major villain. gov. christie had taken on the teachers' union. he has won. he convinced voters that want to view them favorably that they are a detriment to the education system. he is a good example. he offered a reformist message. it has appealed to a lot of voters. host: republican caller from illinois. a good morning. caller: as a former state worker who has retired, people do not understand to the state of illinois that most educators retire making more of a pension and what their salary was. the cost is probably running about 20% of our debt and it is climbing every year, because of

obligationso pay in the pension program. i applaud the states that are taking on the unions to cut these costs. people have no idea. it is a shame that state employees can have a nice pension plan, compared to their fellow workers, who are not involved in government employment. guest: there needs to be a discussion. one of the failures in wisconsin is he did not have a discussion with the voters. he did not have a town hall. he saw he could get his budget passed with the votes he had. he did not have a conversation with wisconsin voters. we saw that in washington with the obama health care plan. i think the lesson for republicans and democrats alike is if you have something controversial and passing

something significant, you have to educate its with voters. host: a caller in greenville, mississippi. caller: i am starting not to trust this character right here. obama has been doing this for a while now. he talks about change, but he does not get anything done. cut it out. we know the government set up the oil for more money. there are no schools here, no jobs created. it is all because of the usa. you need to do something about it. host: how are independent scholars shaping the debate ght now? there has been some discussion about the tea party movement

pulling the gop to the right or influencing preferences. where are independence? independents? guest: there is a striking gap between the view of obama on policy issue on every national poll you see his personal favorability ratings which are still very good. there is a huge gap. the question is when 2012 comes around, can he use his bank of personal liability to get some of the independent voters and swingoters, even if they do not agree with him on her -- policy. host: what is the touchy point on health care for medicaid for

high-speed rail between these parties? guest: high speed rail -- too much: the issue for republicans. -- polling on the issue for republicans. should we spend millions of dollars when we have more presng issues to attended to? the republican parties can be identified as one that resists obama and is trying to make the contrast on spending. they want to balance the budget. democrats may not be as serious on the issue. host: next caller. caller: all of these people are andicizing the teacherages, they do not know the facts. check the teachin salaries in

germany, and it is much higher than the united states. some of the states, the teachers do not qualify for social security. private employees get a pension and so security. there are a lot of things wrong. i wanted -- and social security. there are a lot of things wrong. i want to talk about the gas situation. there is a record world profit never to have been seen before. they will break it again at the expense of all of the people. many will suffer. everhing you buyill be affected. the prices are climbing in everything. these governors are in for a good beating next time around. teachers are willing to concede some of the raises and benefit they do not want to hear it.

they want to press the unions. they are making a big mistake. thanks. host: a new poll finds response taking the side of laborers. many supported governor walker of wisconsin. guest: one thing republicans thought would push to their side is state democrats leaving the state. what i heard the -- it does not matter. the images of the democrats leaving the state -- if you favor the side of the labor, you look at it favorably. unions is a very interesting thing to look at. obama trying to talk about education reform -- will he get traction in the next year? there is a split within the

democratic problem, which a party even among liberals. the waiting for superman crowd which painted educators in an unfavorable light. the labor crowd want collective bargaining and affect the rights burned over that period hos host: next caller. caller: we are talking about trying to save money andake sure -- the austerity measures that will be put in place and killing americans, there are two proposals to create 4 million jobs for americans. one would be the rails that you

touched upon. if we can expd that out and do that across the country, it will put about 2 million americans back to work, such as engineers, truck drivers. there is another proposal called north american water and power alliance. it is proposing to bring water down from canada to california and a swing it out to where we need it and green the desert. that could put 4 million americans back to work in a month's time. if we can do that, the economy will pick up and we will have money to spend again. we can try to get ourselves out of this mild depression that we are in. i do not believe anything about the recession has ended or unemployment being under 9%. many are buying the hype from washington. guest: a lot of the democratic political capital in terms of

spending were used up on the stimulus. it has been hard politally for democrats to make the argument that we need to spend more, when the voters look at the unemployment rate. maybe it is a policy case. maybe not. politically, it is hard for democrats to say we want more money to get us out of the recession, when obama spent nearly $1 billion at the beginning of his term, and it did not have the results that they promised. host: josh kraushaar is the executive director of "hotline." guest: the president had a

politically conservative attractive. when polls show that it is a risky strategy -- you are a president with solid likability, and the mid 40's in your approval rating, you do not want to be put in a bad position for reelection. republicans have a big decision to make. they are saying, we are going to cut this budget and take on so security and medicare. it has a lot of risks. -- social security and medicare. it has a lot of risks. if republicans brand themselves as a fiscally responsible party, they could reap the benefits if they get the narrative right and can bring themselves effectively. host: how is the idea for

cutting entitlements and how are members of the gop responding? michelle bachman would not answer a lot of questions on "meet the press" on how hard of a line we should take when it comes to cutting the budget. guest: do you support raising the retirement age in cutting social security? three-quarters of the voters resisted that. the key for republicans and christie offer a model, we need to make cuts. he sold the message. it is remarkable in new jersey, e polling. it has turned to accepted conventional wisdom for a lot of new jersey voters. there was a survey this past month that said even union members asked to give up more of

their benefits, over 40% said that is what they would do. it is a tough message to get across, but they can do it effectively. host: our guest wrote in a recent column in this. mitch danis has laid out his fiscal confidence. chris christie is making a case that making painful course is for the country is good politics. and walker has had a post test that has begun. -- protest that has begun. you look at some of the efforts

that president george w. bush made? guest: a political winner turned out to be a disaster. the risks are great. politicians do not like to take risks. at a time when voters are realizing that what we are spending and the budget deficit are sky-high, this is a time where there is opportunity as well and republicans would lend them a significant opportunity to take the lead. host: republican caller. caller: i wanted to make comments about the situation in wisconn. i think they have gone about it the wrong way. i am in a union along with my husband.

they are not all correct in everything they do, but i do not think we want to live in a world without unions. they affect everyone's benefits. guest: republicans want some boats along conservative union members. democrats dominate among union members in key swing states. if republicans can get more of those from a union base, and have a message -- you could alienate some in 2012. host: what about obama organizing for america? guest: the situation in wisconsin, it was fascinati to see the gop involvement. the wisconsin arm of the ofa was

talking about support among the protesters. they said they acted without ever green light. this is not something the white house would have done by some zealous staffers. it is fun -- not beneficial for a president to weigh in on a state issue. there are political consequences for that. host: democrats in ohio. caller: the government needs to go back to basics. what it amounts to is they should be under the same retirementystem, saying the medical raises, everything should be the same. what happens is if they do not

get affected by it, why do they care what it does to us? it does not affect them at all. guest: governments across the country are trying to strike that balance. it is a very volatile issue. people are still learning about the issues and the policies involved. when you look at mitch daniels, who saw his popularity decrease, it did not look like he was going to win a second term. now he ran in 2008 and won 52% of the votes, and is well ahead of president obama. he is looking as a potential presidential contender. will the president take a hit now and reduce awards later were

be more conservative on the issue? caller: when you look at colonies -- [unintelligible] it is only these powerful people that have a say -- they should not have say. people need to respect others. that is about all i have to say. guest: that is the other side, when it comes to the energy issue. even those on the democratic side, the pain of higher gas prices is very real. unemployment is around 9%. it may be even higher. they do not want to see if there are other domesc sources of

energy when the price at the pump is almost $4. host: a republican in blair, arkansas. go morning. caller: hello. what i wanted to say this morning is you get into a good plant, you do not have to have a union to get a good wages and insurance. i work for a certain place around this area. for 70 years, one of the conditions was no union -- 17 years, one condition was no union could be brought into the plant. of fantastic wages -- different

purpose such as free insurance. nothing was said about it. when a obama was making his speech before the legislative, when he was talking about the health care, he said he would not touch medicare and social security. he has already done that. arkansas is atate where our constitution says we have to have a balanced budget at the end of the year. we have had that.

we have always come out looking good. one year we had three point something in the good and they spent it on roads and things like that. you can talk to governor huckabee about that. host: i did not mean to cut you off. my accident fair. guest: we talk about how the white house uses budget crises. when the white house can put an issue of, they have to make tough twist is. that is the heart of conflict between democratic and republican governors. they have to make extremely tough decisions. every governor in the country is

having to make tough budget decisions. host: john, baltimore, md., independent line. caller: i had a comment regarding pensions and so security. i am a military retiree. my pension barely makes $90,000 a year before taxes. -- $19,000 a year before taxes. so security -- social security and pension plans may around 30 thought -- $39,000 earmarked before taxes.

will it affect people that paid into it all of their lives, like myself? host: what are you worried about? caller: i am only 58. i cannot work. i am getting social security disability along with my military retiree pension. it barely puts me above the poverty line. guest: my colleague wrote a terrific column about how voters will handle the retirement social andsocia sec security. there is a bigger issue beyond the budget and pension. will this generation have to

keep on working past the retirement age? that is a bigger issue that has not been addressed by members of congress or governors. host: the debate over the budget, we will see howt plays out this week. over 60 billion cuts -- they were able to reach a compromise. now we return to the big debate about how much spending to cut, ere to draw the line. how is the white house weighing into that orot? guest: from a vice-president joe biden to key members of the buet negotiation team, trying to negotiate a deal with republicans. both parties have issues with john boehner. many members of the congress have to take a harder line,

cutting the minimum to give the democrats what they want so they will support it. many progressive members are resisting it vehemently. it may go down like it did last week when we got a temporary extension. president obama had already expressed support for the cuts made. host: republican, pennsylvania. caller: i have a comment about wisconsin and the senators hiding out. they were put in there to do a job, and they are not doing it. by my estimation, they are cowards. you do not run away when things do not go your way. if they come back, there should that you cannot walk out

when you do not agree. host: the wall street journal called the democrats in union standoff a political chicken. guest: it is an interesting article. the conventional wisdom was by leaving the state it would taint the argument. it has not worked out that way. the unions have been working the political argument. if that reporting is on board, there could be long-term effect

if the governor's plan go through. host: oklahoma, janet. caller: of wanted to talk about a couple of things. one is on the entitlement cuts. i am more than willing to take a cut, a hair cut. i insist that something is done about the tax code where there are individual things written for corporations where they can take tax cuts. the republicans ran on tha in november that they were going to do those things. why should the president lead on that when the people that just came in and the tea party are the ones who ran on that? guest: it is intesting to see

several democratic governors are offering budget proposals with budget cuts and tax increases. there is a middle ground, a third alleged that democratic governor's take. only time will tell which way will work. they have to see which one works out best. host:here is what was writte on twitter. how much is wall street and the financial crisis coming into play? guest: there is something to be said that the voters do not like big government, big labour. you can put them together and you will find a consensus. washington could be a punching bag for democrats.

ey may be trying to find a bogyman to demonize. many do not like big institutions. small businesses are the republicans'avorite line. it is a sentiment that democrats will target. host: new mexico, independent line. caller: i have a factual question. how well, wh percentage of the retirement and health-care benefits of public employees are funded in wisconsin? guest: i do not have the number of hand. wh you are seeing in wisconsin is the governor is asking for public workers to pay a larger share of their pensions and other health-care benefits as part of their paycheck.

caller: they are funded by 99.7% or 90% in two estimations. if you look at that number, you will understand what is not going on in wisconsin. look at the health and retirement benefits of public employees in a study done by dean baker, he looked at the benefits before the economic downturn and after. the rean why the benefits are in arrears is because of the economic downturn. it is because of the blow up on wall street. i resent reporters such as yourself coming on the air and talking about retirement benefits without having factual information. host: let me say for his sake, we invited him talking about

politics. we are looking to him for insights into what the implications of it are. let's get a response on that. guest: the working class, public sector unions are a major part of it. it is a significant policy issue. public-sector unions make up a significant part of the democratic party fund raising in organizing as well, it makes this fight in wisconsin have been dramatic implications for the future. it is a very serious policy issues. how the governor walker fairs and have the governor in ohio affairs has a traumatic effect onow things play out in the future. host: he is the hot line executive editor.

>> the house energy and commerce committee is set to hold a hearing challenging the science behind climate change. the top democrat on the committee, henry waxman, spoke about the hearing during a speech this morning. he also talked about the possibility of a government shutdown. his comments are about 10 minutes. costlier reductions tomorrow. speaking of tomorrow, on this tuesday, we're having an important hearing in our committee, the energy committee. democrats used our rights under the rules to insist on the hearing on climate science to their credit, chairman upton scheduled the hearing for tomorrow. we have invited four leading scientist to testify. we did not think senator inhofe

should be the only person to talk to our committee about science before we pass legislation. i am going to tell my republican colleagues, as we must continue to do come that i'm not wedded to the rating from last year. i'm willing to work with them on new approaches and creative ideas. we can start from a blank piece of paper. there are many ways to make progress on climate change. we can invest in research and development. we can promote energy efficiency. we can set a clean energy standard and build a smart grid. we could put a price on carbon. i have my own feelings on these issues. i think the bill passed the house last year is the most effective approach. we need to find a way to work across party lines.

we want to work with our republican counterparts if this can bring us together. i am hopeful, as i was on the other issues where were ran up to a wall that seems impossible to overcome. that we will start to work together. we need to be wking side by side on a bipartisan basis. i want to conclude and not to give up hope that that could happen. i want to conclude my brief reflections on the historical coext. climate change is an environmental and economic issu. it is also fundamentally a moral issue. we have an opportunity to act now to forestall great harm to our nation and to the world. we had that kind of an issue

during the civil rights debate. leaders like mike mansfield stood upnd said, this is an issue that will not go away. it must be resolved. the time has come. and i think climate change is such an issue. if we do not act, we will not need our moral ability to shape our future. we will not meet our moral obligation to our children and future generations. and history will not judge just kindly spirit our path for me look for bidding. our journey may be longer than we hoped. but we have to keep in mind the moral imperative to act. the economic imperative to act.

the environmental an imperative to act. and not turn aside. we have to keep pushing. we have to keep working. we will overcome. i just hope will not take so many years that we will find that we will be putting more money into adaptation to deal wi the harm from climate change then we will in developing the technology that will allow us to deal with this problem. thank you very much for this chance to address you. [applause] >> thank you so much, congressman. that was insping. i am going to ask a quick question. we do have a microphone floating. you made an important point about the shift from this being a regional issue too partisan issue. i was wondering, you also made a point about some emerging

industries that have been helped by investment in clean energy. d.c. any way forward -- do you e any way ford were industry can be talking to some of these congress members and senators about their own districts and states in a way that might bridge some of the ideological gaps? >> that is an excellent point. people need toear predict our representatives need to hear from the people they represent. there is an issue on the floor where people did not start off, we need jobs, jobs, jobs. then they go off into some oth topics. [laughter] but we do need jobs. this approach to deal with these problems will produce a pushing our economy forward. in maybe the only wa that we're going to close the deficit.

it will bring in more funds. i am open to the idea of using some of the funds -- that we put a price on carbon to reduce the deficit itself. but we have to get people who have a stake in all of this back home to tell their represtatives, democrats or republicans, that this is a jobs issue, not something that is based on some theory that environmentalists thought up to scare people. that is what a lot of people believe is the fact of the matter. >> tnk you. i want to open to press first. you got a shot out during the speech. you get the first question. >> you spoke oy briefly about the role of the administration now the congress appears to be paralyzed. are you persuaded they have the tools and resources and the political will to take the actions that are at least

possible in this country clement? >> i believe the administration has th tools and the ability and the determination to act. ey have kept in mind the political opposition which has led them to modify some of the proposed regulations. when the modified the recent regulations, i think they made it quite strong and eased up on some of the industry concerns. there is nothing wrong with the epa and other agencies looking at the cost of regulation and ying to figure out how to fashion the regulation to achieve the result with the least amount of disruption and cost to the people affected. the administration has got to stand up to the republicans. i cannot believe that they will accept any of these riders for

the cuts to epa. they will have to fight this out. the republicans have made the funding resolution a battleground. they will make the other bills in about a ground such as raising the debt ceiling and appropriation for the next fiscal yr. but they cannot shut the government down on this issue. they have to have their bluff called. so i expect the administration to stand up and be counted. it is one of the key planks up by which the president said he wanted to become the leader of our country. he wanted to leadn education, on health care, and the environment. if we cannot get a major bowl throw in the environment as we did in health care, we of these have to use all the tools at our disposal. disposal.