about the federal loan guarantees program tuesday on "washington journal," with health oversight and government reform committee chairman representative darrell issa. >> henry waxman, a top democrat on the energy and commerce committee is on newsmakers this week, joining us from los angeles this morning. we have to reporters with us. mr. waxman, >> i want to begin asking you about the president's jobs plan. are you confident that this will create jobs? if so, which parts will do so? >> i think his proposal will create jobs and do so right away. it is not the answer to our problems. it is the beginning of the answer. we have got to get people working. and get people working, it will help our economy starts growing again.

when we talk about deficit cutting, that should not be our first priority by now. we need to get people into the jobs and do all of the things that need to be done, like working on our infrastructure, working on construction, helping local governments to what they need to do. this is not as mass of a bill as i would hope for. it is an important step and we need to take it. the president took a lot of the ideas republicans had been for in the past. he said these are bipartisan proposals. they are not that controversial. they get money into people's hands who need it and will start spending it. that will produce jobs for people to try to satisfy the demands that will be created. >> these ideas in the president

also planned are joining fire from republicans and democrats. don't you think this is going to have a problem in the current form. you think it has to be broken down in separate parts? >> the proposal has two parts. the jobs program using the tax code to get money into people's hands to create the ability for people to go out and buy the things they need and to provide the infrastructure we need in this country. when people are working, that will help the economy. the other part of the bill is to pay for it. there is a committee looking at

deficit-reduction. they can reduce the deficit even more. they can come up with the necessary money to pay for the jobs bill we cannot just sit on our hands and not give the economy a boost. >> the tax cut you mentioned may be the only party republicans will go along with. will the democrats be able to get on board with a bill that only addresses the tax cuts part of the plan? >> my own view is that you keep pushing for. if you are asking me if they could not get the whole package would they take what they can get, of course. even the president's bill might be all we can imagine getting with the republicans in control

of the house of representatives. you need a far broader jobs bill than what the president proposed. we need to get as much as we can to get people to work. that has to be the highest priority. >> the competing republican plan is scaling back regulations, everything from epa rules, coal ash. obama himself nixed the ozone rule. is there a plan to address some of these regulations? >> the republicans do not believe in regulations of any sort. they called regulations job killers. they got that phrase from their spin-meisters. when we tried to stop mercury pollution from these power plants -- mercury is a top

pollutant. there is a huge price that we pay. you would think that for republicans, the only price we pay for regulations is the price we pay to enforce them. but it is many more multiples of the cost of getting the job done. they want to repeal the regulations. they would like to repeal the clean air act and the protection of our environment. if the government does not insist that industries do what is necessary to protect the public from pollution from the sources that they control, no one is going to do it voluntarily. >> do you see no room for compromise? >> i am open for compromise.

this is the most anti- environment house in the history of the congress of the united states. there have been 250 votes so far trying to block the environmental regulations. the republicans take the view that there is no climate change. every other day we hear about a whether it event that is causing enormous damage to our country and all around the world. they put their heads in the sand and denied site. they denied evolution. they denied global warming. they do not think it is a problem so they do not want to do anything about protecting the environment. this is a public health issue. the republicans are stuck in

the fossil fuel past. they are getting support from the fossil fuel industry. they conveniently wants to block anything that will protect the public health if the industries do not like it. >> you said earlier this week in committee that he had approached of republicans about the epa regulations they would like to delay or abolished. what specific aspects of this regulation do you think you can find some common ground on? >> here are details where we can give some ground in terms of time frames, in terms of what would be required, what sequence. we approached the republicans to say to them, let's work something out. if we can work out a bipartisan agreement, we are likely to get along.

otherwise, what i think the republicans have been doing is passing extreme measures that and not going to get through the senate. i do not think the president will sign it. the idea are trying to do a show with their political right wing. we suggested working together. the response we got was, why should we work with you? we are the majority. we are going to get what we want. they are not want to work with us or compromise. i will not go into detail about what the compromise will be. they are so anxious to tear down the epa, the clean air act, environmental laws -- someone at "the washington post" said they wanted to repeal the 20th-century. we would not have got to the's carriers -- social security, medicaid and medicare.

they want to eliminate the grand bargain where we recognize we have to do things for people and help each other. they want to repeal the grand bargain and replace it with more tax cuts for the rich and war breaks for industry. >> do you view because the's decision to delay the anti-smog rules -- the president's decision to delay the anti-smog rule as a compromise? >> the white house intervened and decided to put it off. their argument was that in a couple of years there will be more science and they can be fined the rule.

the white house also argued that one of the rules that the republicans want to repeal next week on the house floor would reduce pollution in one state that affects the air in another state. the state that is the victim in the area can come into compliance with the help based standards. let's make sure we get this in a state rule in place before we start setting standards. some areas will not be able to come into compliance. i understand the argument. they should have gone forward. it was the wrong decision on the merits. it was the wrong decision on the politics. they were easing up on this rule, but they will hold the line on the other environmental rules and stand up to republican efforts to repeal it environmental laws of our country. >> you seemed to suggest in a hearing that the demonstration

used bad judgment in making a loan guarantee to the solendra company. do you believe the administration used bad judgment? >> i think we need to impress to give this matter and find out what happened. this may be a possibility. the thing that bothered me most was that the ceo came into my office and said he was in a good financial situation. the revenues were going to increase. within one month, they went into bankruptcy. i want to know what the company represented to the administration when they were trying to get their loan guarantee and when they were trying to get further forbearance with allowing the additional money to be raised by the company by investors and have the guaranteed applied to those as well.

>> did you oppose a subpoena by the energy and commerce chairman in an attempt to get this information? >> i opposed the subpoena not because i thought we were not entitled to the subpoena to get the information. i thought you wait to get the subpoena after you have asked what you need to get. then if they refuse, you can get a subpoena. we need to see a lot of information. they said they were just going in and asking for a subpoena. i indicated that if we did not get the information, i would support a subpoena. >> if i can remind the the words of the story -- viewers of the story, this company received a loan guarantee for -- guarantee from the federal

government and declared bankruptcy. >> this was a loan made in 2005. if we want wind energy, we have to get them funding. they are just getting started. investors and lenders do not want to lend them the money. government said, we will guarantee the loan so that they can raise the capital. when they start up, it is expensive. it is only when they get a large scale production at the cost can go down. so then draw -- the company was struggling. it was a risky venture. it is risky to go into these areas. when they got going, we saw the

price of solar energy drop because of what is going on in china. the solar industry in the united states has dropped dramatically. in china, it has gone up enormously. what we are doing is referring to china to be the leaders in these areas. we should be the leaders. losing over $500 billion, i would never taken lightly. we should get the facts before we make accusations. and republican try to make a lot out of the idea that vice president biden wanted to go and visit the company. it wanted to make sure the loan guarantee was approved as quickly as possible. that was not because they wanted the loan guarantees approved quickly, but it looks like this company would be the future.

they would provide cheaper energy than we now have been less polluting energy that is less dependent on foreign oil. they are stretching it to look for a scandal that i do not see as a scandal on the administration's part. i still want an explanation from the ceo of the company. the ceo is going to testify. >> do you think the loan guarantee program needs to be restructured? how would you propose to modify it? >> a lot of people do not like the loan guarantee program. they do not like clean energy. coal company managers not like clean energy. if we did not have the on

guarantees for renewable energy, they would have to borrow money and no one would ban did to them unless there are these kinds of guarantees. we can look at restructuring, but a lot of people do not want a restructuring. they want to end the program so that we can have a permanent renewal. >> would you support some kind of program that would not strictly be loan guarantees going to be companies? >> i am open to looking at companies like that. we need to develop new sources of energy. they do not want competition for the oil companies and the

coal companies. >> republicans are saying this company is not alone in this. there are other issues to drop and other companies that received this loan guarantee that were not worry, as well. >> we will have to see. they may have been risky. they deserve to the loan guarantee to give them a start. you are taking a risk. you hope the rest will pay off. it is in our national in district -- national interests. industries are starting up and taking off. the price of solar energy has dropped dramatically. we are going to be importing from them technology.

the past as island with the united states developing technology. that has always been our ed. like a -- to provide cheap labor. right now, they are developing the technology and we will have to report from there. >> china has trillions of dollars in surplus and we do not. how can we continue to do a loan guarantee program when we have been kept -- the debt and deficit that we have? >> we have to vet them carefully. we have to take some chances. it is in our national interests to do so. the republicans have no problem

with loan guarantees for the nuclear industry. they are not doing that well in the united states. they want to put more weight into loan guarantees. let's its best in the clean energy, not just in the nuclear area, affordable, -- or solar power -- for solar power. >> are you concerned that your party might have to accept a debt reduction deal that does not have much in the way of new revenue? >> i do not think my party would go for it. i do not think the american people would go for. are we going to let billionaires' get tax breaks while we tell disabled people with multiple problems that we

are going to throw them out of institutions when they are on the medicaid program? that is not what america should be about. if they want to cut entitlements, i cannot imagine democrat supporting it. that would be getting us nowhere. >> how do you see the two sides come to get on an agreement for two. -- $1.20 trillion in spending cuts. democrats are going to protect entitlements. there is no money left. where does it come from? >> that means there is no balance. they just want to cut. in the end, it is pointed cost us more. it will cost us the social contract where we promised seniors there would be a medicare program for their health needs. it promised a safety net so they would not go to the bottom and lose their dignity and the

event being. it will maintain the integrity of this country. we are not best thing country of the halves with the have nots. the democrat would be pushed into the have not category. as what happened in america that is the trend we do not want. that is the trend republicans seem to direct as in in their policies. speaker boehner said yesterday that under no circumstances would they look at the raising of revenue or raising taxes to help pay for the deduction of the deficit. i cannot see how there is going to be any kind of deal. this super committee had an opportunity by the end of the year. if they fail, we will be here in 2012 and ousted the election. the american people was not to decide, do they want to give up social security, medicaid. i would rather have a

bipartisan compromise. you cannot comply with people who say it has to be their way only. >> do you believe the speaker wants to compromise? we know that the tea party is driving the agenda. we have seen for ourselves that may be the speaker wants to compromise. >> the speaker said it again. do not talk about a balanced program. do not talk on revenue. it should be more cuts. you cannot cut the defense more than they have already agreed to.

it has to be irresponsible cuts we are making. there is a lot of money we can get out of there. it is getting excessive. you cannot cut the deficit appropriate it program. the only other place to cut would be in the infamous. that is the solution to the deficit, that is not going to produce jobs. it will cripple our country. we try to help people collect far as they can in the line and produce an economy where all of us can benefit. >> we have a few minutes. recent polls out say fewer than half of the individuals who supported him at some point still support him fervently. what went wrong in his message to cause americans to feel this way? >> the country is not doing well. he has not stood up to be republicans. that is going to change.

the speaker can go out and make a stitch -- make a speech saying, it will be his way or the highway. i am as did the people -- the president will come back swinging. he has to tell the people is the youth delegates who want to touch social security -- gut social security. he has to show that they are extreme. i feel confident he is going to get reelected. >> you said earlier that your confidence -- caucus will hold firm on other epa regulations go with full board. have you been told that by the white house? can you tell us what regulations are coming down the pike that the administration should hold firm on?

>> when they were going to delay the ozone standard knowing the environmentalists will be disappointed in that action, they felt they should give them a stronger grounds to stop the republican who -- republicans who want to delay the regulations on toxic air pollutants to cause cancer -- that cause cancer. coming from a lot of facilities, chemical and other in this country. they are going to hold the line on that. when we meet next week -- the republicans have announced a number of anti-environmental vaults -- votes. i expect the president to veto those anti-environmental laws. >> lisa jackson says the epa

will meet a self-imposed deadline for fossil fuel burning plant. do you see this as the second in a line of regulations that the obama administration has punted on the above is this an election moved. is this something that demonstration will not tell the anyone about -- administration will not talk about until the deal is done? >> the supreme court says epa must regulate greenhouse gases if they make a finding that they are a threat to public health. they made that finding. even the bush initiative epa made that finding.

they have got to stop regulating. it was the black first choice that congress start to enact regulations dealing with green house gases. when i talk to republicans try to work schedule, our response was, is not believe in the science. how do you solve a pro -- solve a problem that you do not exist. they do not believe in science. every year, we will see more record heat waves some storms, it drops. -- and droughts. >> we are running out of time. one more quick follow-up. >> what about the president with his recent ozone decision? what grade would you give him on the environment? >> i am proud of his record. i would like him to keep pushing for stronger regulations.

>> do you want to give him a grade? >> i do not want to give him a grade. his time is not up. >> let me turn to our two reporters. you covered the industry and commerce committee closely. there is a bill that republicans want to bring to the floor. what is coming down the pike. what is next? >> we are expecting to see the train at, which would require a study of the impact of environmental regulations. also, maximum achievable control technology standards for utilities. all of these bills are shuttered similarly and in similar ways. they called for the governor to

-- government to rescind regulations that, in some cases, have not been imposed yet. 18 months can be taken to finalize regulations. it would also effect the amount of time businesses would have to comply to these new regulations. these may get through the house, but they will not pass the senate. said he has assurances from the white house that the president would veto them. >> is it even likely that they would be brought to the senate floor under democratic leadership? >> that is the $1 million question, whether senator reid what about these pieces of regulation to make it to the floor. the senate can try to get some of these regulations to the floor. floor.