, "newsmakers" with henry waxman of california. reviewhearing on the irs process. i decided it was a delicious subject for a biography. this also at the bedside of william mckinley. i realize what a which subject it was.

his life has two book ends. he lived there for four years. it was what he came there. it was from intimate contact. . he has these wonderful iconic look ends on american history. when he look deeper he realizes that of the chapters. this is a presence in every one of those chap tours. his being her prints are on all of the cases. in many cases he has written those. tonight at 8:00 on c-span.

>> are guest is henry waxman of california. he is the lead democrats. he is a ranking mentor. he has all kinds of issues come before including the economy and the environment, healthcare, thank you for being with us. >> this is a congressional reporter for the hill. you are up first. >> thank you for being here. i wanted to start off on an energy and commerce topic. president obama came out and started talking about the trayvon martin verdict. it is a very racially sensitive thing. are callingpeople for the doj to investigate it. they are calling for congress to step in and take a look at

--e of these balls nation laws nationwide. it could be ahat defense. the not know that we need company to decide what laws will supersede all the state laws. i do not think that is a really good law. it can be so easily misused. the judiciary committee might want to look at it. hesitation about having the federal government adopt the law. has furtherdoj prosecution, if it is discrimination, it seems unlikely. they will have to look at it. >> doesn't look like any civil

rights laws were violated? >> i have not seen anything with regard to raise. there was a boy. thought he was up to no good. they got into a fight. doinghe decided he was something wrong because he was african-american. there is no clear evidence. it seems unlikely that they could make a case. >> there is no standard ground law in california but there have been protests. what are you hearing from constituents about it? know there have been demonstrations in california and other places. they thought the verdict of the jury was unfair. even though it was on constantly, i did not follow all of the evidence.

are tryingow they to reach a verdict beyond a reasonable doubt. that is something more in you -- backed something more in your purview. mccarthy after four long months was finally confirmed as the next epa administrator. if you had a crystal ball and could look into it and see her forre, what would you see her especially with the head when she is most likely to encounter? >> the president had set a policy that he is going to call her to implement. that is a policy to enforce existing laws trying to limit the amount of carbon munitions that are causing climate change.

that issomething required of the epa out of the law. she's getting a very clear signal. she wants the epa to do others to force the reductions of these pollutants that are causing this terrible environmental damage. of this is to fulfill the law. a lot of people do not want this enforce. i am shocked that they say things that are just incredible. every day you look at the nightly news. you look at the hurricane. i think most of the people that are watching the show are experiencing this later than they have at any time. talking about decades. we are seeing some of the hottest weather have seen on

decade. it is not just keeps. it is climate change. it has to be taken seriously. a lot of my colleagues do not believe in climate change. we asked the republican leaders to bring in the scientists. they refuse to hear from the scientists. in thise when the epa administration tries to move forward, they are going to fight it. they say things like the coal industry. well becausedoing of market forces. it is cheaper to use natural gas. white coal is being displaced by natural gas. we have the standards for this pollution coming from

plants. they will have to switch or develop the technology to find ways to limit the amount of pollution. that will drive technology. businesses have been creating and developing it with new technology in all the years we have had some clean air. dramaticeen some reductions in air pollution. we were talking about air pollution. people said it would bankrupt the economy. they are wrong. we have dramatically reduced the air pollution. outlined aident bold plan. how optimistic are you that he will be able to accomplish all he laid out given a

congressional review act, and the ability of congress to try to block of these regulations? are you that the epa cannot only and veil it but it will hold up? >> if congress will not act, he act.a he does not need them to have a new area. that is based on the interpretation of the clean act by the u.s. supreme court. hear about 5-4 decisions. liberals and progressives and most will would not like to see happen. they say the law requires that if it causes harm to public health it must be regulated.

the epa under president bush made that finding. they sent it on to the white house. the white house would not even open up the e-mail, informing them of this information. coalties, oil companies, companies. the big polluters did not want anything to be done. >> did obama get it done? >> he has given enough time. it is to accomplish what he wants to accomplish. he's asking them to negotiate with the industry. with the states because the states have to enforce the clean air act. they left time open for litigation. i think litigation will not succeed. i think they will figure out that this will be the law of the land.

will squeal and yell about it. acknowledgewant to the real worlds. they thing nothing is happening. i want to jump in. has not the economy derived since 2000. many arguments are on job creation. are you confident that the plan , evenmoves forward bernanke expressed concern about the job market. are you concerned about jobs as we move forward? >> of course i'm concerned about jobs. the president has posed a jobs bill the number of times. 1970, wethe clear of have seen germanic cuts in air pollution.

i was in congress in 1990 the net lashed -- the last time we revise the clean air act. they came in and said this would be terrible. it will cost us jobs. we passed the law. this was what they had to deal with. the benefits were much more than anybody ever expected here at we have had a tough economy since 2008. the have not had a lot of regulations. we have had the failure of the government to stop the profiteers from encouraging to go off the cliff. sequestration is costing is 1% to 2%.

the economy is picking up. we need those jobs. this is now in effect. >> was good to healthcare. they will want to delay the individual mandate. he announced that they will delay this any days. given that the administration did not have the confidence that they could roll this out, what makes you think the individual mandate is ready to go in 2014? isthe employer requirement that employers of more than 50 employeescover their

with insurance to help them go into the exchange or the marketplace. that was going to affect very few employers. of the employers that are of them already provide insurance for their employees. 96 or so percent already have insurance. i think the president decided they could put this off. there were some technical problems to implement it. the people be able to buy health insurance. if they do not have it through their job or medicare, they can go and choose between health insurance policies that will be offered in this marketplace. they could make the choice.

if they are lower income, they can get tax breaks to help them pay for it. this was the heart of the law. it insures everybody access to health insurance coverage. everybody has to be part of it. >> this will affect a lot more people. whyhere were questions, would there be questions with the individual? work, other part did not why would this? the employer requirement certainly seems as though it would have worked. this is not the heart of it. there were a lot that were confused about it. they put it off. i do not think any great harm will happen. it will just be a year.

the heart of the legislation is to make health care available to everyone. if you have a pre-existing medical condition, you cannot buy insurance commission -- insurance coverage. the people who they know will leave it, they do not want it covered at all. for those people to be able to buy insurance at the same rate of others their age, they need to have insurance that will have help the people -- how be people as well as sick people. we need to get people in that spreade so they can keep out. otherwise if you said just covered the sick, the cost of insurance will be unaffordable. be discriminating against them. we do not want that to happen. >> this continues to indicate that the public does not know

what benefits are in the law. how did they reverse that trend? do the -- do you think they're doing enough? is up fort think it democrats. it is the law of the land to make sure the states are doing what they need to do. democrats or republicans will have a chance to do it. they want to repeal it. this is not going to happen. they do not tell us what they put in its place. it is whether they really feel it. they hoped president obama would not be reelect did. they are not helping make it work. this law will work to the benefit of millions of americans. i find it outrageous that they

will not get the funds the law. here is what is happening. by january it will be full speed ahead. people will get that. >> you know there will be glitches. willnow the republicans pounce on every single one of them. what is the strategy? does it become a liability? >> a lot of the benefits are already in effect. people can keep the kids on their policies until the kids are 26 years of age. many people have insurance. a lot are under medicare. ony are getting a break

prescription drugs. that is really popular. you get a money for the premium and you have to use 87% on medical services. a lot of people do not know this law. they are getting rebate checks because that of the law is in effect. these are very popular. when people are able to go buy insurance and see them competing, competition brings the price down. you are not buying something that sounds good. people will get insurance coverage. if they cannot afford it, they will get some tax breaks to help

them pay for it. i think people are going to be very pleased. i know in california they will be exceptionally please. they wanted this law to succeed. we are taking the initiative to make this work. a lot are fighting it. they will not even take the 100% federal dollars from the medicaid expansions. they are denying them help. they are denying them hospitals and dock others payments -- doctors payments when they see it. huge topic. the president announcements, you effective -- if any do think about legislative options? there is a school of thought

that say the industry could be affected by these legislations. they may want to talk to their friends in congress rather than work through the epa. do you see any kind of impetus because of the epa action? is it just so dead in the water? he could not get the votes in the senate. he needed 60 votes in the senate to get rid of that filibuster. that bill was backed by some of the major industries. i thought republicans would be sensitive to the business community. instead, they are more sensitive to tea party people. member.he ranking climate change effects all of this.

i work on trying to solve a problem i do not think exist? the business community could not get the republicans to pay attention to them. now republicans controlled the house of representatives. run on a committee and deny this. there is no hope for legislation. under existing law, it will get us to the promise he made on behalf of our country at the copenhagen international conference. they want to get beyond this. it stays in the atmosphere. it is already in the atmosphere. adding more to it.

we're going to find that the atmosphere will be inadmissible. if there is a 10% chance they for the republicans to deny what is happening, what they have to say and think it is not happening it at all, this is taking a chance with all of us that share this. >> we have to go to the pipeline. withu put out a statement the sinister about the keystone xl pipeline and how that should be -- we pieces assure about the keystone xl pipeline and how that should be viewed. what happens if he does sign off on that pipeline? what does that say about his

dedication to that climate problem. it seems they're all putting the eggs in one basket. what does that say about his issue that he seems to be so strongly dedicated to? >> i certainly hope he does not approve. a lot of what has been written by people in the state department. it is not correct. aey say it is going to cause lot of greenhouse gases. it is going to happen anyway. the only way they will be able to triple the amount of oil in canada is if they have the pipeline. they can use railroad instead. tos is not a feasible way transporting -- to transport that oil. exceptople will not

that pipeline. they will be able to develop it if they can ship it through the united states, have it refined in louisiana and the gulf and maybe it will stay here. of relying on the dirtiest possible source of oil will be a huge step back in fighting climate change. i think the president understands that. there is this phrase that he has accepted. maybe he will find some way out. reject that pipeline. let's go forward and not backward. >> you do not think that if we did not build the pipeline and itdid what we could that would not be used by somebody else?

>> of course they would want the oil. in deal want the oil. have to work together to have alternatives. oil ande things like fuel and energy and transportation. we need oil. there is no doubt about it. tar sand oil.of it has to be reprocessed. >> regardless of whether we refine it or somebody else --ines it, >> if they want to build a pipeline through canada, there's nothing we can say about it. people will not agree to it. natives will not agree with the.

>> what and that the worse? less and less environmental controls. >> it will not be transported and less use railroad. i do not think the railroad is a city -- feasible option. it is too expensive. we should not give up a pipeline through the united states where we help them sell the dirtiest possible oil. >> make it tougher for them. >> i think it is going to make it tougher to the point where they're going to have to look to not expended the way they hope. triple the amount of oil they want to produce. quantity arethe added to the harm that the large supply would. waxman and him to the white

house. >> we have to say thank you. thank you for being here. featured henry waxman. as you try to get to the politics of healthcare, are you sensing that the election next year will be fought in some level on the health care legislation? what certainly. this happens january first. there are going to be glitches. obama says this week there will be glitches. you know the republicans will highlight every single one of them.

you are going to see an ad about this and it will affect the election. is that onceying the benefits kick in he will realize the law is actually a good thing. they will become proponents. he also mentioned that a lot of people are benefiting from its. that was the other question. do people really know what is in the law? if they do not know it is obamacare, even obama is using obamacare, if they do not know where it is coming from, they can criticize the law. the houses already teeing up climate related wills. the other is on restrictions for epa. they are setting the battleground here over climate policy.

how do you see this playing out? >> it is going to be very interesting. he mentioned the bill with the senator. moderate democrats that voted for that did not bode well. not be surprised to see that come up again along with the healthcare in the differences. there was not a vote for a climate bill. you are going to see this. they're going to see this from the congress going against the epa to see where they stand on these issues in preparation for the midterm. i see this being an issue for democrats in states that are heavy fossil fuel users, whether coal state. >>