we got some alaska hydro provisions -- excuse me, new nuclear. do i like it? no, but is it better? yes. so, again, there are aspects of the bill that i wish we could enhance more. i do not think we do enough for nuclear in this energy bill, and i am disappointed in that, but i think that is something you will see when you go to the floor a great deal more discussion about how nuclear will play a role in the emerging energy policy as we work to reduce our emissions. i think that that has to be a bigger factor, but we do make good strides in advancing energy. the clean energy deployment bank is, i think, critically important for us, and that is a provision that senator bingaman and i very early on came together on and said, "this should be a keystone, a cornerstone of our legislation," and i think that is a good, strong peace. we have got efficiency components and their that i think are good, a good energy work force training component -- we have got energy-efficient components in theire that i thik are good. there are other energy forms, as well, after about three months, i would sa

made some small wins with hydro. but there's -- there's kind of a tradeoff here. there's this assumption, well, you have your power generated by the wind or by the sun and it's environmentally pure. well, if you're using solar that uses any amount of water, that's a problem. if you've got wind that is in the -- in the path of a fly-way, that's a problem. so i don't know that anything is environmentally pure. but i think what we need to be focused on is how we reduce our emissions in a meaningful way. that >> rebecca cooper with nuclear new build monitor. i wonder if you could talk about both what do you see the nature of the four amendments on nuclear being more sensitive to the senate as was tried in the committee or something more specific like expanding loan guarantees for nuclear plants or upping the amount of nuclear taken out of the baseline in the res? and then secondly, if you could talk about how likely it is you'll get to introduce that amendment before the committee before the markup, thanks. >> well, i think what you're going to see is good, constructi

to promote more energy-efficient buildings, clean coal technology, and of the use of solar, wind, hydro and other renewable energy technologies. we plan to do much more. so to conclude my remarks, let me just turn to the question posed by the seminar -- i think the u.s. and india increasingly are natural allies. we share a growing convergence of our values, and our interests, our peoples, and our governments are engaged together and virtually every field of human endeavor. now after more than a decade of cooperation it is clear there are strong and bipartisan support in both countries to cooperate even more closely. more important however are the strong people to people ties. prime minister singh frequently tells audiences that almost every middle-class family in india has some relative who is studying in the united states are working in the united states or has had some other kind of experience in the united states. such ties provide the mutual understanding and the ballast that will enable continued progress in the u.s.-india relations. during my recent trip to india with undersecreta

so i'd say, let's develop all of our energy sources -- wind, solar, geothermal, hydro, clean coal, natural gas, nuclear -- all energy sources. our nation is so blessed with abundant energy resource, they are here for us to use in a clean and environmentally friendly way. coal is cheap and abundant in america. it's what's keeping our energy today afford an. uranium is abundant, too. let's develop that, and develop all renewable energies, wind, solar, hydropower, we need it all. as lisa jackson, the director of the environmental protection agency said while in my home state of wyoming: "as a home of wind, coal, and natural gas, wyoming is at the heart of america's energy future." that's because wyoming has it all. it has the cool, wind, natural gas and uranium. it has it all and we need it all. the bottom line, madam president, is the democrats cap and tax bill costs jobs and raises energy prices. i don't understand can we can't make america's energy as clean as we can as fast as we can without raising energy prices on american families. the administration wants to take a different approach.

as we expand energy sources like wind, solar and hydro and as the congress and this administration discussedthe grid and its capacity, we must not neglect that many of these sources of energy are intermittent and need to be backed up by other sources of energy and we would be remiss if we do not emphasize the importance of diversifying our energy portfolio and ensuring that nuclear power is any part of the policy we discussed. wind and solar power still need to overcome fundamental obstacles and we cannot exclusively rely on the energy sources to power the nation. when the winds stop blowing and the sun stops shining, the hospitals that care for our families and schools that teach our children must continue to have reliable sources of energy to ensure that the lights stay on. transmission infrastructure, planning and citing policies are all important to this conversation as is the regulatory framework that will surround these policies. i believe it is also important for the congress to carefully weigh regional considerations as we further discuss this issue. i look forward to today's hearing

there has been a lot of discussion about where the so-called hydro car bons law is, and if you ask various political leaders in iraq, you get different answers as to the potential for getting this law through the parliament. right now, i must say the discussion in the parliament is very much geared to getting an election law through so that parliamentry elections can take place as scheduled on january 16. >> as we sit here now, how many u.s. troops are left in the cities and specifically how many in baghdad? >> again, i would ask that you direct that question to the pentagon. there are roughly 135,000 u.s. troops in the country. but as for their particular deployment, i direct that to the pentagon. >> could i just make sure i've got this straight. when you were asked about the syrian fighters coming into iraq, have you actually seen a diminishing of that number or is it not yet clear? >> i think it's too soon to gauge the numbers except to assure you that we track this issue very closely. and compared to, say, a year ago, there's a substantial -- there are fewer such people coming over. no

i am for my hydro-depended place but all of the permits are going to the coal regions and utilities. it was not so happy in my region in the world, but it is in the bill and i will vote for the bill because it will help the communities who are all dependent utilities to make sure they do not have job loss and i'm confident that will be the case so we can finally use coal cleanly. you may have also talked to this person in tim's office before we struck an agreement to have major amendments to the bill that were very helpful to the agricultural community. the agriculture community in this country has a bright future in developing bio energy sources, advanced forms of sully a lawsuit energy, how job-based energy -- cellulosic, algae- based energy. we struck a deal that made advances to allow members that represent farm communities to address the bill. they know, frankly, there are bad things out and the farm community. when iowa starts to look like mexico, when kansas had six months of 90 degree days which a the noaa reports they will have by 2018, that is not good for agriculture. prog

this i just discovered they've changed the hide roe language so hide roe, -- hydco, they used to -- hydro, they used to say it counted, now they chave changed it. it's page after page of -- of technical changes with major impact. nine committees this was referred to, only one was allowed to have a markup. a lot of this got put together, dark of night, back room deals, no committee has held a hearing on this new bill, 309 pages amending the 1,201 pages sitting there on the desk. look at fuel costs. $811 more for oregonians in 2012. if you're a pacificorp customer in oregon, you can expect to pay 9.7% more in electricity costs. talk about a massive new welfare program for energy, it's in here too. in fact this energy tax refund in effect this proposed energy stamp bill, was in here 16 times. the current u.s. welfare program. 16 times. it's a whole new welfare program for energy. if energy costs aren't going up on the rest of us, why do they have to have this? why do they have to have this? because it does drive up energy costs. that's going to hurt small business people, it's going to hurt

would be changed over from coal generation to natural gas under this idea that natural gas isn't a hydro carbon that can't be upheld by an engineer, but in any case, double the cost of the electricity and still found out we weren't carbon neutral but still emitting co-2 into the atmosphere. and so, when on the board of trade and purchased $89,000 carbon credits, the very central commidity that is going to be presented on the floor of this house, $89,000 to offset the co-2 emissions so we can light this capitol complex. some of that money went to farmers in south dakota. didn't change their behavior. and some of that money also went to a coal-fired generating plant in iowa that had received a government grant to burn switch grass. i went over to look at that. they got a check. that's how cap and trade will work in the united states of america. we can't get it right in congress, we aren't going to get it right in missouri. mr. akin: i think we have three or four minutes left. i'm going to yield to my good friend, congresswoman bachmann from minnesota. mrs. bachmann: we were watching "titan

i come from a hydro-dependent state in washington, others depend on coal fire for electricity. we have a whole host of mechanisms to insulate those in the coal-dependent areas of country from price shocks. people can put permits to prevent the price from swinging too rapidly. we have the most aggressive regulatory system in the market. we finally are regulating derivatives. about time, isn't it, not to let wall street run amok again. so we have put a lot of fail- safe mechanisms. but the bottom line is this -- we just got to get to the bottom line -- i know people concerned with cost. none of us want to pay a penny if we don't have to. but i think in that looking at it with economic sense, as the congressional budget office did, they concluded it would cost americans 47 cents a day. it is a little bit more than a postage stamp. and i have yet to find anyone who believes that if we can solve the problem of a loss of jobs with -- which we are experiencing today, if we can free ourselves from dependence on middle eastern wheels so that we did not even have to worry about fighting