mr. waxman. i just to add my greetings to my constituent from dish network. thank you for coming. i yield back. >> i join you in welcoming all of our panelists whether they came all the way from california or down the street from k street. welcome to you all. i yield back my time. >> the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. thank you all for being here. we're going to start with mr. robert johnson. the ceo of sky age gel u.s. llc. thank you for being here. we appreciate to reading through your testimony and look forward to your comments. just for all the panelists if you vice president used these microphones you need to get pretty close to them and make sure the light's on. >> chairman walden, ranking member and members of the subcommittee on communications and technology, it is my pleasure to have this testimony to testify at your hearing today on the future of video and thank you for inviting me to participate. my name is rob johnson. i'm one of the founders of sky angel and its chief executive officer. sky angel was founded for the purpose of providing american famili

mr. waxman. >> mr. chairman, colleagues, members of the audience, mr. dingell is absolutely right. this is a hearing for politics. that's how it is. i guess an election year we can excuse them. this nation faces an energy challenge. the wild fires, droughts, heat waves call weather events to address climate change. these are the types of events predicting and congress has been ignoring according to the national oceanic and atmospheric administration more than 40,000 high-temperature records have been set this year and at the end of june this year, more than 100 million people in the u.s. carriers under extreme heat advisory. two thirds of the country is experiencing drought. more than 200 acres have burned in wildfires. we need to react to carbon pollution and there's a range of options for doing that, from a price on carbon into incentives for clean energy. house republicans oppose every potential solution. they say no to market-based note a cost effective regulations or financial incentives. even if they improve global competitiveness. they even say no to simply understanding the

mr. waxman. >> mr. chairman, my colleagues and members of the audience, yesterday know is absolutely right. this is a hearing for politics. that's all it is. and i guess it's an election year so we can excuse it, but this nation faces an urgent energy challenge. the recent wildfires, drought, heat waves come extreme weather events tell us that we must act to address climate change. these are exactly the types of extreme events that scientists have been predicting, and that congress has been ignoring. according to the national oceanic and atmospheric administration, more than 40,000 hot temperature records have been set this year. at the end of june, this year, more than a hundred million people in the u.s. were in areas under extreme heat advisories. two-thirds of the country is experiencing drought. more than 2 million acres have burned in wildfires this year. we need to act to reduce carbon pollution, and there are a range of options for doing that, from putting a price on carbon, sensible regulations

mr. waxman and we appreciate your concern. at this point, the first panel will be handled by the chairman of the subcommittee on power -- soha ghelr m.whie. >> thank you, mr. stearns and i want to welcome the members of the first panel. we appreciate your takng time to e with us this morni o iman seb oider a very onli as taxpayers is very important, particularly at a time when we have a gigantic federal debt. our two witnesses on the first panel at first, mr. david frantz, acting eeut er rthlo pamic the.s. partnt of energy and the second is the honorable dr. kathleen hogan, his deputy assistant secretary for energy efficiency, office of energy at demefr.rwaeer so once again, thank you for being with us. we appreciate it. am going to call in each one to call in each one of you to give a five-minute opening state it and then at the end of hat time wiive membs an opportunity askusn r.franwi nit fiveinut forn oping statement. >> chairman whitfield and stearns, ranking members who brash and to gt and members of the subcommittee, tha

mr. waxman: this bill, mr. speaker, and my colleagues, would take away the health security and cause over 30 million people to lose health coverage over the next decade. that's more people than the entire population of new york and ohio. yet here we go again. wasting time that should be spent on improving the economy and putting people to work. instead we're rehashing the same old arguments. americans deserve health security. what's in the bill? the law that the republicans would seek to take off the books prevents people with pre-existing conditions, like pregnant women, not to be denied insurance or charged so much that they can't get coverage. the law says women should not pay higher premiums just because they are women. people should have an easy, transparent marketplace to shop for quality insurance and the hardworking middle class should receive subsidies to help them afford it. people should not be worried about losing health coverage if they lose their job. people should be encouraged to get preventive

mr. waxman and certainly mr. frank were absolutely right. it's not a question of distrust. it's a question of making sure that we have regulations in place to protect the safety and welfare of our citizens and we don't need to look too far. when i look at my district and i see the many people who have lost so much because of what happened on wall street and what happened just recently with regard to the banks, the fact is that regulation is needed and if any committee has had evidence of it, it is our committee, oversight and government reform. so we've heard no evidence today that regulations kill jobs. we've heard no evidence that regulations hurt our economy. we've heard countless examples -- examples of how regulations can improve the health and safety of americans and save lives. it's so very, very important that we keep in mind that balance that i talked about. it's also important that we keep in mind what this president has done. president obama has made sure that he's take an careful look at those rules, those regulations that were unnecessary. he has been -- he has

mr. waxman suggest the led -- suggested picking winners and losers. do you agree with that? >> mt s v tch erybody, i think, here acknowledges,e're not clairvoyant enough to know the new technologies that might be right around the corner that would be -- >> do you agree that that's a fair satement? that bls inne dos tld cin preclude us from having an open forum for the projects for sure. >> for new projes? >> if it's picking -- >> would it be fair, then, if we talk about fairness, to jus in aofere t anipe? just going further on those? >> no, no. >> then you're not picking winners and losers. >> i think the ones in the peline as we incated, in the process ofeviewing tho not thandou didn't say there would be unfairness to not going forward, i mean, we accused us of being unfair. >> no, i think the point that -- the point is - and it's in my oral testimony. i mentioned it. >> okay. i t waveris erifre u tethecr #- 31st, 2011 because that's implication of new technologies. 30 2705 exre ateeper hacot. >> there's several in the pipeline filed before then, and you're going forward; c

mr. waxman five minutes. >> there are two nuclear power plants in california. one is diablo canyon and the other is the nuclear generating station in interstate of diego. i want to ask about that plant. in february of 2011 a new steam generator -- new steam generators were placed in service at that plant. this was a major capital expense that cause ratepayers' $670 million. this expense was large but the new equipment was supposed to last 40 years. on january 31st of this year, less than a year, one of the units steam generators started making radioactive steam into the atmosphere and the reactor was shut down. the other unit was not operating at the time. six months later, most remained shut down. and determine the actual release of radiation into the environment was minimal in this case. is that right? >> that is correct. >> after the january shutdown, sending an inspection team. the report last weekend according to the nrc inspection team after a single year of operation, the steam generators have been warm down because excessive vibration was causing them t

mr. waxman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to ask some questions about this proposal that's before us we strong a -- we have a specific bill. mr. berlin, the republican loan guarantee bill would change the program the loan guarantee program itself was created to support innovative research innovative energy technology and that's why congress established a program bipartisan basis in 2005 under this bill, the program can continue to issue tens of billions of dollars in loan guarantees in the years to come, but this bill prohibits doe considering any application or for loan guarantee submitted after december 31, 2011, so the republican bill creates a winner's list of a few dozen projects that are eligible for future loan guarantees. those are the only application deal we could ever look at. any project not only the list can't get alone guarantee, period. it doesn't matter how ground breaking the technology is, if it isn't on the winner's list it can't receive support. does it make sense? should congress prevent doe from n