we did not increased as for the banks, the american household owes 130% of their income. we have been heading numbers that are unprecedented, they have never even been close at any time in history. when we reform the financial products and put some safety in so that families are economically stable, and they are not introducing into the stream of financial commerce, these high risk and high profit instruments, we turned down the rest overall and frankly we can deal with this with a lighter touch. those who were worried about the heavy hand of government on the back end, would do well to observe that modest changes on the front and could mean that we require less intervention and less supervision. we will be -- if we can change is at the beginning this will be solid throughout. >> we are making the proposal to help the consumers with those products and this is a very interesting idea. thank you. and for your leadership, you are a star. we have many hearings on financial regulation and health care reform and energy, we will be presenting the future questions to you in writin

unfortunately, this bill amounts to a national energy tax that will raise the cost of energy to every american household. and while the number of how much impact will be for household will be disputed, very little dispute that this bill will cost millions of american jobs. >> do the republicans have an alternative? >> we do. i was privelenled to chair the working group among house republicans that formulated the american energy act. it's available at g.o.p..gov. and we traveled the country with hearings and unveiled the bill a number of weeks ago to generally favorable reviews. it's an all of the above strategy that says, yes, to more domestic exploration for oil and naltralt gas. it creates a renewable energy trust fund using those lease revenues to subsidize and encourage the development of solar and wind and alternative technologies. we call for 100 new nuclear power plants to be constructed in the next 20 years. and then we create a whole range of conservation incentives within the tax laws that will encourage individuals and businesses to conserve energy in their use. so it's the kind of all of the

the largest tax increase in american history. under the guise of climate change legislation. now, there's a lot of debate about what this bill will cost the average american household, from hundreds of dollars to thousands of dollars, but there actually is no debate over the fact that this legislation will cost millions of american jobs. on that point there is no discussion. the bill itself actually includes a fund that would provide resources for americans who lose their jobs if cap and trade becomes law. and there are news reports this morning, although i am yet to confirm there, that there will be new trade restrictions in this legislation because the expectation, and it is reasonable, is by raising the cost of energy for every american business that we will see businesses flee overseas, taking jobs abroad in these difficult economic times. it is extraordinary to say the least, but the way in bill is coming to the floor ought to be disturbing to every american, republican, democrat and independent that's looking in. last night at 3:09 a.m. house democrats filed a 309-page amendment and denied republican and democrat amendments to the tune of the 224 that were su

people who worry about inflation may not have fully grasped the ramifications of american households leveraging. the pullback is going in to prop up a faltering economy. at every level of society, the demand for cash is unprecedented. meanwhile in today's wall street journal, a report on a story twin threat jobless rate deficit. flags have been raised as the president who is so personally popular is losing ground on some of his economic policies. there is little he can do to please everybody. if he pulls back on the economic stimulus, he may be pulling back on green shoots. he expects the unemployment rate to reach 10% this year. rising joblessness could trigger pressure for another injection of spending. let's take our first call from new york on the independent line. caller: donald trump was on with larry king and was asked about real estate. and he said that he sold his home for $100 million at the height of the market, because he feared that the high oil prices was the cause of the bank's collapse and the economy. i am a professor of business and i can give you my view of. what bu

the energy bill for the average american household will go up over $3,000. that's exactly what the authors want. president obama recently stated in the only cap and tax scheme that it will work in this way. he's quoted as saying it has to have higher energy costs. they have to quote-unquote, skyrocket. i urge my colleagues to reject this bill that is all economic pain and no environmental gain and instead join me for supporting the american energy act that promotes and develops domestic energy source, encourages conservation, and advances renewable technologies while pursuing america's competitive edge. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. speier: -- ms. sanchez: thank you, madam speaker. today i come to the floor to honor an individual who has sacrificed over 42 years of his life for this great nation. brigadier general jame

the cost of energy on every american family. now, my colleague sporting the green lapel button, who i greatly respect, said that there is a lot of dispute about how much the average american household will pay if this national energy tax becomes law and that's true. there are estimates ranging from a few hundred dollars a year to the hair tage foundation's over $-- heritage foundation's over $4,000. i heard president candidate barack obama who said in january of 2008 to the san francisco chronicle and i should quote with the deepest respect. under my plan of cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. that will cost money. they referring to the utility companies. they will pass that money onto consumers, closed quote. now president barack obama. now, i know earlier this week the president of the united states said that polluters are going to pay the cost of this national energy tax. that's not what he said last year. now, i don't know how y'all define skyrocket. when the president said electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket under my cap and trade plan, but i'd be prepared to defer to you. i define skyrocket as a prescription for economic decline. the

. >> one of the ongoing debates in the house and senate is cost to the average american household. you and i and other reporters have discussed this at that press conference. you continue to use this figure of $3,100 per household. the non-partisan congressional budget -- congressional budget office came in last night and said at $140 per household. your figure comes from a source at mit, although he has raised reservations about it. the congressional budget office is a credible source. how is the constituents opposed to sort this out? how can you explain how much this is going to cost without sounding rapidly partisan? >> you can do that by quoting the president of the united states. president obama said in january of 2008 to the "san francisco chronicle" and i think i have it memorized -- he said if my cap and trade bill becomes law, utility rates would necessarily skyrocket. he said that will cost money and today, referring to utility companies, they would pass that along to consumers. so there is a debate over the amount of money. the congressional budget office said the gross

the bill. every american household is going to pay more. when you create this giant bureaucracy to impose this tax, it is good to cost a lot of money in. at the end of the day, when you look at everything that has happened this year, from the stimulus to the omnibus with all the it earmarks to the budget to the $1 trillion deficit, it is the middle american the gets -- is the american middle class ticket hit every time. >> -- it is the american middle- class that get hit every time. >> [unintelligible] >> you will have to ask him. >> is he under some undue pressure of another kind? you made -- you took pains to make concessions for everything he mentioned yesterday. >> you have to ask him. think about this. we provided tens of billions of dollars to bail out the auto companies. we are telling the auto companies what kind of cars they're going to produce. frankly, i think they are the kinds of cars that most americans do not want to buy. for them to succeed, they will have to find every way they can to whittle their cost. one big cost of prod

and security act and in terms of what they mean to american families, the estimates are that american families will save $750 per year, per household, within 10 years, because of the energy efficiency provisions of this bill. what would you do with another $750 a year? that is a savings, the average american family will have, as a result of the energy efficient sises. mr. connelly: that's such a good point you're bringing up, mr. polis. because we hear from the other side deliberate, seemingly deliberate, misinformation on the floor of this house and the figure constantly cited is a little over $3,100. the opposite is true. as you just indicated. and this new study, the american council for energy efficiency economy just issued that says, that the federal energy efficiency provisions in this bill will in fact save $750 per household by 2020 and $3,900 by 2030. so maybe our republican colleagues just had their numbers inverted. and i might point out that that magical figure of $3,100 a year that they cite and derive this bill as a cap and tax bill, not a cap and trade bill, is based on a study done by an m.i.t. professor, rather obs

the household level. those loans were put into trusts and sold up a line so that the riskiness of the household level became magnified throughout the american economy and throughout the world economy. if we go back to a world where the basic consumer financial products art steady, they have a level playing field. nobody should be protected from making mistakes. if you spend $2,000 that you cannot afford, you should have to pay for that. if you buy a house that you cannot afford, you should have to pay for that or lose that house. but ordinary people will have done ordinary transactions deserve some ordinary instrument to do that. if that is the case, that will help us at the family level and it completely reform what our financial institutions have bought in giveth a far more secure financial system. >> a bank that has been making their income off of taking advantage of families -- a whole credit markets will come out better? >> that is the answer. >> thank you. >> thank you for holding this hearing. trans. -- transparency and accountability is important which is what you are doing. we did not have that accountability and transparency in th

the c.b.o. score is that every american household is going to pay more. listen. when you create this giant bureaucracy to impose this tax it's going to cost a lot of money. and at the end of the day when you look at everything that's happened this year from the stimulus to the omnibus to all the earmarks to the budget of the trillion dollar deficit, it's the american middle class that gets hit every single day. and this bill right here is going to hit the american middle class with higher costs and higher taxes. >> why would a member -- i know you don't answer for him but just in your wisdom as a leader, why would a member like mr. doyle from pittsburgh be out stumping for this bill now if he thought it was going to kill jobs in fuel country? >> you have to ask him. >> well, do you think he's under some sort of undue pressure of another kind? he was against it when it came out and he made pains to explain all the concessions he got yesterday that this would not hurt jobs in his steel industry. >> listen. import protections. think about this. we've provided tens of

the others. martin feldstein, noted harvard economist, recent "washington post" editorial, an article, "aces will have a trivialally small effect on global warming and imposing substantial costs on all american households." how bigger the costs? well, he cites the congressional budget office that estimated the rutting increase in consumer prices needed to achieve, just a 15% reduction in carbon dioxide, less than the target of this bill would raise the cost of living 1,600 a year, every year, for every family in america. that's a $1,600 tax on every american family every year. the heritage foundation predicts the "aces" approach could cost the economy $9.6 trillion and more than a million lost jobs into the future. these are just the raw numbers. the real potential for economic pain goes much further. david solker points out "aces" could be a bonanza for more wall street corruption and more wall street greed. "aces" will deal in investment banks, it will deal in hedge funds and deal in other speculator whose want to speculate in the cap and trade market. he points out "if you like what credit default swaps did to our economy you will love cap and trade," and the house bill allows for credit default swa

for instance in 2006, the discussion regarding a wireless only america was just getting started. today, nearly 1 in 5 american households is wireless only. in the meantime, 23% of all businesses are expected to be wireless only by the year 2012. in 2006, 57 million americans subscribe to broadband services. today, fe the number is closer to $80 million. a 40% increase in three years. the fastest growing segment of the broadband market is wireless broadband, which has grown by nearly 400% since 2006. in fact, american consumers account for nearly 30% of all mobile web surfing worldwide making the u.s. first in the world. many analysts predict internet traffic could quadruple by 2011 and mobileless wireless technology will account for a large share of that growth. three years ago, social networking sites such as facebook, myspace and twitter were in their infancy while traditional media such as newspapers and broadcasters enjoyed healthy bottom lines. when i first started at the fcc, the market for online videos was just starting to germinate. today, americans watch nearly $17 billion online videos each month. and that fi

the wall street journal carlier this year, putting a price on carbon is regressive by definition because poor and middle income households spend more of their paychecks on groceries or home heating. we as americans should seriously consider whether an annual tax is even just given the resulting decline in global carbon dioxide which would result. perhaps our witnesses could talk about my information, that even if everything the administration says, even if the advocates of cap and trey and tax are correct in all of their assumptions, co2 would lower global output by less than 4%, and almost unnoticeable about even of all the estimates of the proponents are correct. in conclusion, if the administration halt the expansion of the energy supply or are successful in their tax proposal, every american will feel the impact of these policies advocated by what i welieve our extreme environmental groups. as we continue to debate this issue is my hope that any energy legislation will expand our nuclear power plants, and lock our own domestic energy resources and truly provide affordable and accessible energy for all americans. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much. and mr. lieberman, we will come

the e.p.a. estimates if 1% of american households used water sense certified toilets, each year we could save enough electricity to power 43,000 homes for a month. take lower water bills, and energy bills an reduce demands on the environment, that is something that we should strive to accomplish. now numerous groups already support this legislation, as it's written, and -- as it's written, and i focus on my home state of colorado where industry groups an water authorities and local leaders in colorado have signed on to this concept. i wanted to also say that moving forward on this legislation gained added importance for me last month when i attended a briefing that the atmospheric research held. and this particular brief something focused on the ways in which we will have to adapt our management of water resources in response to the effects of climate change and i know that the presiding officer and i share a real concern about climate change. i used to think that any discussion of adapting to climate change was misguided because we were giving into the problem. we were saying we're going to let cli

americans off the assembly line and into the unemployment line. this bill will impose the pelosi global warming tax on every single american household and business, raising home electricity costs, gas prices and annual energy costs by almost $3,000 for every family. and the only reduction will be in our nation's gross domestic product by almost $10 trillion, and in the number of americans employed by the millions. madam speaker, washington cannot save this country. only the american people and the american ingenuity can. unfortunately, congressional democrats have already allowed the federal government to take over our banking industry, the automobile industry and now this house may very well vote to take over america's energy with control over health care not far behind. let's stop this insanity. in the words of another californian, our distinguished former first lady, nancy reagan, just say no. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: may i inquire about the time each side has remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california has 44 1/2 minutes remaini

would produce small effect on global warming while imposing substantial costs on all american households. it will affect the price we pay to fill up our gas tanks. the price we pay to heat and cool our homes, and use electricity, as well as the cost of practically all goods and services. estimates show that if we have the cap in trade system, we would only lower global co2 output by less than 4%. using the small reduction in global co2 to justify a tax of $1,600 + per family is reckless and irresponsible. i believe instead we should sets voluntary goals for industry to meet while providing incentives for the growth of new emission reduction serve -- sources of energy including nuclear and clean coal. these types of pro-growth energy policies are what we should be debating in congress instead of back door, regressive taxes on the american consumer. i look for to questioning our witnesses today and hearing their thoughts on this issue. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much. we have an outstanding panel of witnesses today. i will introduce each one of you. i will shamelessly truncate or biographies i

the brightest spots? guest: most americans remain optimistic about the economy. we are seeing that in consumer optimism. we're seeing changes in behavior households. americans are saving more as they should. i was having dinner last evening with another couple. they were my age. they do not have a lot save for retirement. i have a lot of dinners like that. baby boomers have to work into their 70's because they do not have the cash. we are going to save more, so we have to find other ways to create demand for the things we make in america. what we have been doing for the last 10 years is spending more than we burned, borrowing from abroad, an increase in the trade deficit to make up the difference. i do not see the obama administration adjusted trade deficit. -- addressing the trade deficit. host: we have a call from maryland. you can call three different numbers if you are republican, democrat, or independent. we are talking with the author of 18 books. he is an economist at the smith school of business in maryland. what grade would you give congress in addressing the economic issues? guest: deep. you cannot spend money the way they have been spend

the average american. there is no dispute the democrat cap and trade bill will raise the cost of energy to every household in america, every small business, every family farm, and it will cost millions of american jobs. and the vote is tomorrow. if you oppose the national energy tax i say call your congressman. if you think the democrat cap an trade bill will cap growth and trade jocks, call your congressman. -- jobs, call your congressman. if you believe the american people deserve an all-of-the-above strategy, endorse the republican alternative and call your congressman. a minority in congress plus the american people equals a majority. we can reject cap and trade this week and so we must. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new york. mr. arcuri: i seek unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the gentleman is recognized. mr. arcuri: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to take this opportunity to say how thankful i am to live in such a great country. a country where we have unalienable rights karen

the possibility of economic and physical retaliation. >> was a retaliation? >> there was. person by person household by household, community by community, african-americansn mass. by the end of the summer they had to form a tent city. and that is just one aspect. night writers repeatedly targeted african american leaders and our people in the tent city. anybody you housed and was associated was targeted for racial violence. people lost their jobs. some never came back. it was this long process. the possibility that you would lose your job. they continued to organize and not just allow the vote. that was the initial catalyst. like so much of the african american freedom struggle that gets ignored they quickly moved beyond the vote to fight for quality education by improving sigurd digit schools. to desegregate what schools. to improve and increase the opportunities for black farmers. so they are organizing black farmers. then it moving beyond to actually organize an independent political party to decontrol. >> 80 percent african american. what kind of participation in the freedom organization was there? >> slow at first. >> a lot of fear. >> a lot of fear

the household level. we are not only at increased risk for large institutions and, we did it for american households. they now stand at 0.130% of their annual income in total debt. -- now stand at boeinowing 130%f their annual income in total debt. we want families more economically stable and not introducing into these high risks, high profit instruments. labonge we can deal with systemic risk with a lighter touch -- weekend deal with the systemic risk with a lighter touch as a result. modest changes at the front end could mean that we require less intervention and less supervision overall if we make this system solids from the beginning, it will be solid throughout. >> thank you very much. i think this is a very interesting idea. thank you. >> they give for your leadership. we have many hearings taking place on financial regulation, health care reform, and energy. we are going to be presenting our future questions to you in writing. we thank you for your time, dedication, commitment to public service. you'd have had an incredible influence on financial reform. thank you very much. >> thank you. >>

the american economy. we're talking about creating green jobs. we're talking about saving american households $750 a year within 10 years and $3,90000 a year within 20 years -- $3,900 a year within 20 years. we're talking about making america the center of this technology, exporting this technology, to some of the very same countries that we rely upon today for importing, either manufacturing products or energy-represented products and most importantly we are talking about reduced -- ending the cost of inaction. we're talking about completely reducing a lot of these hidden costs and overt costs that we are paying every day, when you fill up your tank with gats, sending our men and women overseas, importing products from overseas, sending our jobs overseas and of course climate change which is having an affect on farmers across our country as well as everybody else. so by passing this american clean energy and security act which our seat coalition, sustainable energy and environmental coalition is heavily involved with here in the congress can be the single most important act that we take this

many americans who are cutting household expenses can't afford to cut out the prescription drugs they must take each day for their health. we must help these americans by enacting this amendment. you know, some of my colleagues have argued that this amendment should not be considered on legislation regulating tobacco, and my efforts to add this amendment to the bill are actually holding up the bill. finally, the amendment is directly relevant to the underlying legislation. the bill would require the food and drug administration to regulate tobacco because of its well-known negative health effects. this amendment would require the food and drug administration to regulate the importation of prescription drugs from importers declared safe by the f.d.a. i reject any argument that this amendment is not related. furthermore, it's well documented that smokers have a higher health costs than nonsmokers, so this amendment is necessary to assist those who have experienced so many health issues due to smoking. smoking kills. i've supported stricter regulation of tobacco products for ten years. i

but i think people associate you with the great latin american writers and i know that to be in the same sentence as others is daunting but others that are household words in the united states but in latin america you are certainly as well known as the they are. and what is interesting is that all three if you are journalist. and you have this immediacy even though we start off with the piece and we will read many more, at the beginning of everything when man meets woman, you talk about all of the wars, all of the cultures, the development of humankind and a the scope is amazing and daunting. i thought we would do and the autobiography before we go on with the book. of course, your name has been in the headlines in the united states because the president of venezuela, chavez met our president barack obama and as a gesture of friendship, he gave barack obama, this book, "the open veins of latin america" i understand he gave it to him in spanish which was difficult because obama does not read spanish but i think the intention was to give him a book that if he were to read it it would open his eyes about latin america what was your reaction when you

many enjoy watching "american idol" or "dancing with the stars" but of course it is about more than that, so many american households rely on television as a primary news source and source for information about whether emergency broadcast and what is going on in their community so it is a critical way to stay connected and it's important we maintain that access to free over the air television. >> what was your message when you testified last week at the last hearing? >> our message is as we get closer to june 12th we are days away there's a number of critical things consumers and viewers need to do and to do now. second there's a number of things people once they are prepared can help their neighbors and third there are a number of changes that will take place after june 12th that might mean they are still considerable work to do. we don't notice ackley what is going to happen june 12th and 13th, with the descriptions will be and what the major challenges will be. we can predict many but in many ways we are learning as we go. this is the first should delete could digital transmission obviously and we know we have co

the american clean energy and security act will create some 1.7 million jobs and will unlock billions in industry investment and be a major be job creator. $750 per household will in fact be part of the savings that many americans will see. this doesn't include the new benefits that will come from new technology, reduce pollution, economic growth, or job creation. i live in houston. i live in the refinery corer door. so we know what pollution is all about, but we know what jobs are all about. so i believe we can have both. this is the first step for this bill, mr. speaker. it moves to the senate. and i've told my constituents you have a guardian against the loss of jobs and that you will see savings. $29 billion in consumer savings. the american council for energy efficient economy found that energy efficiency provisions in this bill would save $29 billion. it is important to note as well that we have the opportunity to listen and change. let me just share with you some of the work after reading the bill until 5:30 a.m. in the morning on thursday morning. reading the manager's amendment which could actually be done. and knowing what is in front of us. firs

many of us enjoy watching "american idol" or dancing with the stars, but it's, of course, about so much more than that. so many american households rely on it's as a primary news source, for information about weather, emergency broadcast, and to find out what's going on in their community, so it's a critical way to stay connected, and it's important that we maintain that access to free over the air television. >> host: what was your message to the fcc when you testified last week at their disaster dtv hearing -- last dtv hearing? >> guest: as we get closer to june 12th, there are a number of critical things that consumers and viewers need to do and need to do now. second of all, there are a number of things that people can do to help their neighbors, and third, there are a number of changes that are going to take place after june 12th that may mean there is still considerable work to do. we don't yet know exactly what's going to happen on june 12th and june 13th, what the disruptions will be, what the major challenges will be. we can predict many of them, but in many ways we are learning as we go. this is the nation's first digit

the american people. we had significant levels of access from the port to the warehouses to the institutions including household visits and we were able to field a team of 16 food monetarist in country for the entire nine months of the program. most importantly this program serves how we can constructively work with their north korean counterparts to develop and deliver a program that begins to meet international standards of delivery based on needs that we agree upon and an approach would jointly implement. as i noted in my testimony regrettably this program was ended early at the request of the north korean government on march 31st. however all five of the participating ngo's as well as our ngo colleagues continue our work, meeting humanitarian needs within north korea of, still focused on the real needs around food security, health, water sanitation. we all believe humanitarian engagement is vital to maintain. >> political tensions between the u.s. and tpr governments remain well known. humanitarian assistance has been one of the few areas of continuous positive steps forward throughout the last decade. we b

the country. millions of americans have been affected by this. there are many desperate householdstoday anxious to hold on to their homes, and that's why the president and the treasury secretary have made this one of their top priorities. a home affordable program i think is an extremely effective tool. it will take time to really ramp up and reach full scale. as you well said, it's important that the congress and the public is informed about the performance of these programs. and i would pledge to you that if i am confirmed, one of my first acts will be to re-examine our information systems and our reporting. and i know that the treasury has pulled together more information as we speak about this program. i think we have to be agile as we look at this program as well. let's see how it's working. if it's not working as effectively as it needs to, we'll make every effort to make it more efficient and more effective and to reach more people. what's extremely important in dealing with the mortgage crisis is to reach out to as many people as possible. people are fearful about losing th

the federal government to demonstrate that the a careful steward of taxpayer dollars and won't engage in frivolous excesses. just as every american household is gathering around its kitchen table finding ways to reduce cost and cut waste, the federal government has the responsibility to do the same. fiscal responsibility should be a primary objective of every member and as a member of the fiscal responsibility -- blue dog coalition, i will continue to work with my colleagues to address the increasing national debt that we have. however, it is important that we tackle every cost-saving opportunity, large or small, to meet that goal. i'm pleased that chairman price included this amendment in his manager's amendment. i'd also like to thank my colleague from new mexico, mr. hendrick, for working with me on this issue and for his dedication in cost-saving issues. thank you. i don't see mr. hendrick here, so i would like to yield the balance of my time to the chairman. thank you very much. mr. price: i thank the gentleman, reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: can i inquire of

the federal government has accumulated $56.4 trillion in total liabilities and unfunded promises for medicare and social security as of september 30, 2008. that works out -- listen to this -- to $483,000 per american household, or $184,000 for every man, woman and child in the country to pay for these unfunded obligations. in other words, we have $56.4 trillion in total liabilities and unfunded promises for medicare and social security. it's unfunded liability. and if you look at it per household, it's a $483,000 for every man and woman in ohio, in the united states, $184,000. to be completely fair to president obama, our annual deficit and growing national debt have been problems for some time now, and, folks, i've come to the floor of the senate time and time again to talk about paying down debt, balancing our budget and so forth. and to my knowledge, president bush never once menentioned the debt in any one of his state of the union addresses. over eight years, it was like it didn't exist. never mentioned the national debt. and also, another disappointment for me is that he failed to deliver on tax reform as he promised in -- actually it was in 2004 at the republican convention. promised all of us that h

, the leadership in the house and senate are forcing upon the american people a policy that is going to increase taxes on every single household in america of over $3,100 per family. that's rich, poor and in between. the poor, the people on limited incomes or retirees are going to be hit hardest because they spend more of their income on energy-related sources than any other thing. it's going to run up the cost of food, medicine, everything that everybody buys, in fact, every good and service in this country is going to go up because of this tax and cap, as i call it, or cap and tax, cap and trade legislation that is going brought to this floor and is going to be forced down the throats of the american people. the president himself said that it was going to increase electricity costs for all americans. the president also said that it's about revenue. it's not about the environment. he said if this is not passed then he won't have the money to force the socialized medicine program that he's trying to introduce in this congress and wants to pass by the august break. the american people need to be educated about how bad this poli

think people a 60 to more with the great men american writers and i know this to be in the same sentence with the use is daunting. and those are author who are household words in the united states and. in latin america you are certainly as well known as they are. and what is interesting is that all three of you are journalists and you have this kind of immediacy even though we started out with a peace and are going to read many more pieces, that was at the beginning of everything when man meets woman you talk about all the wars, all the cultures, the development of humankind. the scope is amazing and it is daunting. i thought we would do it a little bit of her biography before we go on with a book. of course, your name has been in the headlines in the united states because the president of venezuela chavez mad our president barack obama and as a gesture and i think a friendship he gave barack obama this book. "the open veins of latin america". and he gave it to my understand was a spanish which, of course, is a little because obama doesn't read the spanish but i think the intention was to give him a book that if he were to read it to do it opened his

associate you more with the great latin american writers and i know this is to be in the same sentence with gabrielle garcia marquez is daunting, and those are authors who are household words in the united states. in latin america you are certainly as well known as they are. and what is interesting is all three of you are journalists, and you have this kind of immediacy even though we started out with a peace and we are going to read many more pieces that was at the beginning of everything when man meets woman will you talk about all of the war, to the limit of all kind, the scope is amazing and daunting. i thought we would do a little bit of biography before we go on with the book. of course your name has been in the headlines and the united states because the president of venezuela, shot is common at our president, barack obama and as a gesture i think of friendship and he gave barack obama this book, open veins of latin america. he gave it to him by understanding in spanish which was a little difficult because obama doesn't read spanish but i think the intention was to give him a book that if you were treated was open his eyes about latin america. there was a lot

for the energy supply we need, but it's taxing our economy and more importantly it's taxing households. families that could otherwise be producing here in america the supplies we need with american jobs, american no-how, american intellect. as i listened to our representative from new mexico, as representative heinrich spoke of that global race back in -- from the decades ago from the 1960's, having heard sputnik over and over again in the elementary classroom and having seen us in a race somewhat narrower than today's race would be, you had russia, the u.s., all competing to land a person on the moon, but a vision shared by a very eloquent, articulate leader of this nation, john f. kennedy, allow the us -- allowed us to come together in this nation and provide the kind of energy that's required to get us to thinking in positive and progressive terms t spretched our thinking. it provided loftiness to the outcoms and created career opportunities for many. that same race, global race is upon us today. and it's not like we have a choice to enter into the race. we have no choice but to be part of it. and the pressure is on for us to win. when china invests $12.7 million per hour in

and 75% of those uninsured are either full-time working people or in the households of full-time working people. that is very an american. they work hard but don't get the benefits of america and society. more heartbreaking is the fact that 9 billion our children and we cannot possibly expect them to pay for their own health care coverage. then there is the cost problem. we spend 2. $2 trillion on health care each year. now you are a very smart audience and i have been too smart places a harvard, who own washington university, university of michigan medical school, a virginia law school and what i learned is very few americans have been very good sense 4 trillion. also i would give you a sense of how big 1 trillion is. how long ago was 1 million seconds? last week. 11 days ago. 1 billion seconds roundabout when richard nixon resigned the white house by bob 1,000,000,000,002nd? 30,000 b.c.. bad is 50,000 years before any human being is the but on the continent and we're spending two of those each year. that is an astounding number you cannot even get your head around it weird about china and the chinese economy and the f

the american people are doing and responding to this? >> if you look at measures of confidence among businesses and average household, confidence has improved. it has steadily improved as they have seen the president and congress. my own sense is that are around the world, the turning of confidence came when they saw the president and leaders of another major economies come together and commit to a substantial amount of policy forced to fix the economy. crises cannot burn themselves out without the risk of terrible damage. i think the lessons of the financial crises is a you have to be forceful early and be cheaper and do less damage to the productivity class of the economy. if you are forceful early, i think that is what helped turn confidence. but it is early still and we have a ways to go. >> a professor from yale does not see the bottoming out of the real-estate market. do you? >> i generally try not to talk about markets or the outlook in any detailed way. it's not a good thing to do for secretary of treasury. but if you step back and that the economy, we came into this with big pockets of excess leverage in the financial sector, a lon

we knew there was out of control spending here and the american people did he serve better -- deserve better. and they experience that in their household budgets every day. american families make tough decisions. they don't -- they don't go out and do deficit spending and fill up their credit cards and take out loans where they have no idea who is going to lend them the money. but the federal government has been doing that. the republican freshmen came here to restore fiscal accountability and responsibility. that's why we are united in imposing the wasteful stimulus or stuless bill. before i came to congress, i had no idea how many zeros were in a trillion and i didn't think it was physically possible to spend $2 trillion in three months. but my friends and colleagues, democratic colleagues proved me wrong with that. and in the president's first 100 days, it's estimated he spent

the president told us so. every household is going to pay between $1,300 and $3,100 in new taxes every year. the cost of products will increase. the american people know the bill chooses winners and sers and the taxpayer is the big loser. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back her time. the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: madam speaker, i wish to yield one minute to the gentleman from maryland, mr. sarbanes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. sarbanes: thank you, madam speaker. i want to salud chairman waxman and chairman markey for their work on this bill. when it comes to energy policy, the united states has been a sleeping giant. but the giant is beginning to stir. with the passage of this legislation today we'll awake ton a new era of possibility. that's what makes this so exciting. this bill, the american clean energy and security act is going to create a new framework and new space so that ordinary citizens and entrepreneur -- entrepreneurs can jump into the space and take us to the next level. what most excites me is that this is about the future. the next gene

the stimulus dollars to pay for this legislation and other legislation. now at a time when americans are pulling back on their spending and saving more, our government should do the same. the first quarter this year household debt fell by an annual rate of 1.1% to $13.8 trillion. instead of following our our constituents' actions, our government continues to spend money we do not have and when our government spends money that we do not have, one of two things happen. either we borrow it from countries like china and since china isn't buying our debt now, the other solution is that our federal government prints money. we have had the fed pump over $1 trillion of new money into our economy. the problem with infusion of new money into our economy like this is that it causes inflation. when you have more money available for roughly the same amount of goods, you get inflation. the equation is very simple. more money we print, the less our money is worth. and inflation hits our retired americans the worst. they're on fixed incomes. it hits the working poor the hardest. people who are just getting by and when you take purchasing value away from them, they're worse off. these americans have worked too hard for the

the american recovery and reinvestment act or arra, a major fiscal package aimed at strength engineer-term economic activity. the package included personal tax cuts and increases in transfer payments intended to stimulate household spending, incentives for business investment, increases in federal purchases and federal grants for state and local governments. predicting the effects of these fiscal actions on economic activity is difficult, especially in light of the unusual economic circumstances that we face. for example, households confronted with declining incomes and limited access to credit might be expected to spend most of their tax cuts. but then again, heightened economic uncertainties and a desire to increase precautionary saving my reduce households' propensity to spend. how large any follow-on effects will be. the cbo has constructed a range of estimates of the effects of the stimulus package on real gdp and employment that appropriately reflect the uncertainties. according to the cbo's estimates by the end of 2010, the stimulus package could boost real gdp between 1% and a little more than 3% and the level of employment by between roughly 1 million and 3.5 million jobs. the increases in spending and

cap and tax would create $640 billion in new taxes on american businesses and raise electrical bills by $3,100 per household per year on average. the revenue from the new tax will be used to pay for various social programs this administration plans to enact such as government takeover of our health care. simply put, cap and tax will cap our growth and trade our jobs. companies looking to invest in our economy will simply move overseas to escape this enormous tax increase. if you need a tangible example of why this doesn't work, look at spain which has been on this plan for 10 years. the result, utility prices have skyrocketed and the unemployment rate today is 17.5%. this is our view of the future. experts tell us that cap and tax will do nothing to cap greenhouse gases, but it will put the united states at a global economic disadvantage because china and india have no reason to enact or follow this policy. we'll put americans out of work but create jobs for developing countries. we need a smart energy policy that will put americans to work, not further squeeze the pocketbooks of this country's families. and yield back. the speaker