bigger and bigger shares of the american economy. there was a survey that said 75% of americans agree that the federal government shouldn't take over the u.s. banking system. that was a poll done in february. more recently 60% say that the bailout loans given to g.m. and chrysler were a bad idea. a new poll on may 3st shows that 67% of americans are opposed to providing general motors with $90 billion -- i'm sorry, $50 billion and giving the government a 70% ownership interest in g.m. 56% of voters said it would be better to have g.m. go out of business. none of us want to see that. but most don't want to see the federal government owning american companies. the federal government is inevitably going to use thattership -- that owner ship to you push its own agenda. robert rice declared if the government is an active shareholder they should and i quote -- "push management to take actions that are not necessarily geared toward higher shareholder return." end quote. think about that statement. they should, the government owns more and m

all of them they're not quite as large as the american economy. we speak of the industrialization of the united states and that has happened america industrial put out 2. 8 trillion per year which means the american industrial output is only larger than the combined output of china and japan and it is utterly vital to understand the scale of the american economy. to begin to measure american power. is extremely important to understand that i will not call it orders of magnitude greater but the power of the united continent native to atlantic and pacific is extraordinarily more powerful than those of other countries and add to the fact never before in human history has a single power controlled all of the sea lanes in the world. the united states navy may not be everywhere, but it can be anywhere. and no other naval force no matter how combined if these are all of the world's navy against the u.s. navy it does not begin to measure up which means if you are in the arabian sea, if you are in a the south china sea, mature in a cabin cruiser in the car

one out of every eight americans is employed in our travel economy. each year, travel and tourism contribute approximately $1.3 trillion to the american economy and international visitors, as senator dorgan just noted, spend an average of $4,500 per person. in economic terms, international tourism to the u.s. counts as an export. instead of shipping our product to a customer overseas, the customer is coming here to spend money on our goods and our services. last year, travel and tourism experts accounted for 8% of all u.s. exports. 26% of all u.s. service exports. in fact, tourism is one of the few economic sectors where we enjoy a substantial trade surplus. travel is a part of the fab risk our state and our country -- fabric of our state and our country, and over the past decade, we know it's been stretched to the brink. while more people around the world are traveling, a smaller percentage of them are visiting the united states. now, this isn't just about our -- our troubled economy right now. this was going on long before. it actually started after

as i said, one out of every eight americans is employed by our travel economy. each year, travel and tourism contribute approximately $1.3 trillion to the american economy. the travel economy contributes $115 billion in tax revenue in state and federal governments and last year, travel and tourism exports, which means the people coming into our country to enjoy our beautiful country, that accounted for 8% of all u.s. exports. in fact, tourism, madam president, is one of the few economic sectors where we enjoy a substantial trade surplus. but things are not going as well as they could or they should, especially when it comes to bringing international travel to the united states. i know you know that, madam president, coming from the state of new york. i see the senator from michigan here with their recent ad campaign enjoying pure michigan. but we need to bring more peop people, more people to this country. now, what does this mean, what's the problem then? well, as you can see, more people around the world are traveling. there were 48 million more global oversea

successful reform is fundamental to the long run help of the american economy. thank you. >> thank you for the study of the council did and for your testimony. i would like to return to reduce the a concept levels -- the idea is that the president has put on the tables twice. that is that there are internal savings and cost cutting that need to be made within how we deliver medicine today, how we deliver health care today. you'd said it is 18% of gross domestic product. when it be said that in your statements. i think that is much higher than almost every other nation, in terms of what we are spending. we are also settled with their health status is not much better. in many indicators, it is worse than nations to spend less. the president has suggested, six under billion dollars in cost- cutting changes and savings and need to take place. some of those will not be adopted by the congress, but they all reflect the understanding that if the current system were paying for utilization, the more you use the more you are getting reimbursed -- wherever you are -- whate

today and yesterday we received all of this new positive commentary about the american economy. i am not saying it is directly related to my speech on monday, however i do believe that, and i thank you for pointing this out that my comments were acrid so please continue and we will add back the time to your statement. >> i will see if i can remember the original. there was what i think it's gone hand-in-hand with the efforts to push for extended federal oversight over transmission. there have been a couple of major studies done by d.o.t. and also done by a group of regional planning entities across the country to look at this idea about how do we actually expanded development in parts of the country where it exists and move that across the multiple regence and deliver it into subregions. of the joined coordinated system plan was a very large technical analysis of how to go about doing that, what the transmission network would look like, a super high-voltage transmission network. as part of that plan when you look at it one of the things it does is it would dump on extra high-vol

something that will affect one sixth of our total american economy and the impact every american life. we have a bill that is incomplete, no final cbo scores, not technical assistance from hhs or cms and we are still headed full speed ahead. those things are absolutely mandatory. if you're going to do good legislation of that to know where you're going and certainly have to have those kind of scores and technical assistance for people who deal with these problems every day. and even though we might not agree with some of the conclusions that they made it is extremely important that we have the best ideas we can and those people who are in the best position to give them. why? what are we rushing so much? what are we trying to hide. this is a much more serious situation than that ill-conceived stimulus legislation. if we fail to do this the right way to simply shut the health reform box we will all suffer the consequences for the rest of our lives. the preliminary cbo's korea today and it is a preliminary estimate was another clear indication at this is moving in the wrong direction ami

it's going to be disastrous for the american economy. it's going to be disastrous for american workers, and it's going to be disastrous for the poor and those who are limited incomes. why do i say that? well, i say that because every single person in this country utilizes energy. every single person when they flip on their light switch, their electric bill's going up. every single person in this country is dependent upon gasoline and diesel fuel. why? even if they use public transportation, it's gasoline and diesel fuel that motivates america. but it's more than that. groceries don't grow in the grocery store. grocery prices are going to go up marketedly because of this tax and cap legislation. every single good and service in this country is going to go up because of this tax and cap legislation. now, i'm a conservationist. i followed in the conservation movement for a long time. we have to be good stewards of our environment and there's no question. i want clean air and clean water just as much as the most environmentalist in this coun

you can't take one-sixth of the american economy and work on a partisan basis. now, there are those at the white house who want to do that. there are some on the democrat side who want to do that. and, frankly, i'm just grateful that the distinguished senator from oregon is not one of them. i personally will do everything in my power to try and put together a bipartisan approach to this that would work and would put the best of the private sector with the best of the government sector to work for our folks in this -- in this country. and if we do it and -- and when you're talking about one-sixth of the american economy, if we do that, it will be to the betterment of our country and to the betterment of everybody. if we go partisan one-size way, and, especially in my opinion with a government-run plan, we're going to be anything but -- but good as far as health care is concerned. i'm grateful for the senator's very kind remarks and i apologize for takin taking thish time. mr. wyden: not at all. i share the senator's interest. there are good senators on both sides

we want to american -- jump- start the american economy. just over 100 diet -- days, the recovery act is over -- just 100 days old. has created job creation in every state in this nation. more than $11 billion in highway funds, highway construction funds have been made available, for a total of 3000 + projects across the nation. i am pleased that today's report shows some signs of increased. there is some direct signs, that what we are doing is having an impact. it is an encouraging sign. i want to make it clear that there will be more setbacks on the road before we get to recovery. we still have a long way to go on the road to recovery. that is why on monday the president and i will be announcing our plans to wrap up the recovery act over the summer. -- lee willramp up the recovery act. getting health care costs under control, and a clean energy future to build this new economy on. together these initiatives will not only sparked job growth today, but we are convinced they will serve as a platform for an economic growth for tomorrow not ba

i expected the american economy to grow at a sub standard level for the next few years. we will pull out, but we will not be growing at our potential. we will be growing at 2.5% as opposed to 3.5%. that is significant. the labor force grows at a percentage point a year. productivity rose at 2% each year. if we do not grow at 3% a year, unemployment goes up. we are facing a long time of high unemployment in the united states. we have not corrected the fundamental structural problems because in this mess. the banking system is not being adequately addressed. the obama bank regulation program says either we continue as we did or take this package that the treasury's separate -- treasury secretary has come up with. he is destroying one agency in creating two new ones. it is problematic in that regard. he is not addressing the compensation issue on wall street. goldman sachs will be giving out a bigger bonuses than before the crisis began. it was the compensation system because the bankers to look for audit derivatives to write, which gave rise to the kinds of prices we had.

caller: what our economy in trouble, we have an undue burden on all americans. are we the world's keeper? are we meant to be over in the middle east salting everybody's problems? guest: mixing foreign policy in our domestic economic circumstance is a mistake. we have some problems with our economic problems abroad. we will always have some issues. to blame it on the un is silly. to limit on foreign policy problems is also selling. -- to blame it on foreign policy problems is also silly. if you think about it, most of the policies are determined in washington. the u.n. does not determine what our foreign policy is. it does not determine our economic policy domestically. it does not determine how we deal with china or others. we determine that. what beijing does has little to do with what the u.n. says it should do. conservatives like to use the jargon that is not helpful. host: here is a tweed question. does your guests think obama should get certain things down to size? such as the defense budget. guest: it requires certainty that it can accomplish its mission.

i can imagine the american economy without american politics. certainly today when the federal reserve is getting into the game. societies, you can divide academic departments very nicely comic economic departments don't talk to political science departments but in real life if you are a bigger you had better be aware of politics you might want to keep military in mind that might affect you as well so the idea of the privacy of economics is a freestanding yves fined, it is unpersuasive to me because i have never seen economics freestanding. the adl of civilizations is persuasive until you drill down to the next level grimness civilizations is often to competing entities and in a country can manipulate the difference is very effectively. for an example the nine states is closely aligned with egypt some two say to the united states it is standing in friction with the islamic world, when the united states has an extremely close relationship with turkey, egypt, and so on, and these are major countries, it is very hard to really recognize the world f

the other thing they heard in the caller's voice was look at the american economy. look at jobs. look at what is happening to people out in the real world. i want to say her i want to say to her, when she said get out of washington, i want to get out of washington tonight and get back to arizona. it is not that we are not mindful about the environment. i care about the environment. it seems to me we need to be focused on a cleaner image of policy -- a cleaner energy policy, and we can. this much cost at this point in time for what appears to be little benefit -- i point out that in europe, with the cap and trade system, they have had very little reduction in carbon dioxide emission. the carbon dioxide emission in the united states went down half as much in the 2008 than europe has since they put through the cap entry program. why do it right now? host: you reference the opinion editorial in "the wall street journal," in which she writes, "the into the truth is that the u.s. temperatures have flat line since 2001. research has debunked the doomsday scenarios about the polar ice ca

i urge all members to protect the american economy and livelihood of millions of american families and say no to this gigantic national energy tax. >> new york. >> i like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts. >> he is recognized for two minutes. >> i want to commend mr. rangel and waxman who have attempted to forge a consensus on this legislation. the bottom line to this legislation as proposed today is that it will make america less dependent on foreign oil. remember, despite what they say, there is an element on the other side of? the concepts of climate change in global warming. it is very difficult to find middle ground if they reject the science of our time. part of our job is to make some difficult decisions. this climate change bill we have before us today makes those tough choices for our future and our children's future. it is in the interest of america and in the interest of the world. america leads the way. this is an opportunity for us to reclaim that leadership. this legislation will lead our consumers, businesses, and communities toward smarter and mor

i urge all members to protect the american economy and livelihoods of millions of american families and say no to this gigantic national energy tax. i yield back. >> the gentleman from new york? >> i would like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts, chairman neil. >> the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. >> i want to commend mr. rangel, who has attempted to forge a consensus on this legislation. the bottom line to this legislation is that it will make american less dependent on foreign oil. despite protests from our friends on the other side, there is an element on the other side that rejects the concept of climate change and global warming. it is very difficult to find middle ground there as a side that simply projects the size of our times. a part of our job in government is to make some difficult decisions and some very tough choices. this climate change bill makes those tough choices for our future and our children's future. it is in the interest of america, but it is also in the interest of the world. america leads the way. this is an opportunity for us to

has the questions about the american economy, the credit market, -- conservatives do not like this bill. they said it favored wall street over main street. the $700 billion price tag is much too much for them to swallow. all systems are go for this vote today. hoping it will not be a replay of that debacle we saw on monday. >> mike, congratulations. >> thank you, bill. mr. president. mr. witt. distinguished guests. this is kind of a surprise. i did write down a few notes on the odd chance that i would actually win this award this evening. i like to thk mark whitaker for allowing me to rise and fall on the merits of my own reporting and my own abilities as a newsman. [applause] tony, our desk assignment editor it is the person who pushed me to organize the entry for the award. and rich, the he strung together the real -- the reel. when i came to nbc, she was very kind to me. she sent me out on the most difficult assignments and have a lot of faith in me. she was hardnosed, had a firm hand in a warm heart. i dedicate this to mary. once again, thank you very much. i want to say hello and a

and keep the american economy competitive while at the same time protecting our environment. we're obviously going to talk a little about climate change. when people ask me about climate change and should we pay attention to it, i always say, "yes, we should pay attention to it. climate change has been affecting the human condition for millenia." and the one major challenge we have that our ancestors didn't have is that there are now about 7 billion of us on the planet. and if jacob should take his family to israel to escape the drought because of climate change, he would find about 90 million people already living there. and therefore, the adjustments that you might have been able to make to deal with climate change in past centuries are perhaps not available to us. so we have an outstanding panel of experts and witnesses available to us. i will withhold any kind of opening statement beyond that until we've heard from our witnesses. but recognize the senators in the order in which they've come. senator alexander from tennessee for whatever comments you might have that you wa

i urge all members to protect the american economy and livelihoods of many of american families and say no to this gigantic national energy tax. i yield back. >> the gentleman from new york. >> i like to yield two minutes to this gentleman. >> i want to commend mr. rangel and others who have attempted to forge a consensus on this legislation. the bottom line to this legislation is that it will make america less dependent on foreign oil. despite the criticism from the other side, some project the concept of climate change in global warming from that side. it is very difficult to find middle gaunt -- ground. we must make difficult decisions and tough choices. this climate change bill before us today makes those tough choices for our future and our children's future. it is in the interest of america and the world. america leads the way. this is an opportunity for us to reclaim that leadership. this legislation will lead our consumers and small businesses towards smarter and cleaner and more efficient energy use. the american business community will not be disadvantaged by importers who ski

i don't know how we can build a strong american economy if our homes are losing value and we face our neighbors facing forbe closure as we go across this country. >> senator, i understand your concern and commend your focus and leadership on this perspective, but this program is a dramatically different program from what was tried under the previous administration. the financial incentives that we put in place here are very substantial and it came alongside a substantial change in policies by fannie and freddie to help finance even for homeowners that were slightly under water. so i think we all want to see results and you should judge us by our results and it will take longer to judge whether this is as powerful as we expect it to be. now, i think if you step back and look at what's happened in the housing market over the last six months or so, partly because of the effect of the recovery program and confidence, partly because of the impact of the fed's programs and the treasury's programs, the pace of decline in home prices has started to slow and that is early signs of us being abl

has the questions about the american economy, the credit market, -- conservatives do not like this bill. they said it favored wall street over main street. the $700 billion price tag is much too much for them to swallow. all systems are go for this vote today. hoping it will not be a replay of that debacle we saw on monday. >> mike, congratulations. >> thank you, bill. mr. president, distinguished guests, this is kind of a surprise. i wrote down a few notes on the odd chance that i would win this award. i would like to thank mark whitaker for allowing me to follow in the merits of my own reporting and my own abilities as a newsman. tony, my desk assignment editor who is the person who pushed me and organized this and there is someone i would like to dedicate this award to. i would like to dedicate this to a dedicated newswoman of the old school. when i came to abc, she was very kind to me and sent me out on the most difficult assignments and she had a firm hand but a very warm heart. i'd dedicate this to mary dorman. once again, thank you very much. i want to say hello and arizona to my

how can you take over autos, health care, have the american economy, and manage it all, no matter how smart you are? so i am the worry wart brown the media these days. i see a guy who is tremendously impressive. he manages his staff so beautifully and talks like no other politician i have seen before. i just wish she was doing less. i just wish there was a little more humility there. maybe i will be proven wrong, because if there is one thing we know about this country, a country that can make a barbecue grill called the weber genesis grill, name of barbecue grill after a book from the bible, can probably achieve anything, but i am still loyal nervous about even as greater president as we have right now. thanks very much. [applause] i have been told there is time for questions. i know you guys from texas tech are out there. i was just at tcu about three weeks ago with bob schieffer, who has that bob schieffer school of journalism. my 10 year-old son fell in love with the young woman who was down there. if there are any questions, speak up. the question is whether penski has not saturn

the risk-reward relationship is at the base of the growth an power of the american economy. now, in the present crisis we've had people saying yes, but there are some entity that's are simply too big it fail. we must not allow them to fail. and particularly in the financial services industry and so that's why we have this proposal today from the obama administration. they want to deal with systemic risk or those tier one entities which they describe which comes down basically to what i said: they're too big to fail and we're not going to allow them to fail. and this is the regulatory regime we will setup. mr. president, if there are companies or entities that are too big to sale, this regime is too big to function. it is so focused on preventing failure that it is stacked in such a way that it will penalize the risk taker and prevent the risk taker from taking a risk and, therefore, from reaping any kind of a reward. there's a heavy emphasis on consumer protection. i'm all for consumer protection. i think we should have all of the kinds of regulations that say you need label

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 the past. there is a lot of criticism and we

companies and thereby helped to generate jobs in the american economy so we see this as a very productive partnership and we would certainly hope that going ahead we can build on this and strengthen this rather than face constraints.@@@ @ rbrbrbrb %rbr u.s.-india relationship. we had an entirely hyphenated relationship in which we talked about indopak and we talked about the subcontinent as you suggested earlier the phrase as a zero-sum game. if we did it for india we had to do it for pakistan and if we did it for pakistan we have to do it for india. india has become a little bit of a after-thought and we have talked to afpa, which but at least in my mind it's highly regrettable. now, before we talk about some of the national security challenges. i just wonder on this hyphenated question how you feel we can sort of get past that, whether it's a perception in india as well and perhaps, you know, as you think about it, last week the -- last week the senate passed a kerry-lugar bill that has $1.5 billion in assistance per annum with very few restrictions to pakistan. i don't think that it's

we are talking about the future of 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

they'll figure out how to make this deal work and it will be at the expense of the american economy and american jobs and american families who will be punished with this legislation. so, i appreciate my colleague leading the fight tonight, giving us this opportunity to talk to each other, the speaker, about what's going on, because this is, as i told everyier -- earlier this afternoon, there's an old movie that was entitled "bad day at black rock." this was a bad day at black rock for this country. i yield back. mr. gohmert: i yield to my friend, mr. souder. mr. souder: you've made a number of parliamentary points today during the debate and on the floor, you're an experienced judge as well as a congressman. is he allowed to use factual science on the floor? i don't know if we're allowed to really debate this stuff. this is mostly an ideological bill, not a factual bill. as mr. conaway correctly said, did they come to a conclusion and then make the facts fit the conclusion? it is really disturbing. much of what's behind this is in fact that there is a group of people who feel guilty ab

economy but actually they're not. they're not at all. and they are instead actually not wanting the american model to fail, but on the other hand what they don't like is the message that we really have to at least deliver to ourselves, shanghai -- and i have been in some polluted plays, shanghai takes the cake. it is staggeringly temperature -- turbid with the most emphysema ridden place in the world, raw,en contained discharge of pollutants and they're bringing tragic problems to themselves. i'm not saying that america that has to look at china and gloat. this is one of the expectations out of easy abundance into other times where we are stewards of our own resources. this, ties is an american tradition. one of the chapters in the book, called american plenty, is about water, and water is going to be an absolutely incredibly major problem for the west in particular. lake mead is running at 50% of capacity. i'm not sure what the snow melt shortfall is this year but i think it was projected to be dire. and when we are

we'll try and combat that by making our position based on principle and on the american economy. but we'll also be articulating our alternative, which are -- our all of the above strategy. which every time i talk about that in indiana or elsewhere around the country, it is met with overwhelming approval. the american people know how we can steer a course toward a cleaner environment to energy independence and even create jobs. and it's by doing all of the above. >> one of the ongoing debates in the house and senate is cost to the average american household. now, we, you and i and other reportors have discussed this at press conferences. you continue to use this figure of 3100 per household. >> right. >> the nonpartisan congressional budget office came in, and it's not an apples to apples comparison, and said, no, $140 per household. your figure comes from a source at m.i.t. congressional budget office certainly is a credible source. how is the constituent supposed to sort this out? how can you explain in lay terms how much it's going to cost without sounding partisan? >> i think

small businesses and their workers, the backbone of the american economy, are suffering. as recently as 16 years ago, 61% a small businesses offered health care to their employees. today, only 38% do. last week i was ivisiting business owners in new jersey who met with me the sacrifices they have had to make in their company to provide health benefits to their employees. even then, some of their employees cannot afford the care they need. we spend more on health care than any other nation but are not any healthier. only three developed countries in the world have higher infant mortality rates. our nation ranks 24th in the life expectancy among developed country. more than 1/3 vs are obese. we know that 75% of our health costs are spent on chronic disease. without reform, these problems only get worse. in 2008, we spent an estimated $2.40 trillion on health care. if we do nothing, by 2018, we will spend $4.40 trillion. today we spend about 18% of our gdp on health costs. doing nothing, those cost reach 34% gdp by 2040 and 72 americans will be -- sidney 2 million americans

economy, how these people have been the vanguard of the economy for decades, not forever, but for a long time. they basically ran it off a cliff. what they want now is just to go back to the status quo. put all the pieces back together again, i don't want people to think that i am too pessimistic about obama. president obama said in in an interview with the new york times, obama basically said that we cannot continue down the path that we have been going. wall street cannot be the people running the entire economy. we can never go back to that situation. he singled out in particular the financial industry's compensation practices. when i went to college in the 1980's, i guess i was kind of stupid. i went on to study history. i got a ph.d. in history. all of the other kids that i knew went on to go work for wall street. that was so obviously what the writing on the wall was telling you. this was the future. these guys were pulling down fantastic sums until about eight months ago. i agree with the president that we cannot go back to that. these people can't just be taking the loot of

economy is needless. it is dangerous. it is outrageous and it won't allow the american people to see what's happening. so they may stay with that deadline. as people figure out what they are trying to do they are going to be offended by this rush that the american people are getting to restructure not only the economy but their health care. their family's in a time frame that doesn't make sense, hoping that they can seek a government takeover of health care through before the american people realize what everybody agrees will be the consequences of that. you know, even the democrats say government competitor, that's a good thing. i think jan recently in a speech said -- and people on the other side are saying a government competitor means there will be a single pair system before too long and she went on to say you're right. that's what they side believes and that's what we believe. they won't want to that to happen and health care providers are stepping forward saying they don't want it to happen either.

economy and throughout the world. if we go back to a world where the basic consumer financial products are just steady, they have a level playing field. nobody should be protected for making and mistakes, -- making a mistake, if you spend money you do not have you should pay for that, if you buy a house you cannot afford, you should have to pay for this. but ordinary people who have done ordinary transactions deserve ordinary instruments, to do that. this will help us at the family level and will completely reform what the financial institutions look like, to give us a more secure financial system. >> someone who has been making money off of taking advantage of families, in the long run, the economy and the credit markets will come out better? >> i cannot say it better than that, that is the answer. >> thank you. >> thank you for holding the hearing today, and thank you for your leadership and thank you for what you are doing. i have always believed that we have to restore stability. to do this we have to have the bes

we do not support this kind of suicide for the american economy. i urge my colleagues to oppose this. leagues to oppose this legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: i want to yield to >> he was instrumental in getting the first draft of the information that we were dumb. as a knowledgeable individual in this area, from a constituency that has a special concern, he was able to negotiate with us so that we could reach some of the accommodations in this legislation that has made it a much better bill. i want to yield to him with great admiration five minutes. >> i in thank the gentleman from california and congratulate him on the tremendous leadership that he is shown in bringing this measure to the house floor this afternoon. i ask you and them is consent to revise my remarks. i'm a strong support to the bill. i urge its approval. it if she is a broad reductions in greenhouse gases, enhances energy security, and by placing a price of carbon dioxi

economy needing continued access to cheap energy and where you think that cheap energy should come from? ok? quacks i think the important thing is weak -- >> i think the important thing is we have placed too much emphasis on having a broad spectrum of energy sources. i think for the base load that we talked about, day in and day out, there is nothing in the same class with nuclear. we are used to comparing things a few percent apart. the density of nuclear compared to anything non-nuclear -- it is a question of tens of millions. your non-nuclear system will be using huge quantities of material that has to be gathered up, transported, processed, and dealt with. that is a tremendous burden on the earth, and it is also a tremendous cost that you should not be having to runo.

americans are going to be offended by the bombs rush to restructure, not only economy, -- not only the economy, but doing it in a way that does not make sense. they realize that everybody agrees it will be a consequence. some people are saying, the government competitor is a good thing. people on the other side are saying that a government competitor means there'll be a single payer system before too long. she went on to say, and they are right. you can find that statement on youtube. we do not want that to happen, and they do. health-care providers our understanding is stepping forward, saying they do not want it to happen. >> you cited a 83% of americans like what they have in think is pretty good. the polls do show that. what responsibility does congress have? many of those people are wrong. they may like what they have, but it is overpriced and over insured. what responsibility does congress have to dissuade them from the fact that their insurance is pretty good. should people who use super of louis care? should they pay taxes -- should people who use superfluous care, should they

we do not support this kind of suicide for the american economy. i urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: i want to yield to the gentleman who had been the chairman of the energy subcommittee on our full committee last congress and who was instrumental in getting the first draft of the legislation we worked off, but more importantly, as a knowledgeable individual in this area and from a constituency that has a special concern about the problems, he was table negotiate with us so that we could reach some of the accommodations in this legislation that has made it a much better bill. i want to yield to him with great admiration five minutes to the gentleman from virginia, mr. boucher. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. boucher: i thank the gentleman for yielding and congratulate him on the tremendous leadership he's shown in bringing the issue to the house floor this afternoon. ski unanimous consent to r

i urge all members to protect the american economy and livelihoods of millions of american families and say no to this gigantic national energy tax. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from new york. mr. rangel: i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts, chairman neil. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. neal: thank you very much. i want to commend chairman waxman and chairman markey who have aterpted to forge a consensus. the bottom line is, this will make america less dependent on foreign oil. despite protestations to the contrary from the other side, there's an element on the other side that rejects to this day the concept of climate change and global warming. it's difficult to find middle ground if there's a side that simply rejects the science of our times. part of our job in leadership and governing is to make some difficult decisions and indeed some very tough choices this climate change bill we have before us today makes those tough choices for our future and our children's

so as the president is trying to sell this on the basis that we need it for the economy, 28% of the americans really believe that's the case and, frankly, mr. president, i share their skepticism. it's going to hurt, not help. we need to reform health care right. and i think there's much more virtue in doing it correctly over doing it quickly. president obama promised change. but there's nothing new about dramatically increasing government spending. and adding even more to our national debt. i hope that some of my friends on the democratic side as well as republicans can agree that when it comes to health care reform, we should embrace real changes that support medical innovation and put patients first. that's the answer, that's what the american people want. mr. president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. durbin: consent to sp

our system is a great strength for the american economy. it does a great judge. we need to do a better job of making things more stable. >> but switch subjects. the toxic assets buying program, is that debt? >> not at all. when the president came in, we had a financial system that was very damaged. banks were weak and could not raise equity. they were not able to lend because of the cloud of uncertainty over the banking system. the credit markets were not functioning very well. we put in place a framework of facilities to replace those core features of our financial capital markets. if you look at where we are today, we made substantial progress. we had a huge amount of equity coming into the banking system. we had about $70 billion come back to the treasury. a comparable amount went into the system new and fresh. banks were able to raise capital much more easily than we thought, partially because of the disclosure transparency. even the asset backed securities markets that were so damaged crushed -- are starting to show signs of life. we're starting to see marke

we're going to allow you to leave, of course and go about your business of saving the american economy or lunch, whatever is on your schedule. but we thank you very much for being here. we'll send you some questions that you might'?'?'?'?'?'?g?g?gc >>> pleased to welcome douglas shulman, well ee mersed as the 47th commissioner of the internal revenue service. thank you for your service and pledge to lead the irs from good to great. each year irs employees make hundreds of millions of contacts with american taxpayers and businesses and represent the face of our government. approximately 93,000 employees and the accounts receivable department of the u.s. and fiscal year 2008, the irs collected 2.7 trillion dollars, 96% total federal receipts. the more revenue the irs collects, the more they have to deal with the challenges to face our nation and ease the tax burden on the citizens we believe to be deserving of that. conversely, the less revenue, the less revenue they have for tax cuts or for worthy expenditures. proposed a budget of 12.1.26 billion for the irs. with support 95,081 ftes,

economy. mr. speaker, i'm saddened i was not allowed to offer an amendment but i hope we can work to address the concerns of those who make their living selling previously owned vehicles. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentlewoman from ohio is recognized. ms. sutson: may i inquire how much time we have? the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from ohio controls 13 minutes and the gentleman from michigan controls 16 minutes. ms. sutton: it's my honor, madam chair to yield two minutes to chairman waxman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. waxman: thank you for yielding time to me to speak in favor of h.r. 2751 the cards act. i worked closely with congresswoman sutton and others for this. i believe it hit thets trifecta, it's good for the economy, good for consumers and good for the environment. for the auto industry it means a big leap in sales when they nee

in which there is of the world economy and a new and external deficit of the american economy was a clear manifestation of them. of for example to look at what germany is doing they refuse to really have an expansion of the budgetary policy and that they refuse to do that and at the same time they're taking a lot of measures to increase competitiveness, they have just recently cut the taxes on electricity where the major exporting corporations which means a lot because this is still quite industrial country. if you take away all the taxation of the electricity price that these companies pay, you are increasing the competitiveness, visavie belgium or france or other european countries substantially. so my conclusion at this point is that the major european countries are rewriting on that this stimulus produced in the united states and they're just waiting for the moment that the american demands start running again, that the u.s. will start importing again and then be ready when the competitive export start, but that is -- i see a lot of things also in france going in that direction.

it is a fascinating story to see how the american economy is taking a real parallel today in 2009 with the same course of action that was taken back in the great depression. members of congress right now. very pertinent to what we are doing. if we are going to apply the principles of big government intervention we see how it played out in the 1930's. prolonged. the forgotten. plus we have been able to here from her personally. we had her here. speaking at a luncheon. he had not yet written liberty and tyranny. but since the book there have been so much excitement in washington about that. and i am hopeful that he will come back and allow us to here from him personally. that is the number-one book that i am encouraging all americans to read. >> to read more summer reading lists visit our web site. >> guy mcpherson is a professor at the university of arizona and he is the author of "living with fire." is there a national fire policy? >> there is, actually, a national fire policy. it developed during the clinton administration. it has largely been abandoned. what we currently have is a ve