greenhouse gases is coming from the transportation sector. >> very simply, i would say that increasing public transportation use of public transportation especially in suburban urban areas would do a lot in decreasing our oil depend si and decreasing our carbon emissions. i would also add using trains for long distance freight will also do a lot and then using the trucks for the more local distribution. i mean, there's an ad that's been running for a couple months. for every metric ton of freight it's something like 400, 700 miles per gallon if you use a train. and so trucks cannot get there. >> thank you. thank you, madam chair. >> senators, if you could please try -- before do you a 2-minute leading up to your question but leave a minute; otherwise, we're not going to get to everybody. okay. senator alexander? >> thank you, madam chairman.

it was testified before our committee that a low carbon fuel standard was a more effective and efficient way to reduce carbon from fuel than a cap-and-trade system, would you agree with that? >> i wouldn't say -- i won't make a judgment as to whether it's more or less. i think it is an important tool that -- >> so you don't agree with it? i only got 3 minutes? >> i think it's important. i won't say whether it's more effective -- >> would you please look into it -- i mean, he testified that it was very inefficient and the low carbon fuel standard would be more efficient. dr. chu, do you believe the hundred or so nuclear power plants that we have operating in america today and the -- i guess it's classified number of nuclear submarines of reactors that we have operating today are being operated safely? >> yes. >> do you agree roughly with the figures that carbon is the principal greenhouse gas that is

contributing to global warming? >> yes, i do. >> and would you agree that coal plants contribute about 40% of the carbon of that carbon? >> i'm not sure the exact number but something around that number, yes. >> and that nuclear plants, while only producing 20% of the electricity, produce about 70% of the carbon-free electricity? >> i agree with that. >> then wouldn't it be true if we're just looking at the next 20 years while we're figuring out how to lower the cost and improve the reliability of renewable energy that the fastest way to produce clean, large amounts of clean reliable, low cost clean electricity would be nuclear power? >> i believe that restarting the nuclear power industry is very important in this overall plan of reducing our carbon emissions in the united states. >> but isn't it obviously -- i mean, solar and wind and other renewables on which the administration seems to be absolutely fixated in which i

think are fine and useful only produce 6% of our carbon-free electricity. nuclear produces 70% and as you said, it's being operated safely here. france is 80% nuclear. we taxpayers are helping india and china build nuclear plants. the president has said iran may. why don't we have the same level of enthusiasm for nuclear power that we do for wind turbines? i know that miss jackson said free nuclear power but she didn't say yes, more reliable wind or yes more competitively costed solar power. what's the reluctance here. >> from me you're not going to get any reluctance. as you may know, i think nuclear power is going to be a very important factor in getting us to the low carbon future. the department of energy is doing with its tools everything it can to help restart the american nuclear industry. with the loan guarantees we're

pushing as hard as we can on that. we are going to be investing in the future in bettering the technologies and, quite frankly, we want to recapture the lead in industrial nuclear -- in utility nuclear power. we've lost that lead as we lost the lead in many areas of energy technologies and we should get it back. >> thank you, madam chair. >> thank you so much, senator. that was well done. senator lautenberg? >> thanks, madam chairman. i ask secretary chu, you're a nobel prize winning physicist and we congratulate you for that ability to attain that kind of recognition. is it possible that global warming could be a conspiracy to mislead or be a hoax in any way

or is it really related to human activities? >> well, i think one has to understand how science works. the entire reason for doing science and the feedback of this is that if a scientist can prove what might be generally accepted as wrong and that scientist, that lone voice is right, that person becomes very famous. so there is in the intimate structure of science, this ability to say, give it your best shot. if this is what is a strong consensus, give it your best shot and prove it to me. so what has happened over the last several decades, quite frankly, is there were many, many people, still continuing to look very, very hard at the facts and analysis and the whole peer-reviewed system is a very

strong check and balance against a global hoax. >> thank you. administrator jackson, are you aware of the fact that america in 2006 had 250 million vehicles. in 1990, 189 million vehicles on the road. and now there's 62 million more quarters on the road. could that create air quality problems for us? >> absolutely, senator. >> i wasn't sure. i wanted to ask you this, miss jackson. are you aware that there are now 26 million americans, including 9 million children, with asthma? these rates are double what they were in 1980. does that indicate any -- is

there any indication of poorer air quality that would be consistent with that kind of growth? >> i'm well aware of it, senator. i'm a mother of a child who has asthma and we know air pollution and air quality are directly linked to problems with asthma. >> yeah, so my grandson is not unique. >> no, not at all. >> thank you very much, madam chairman. >> thank you so much, senator. senator barrasso? >> thank you very much, madam chairman. administrator jackson, i'd earlier talked about an article in the "wall street journal" saying the epa silencing a climate skeptic. well, you know, that's not an isolated case. i sent you a letter on may 13th to you as well as to the director of the office of management and budget regarding the leaking of a small business administration attorney's name who wrote part of an internal omb memo highlighting the negative economic and the additional consequences of using

the clean air act to regulate climate change. once this memo was released to the media the attorney was smeared as a bush appointee despite her being hired during the clinton administration. there was really bipartisan concerns about the leaking of that person's name. even the -- in the house, the small business committee ranking member nadia valesqez leaking that name that attorney ability to serve three administrations, democrat as well as republican speaks to her ability and talent and her objectivities should not be questioned. i've not gotten a response back from my may 13th letter from you. i've included information to that from senator whitehouse calling for an investigation. do you know when i'll receive a response to that letter? >> i don't know. but i'm happy to check on it for

you >> thank you. there was an article in the "washington post" yesterday deconstructing the climate bill, questions and answers on the mammoth house measure. the climate bill approved by the house last month started as an idea and fight global warming and wound up looking at an unabridged dictionary. it runs to run give-aways meant -- would this bill stop climate change? would this bill stop climate change? and their answer is, no, it would not. do you agree with the "washington post"'s assessment that this bill will not stop climate change or do you disagree with the "washington post" on this? >> i did happen to see that article, senator. and i agree with their assessment that this bill is the

right start in that it sends a strong signal and that you all in the senate have work to do and i respect the fact that you're starting that work. >> so your impression is that this bill, as we are looking at right now will not impact on climate change? you agree with the article? >> well, we already had a discussion earlier about the fact that what the united states does is important in terms of entering the clean energy race in terms of reducing our dependence on oil that comes from outside of our country and in terms of creating millions of jobs so this is a jobs bill. it's an energy bill and it's a climate change bill and we will need to work internationally to affect changes on global climate change. >> thank you, madam chairman. i would like to add some written questions if i may now that i've run out of time. >> sure. >> thank you. >> senator carper's next. >> a number of our republican colleagues on this committee and a number of republican colleagues in the senate are very enthusiastic about nuclear

energy. they see there's no end how much. i'm a strong advocate of expanding nuclear power as well. i'll be real honest they're looking for somebody in the administration who's excited and interested and passionate about it as they are. and when i look at the lineup of the people in the administration i come to you as someone who knows more about this stuff and can be a advocate and what, if anything, we can do in climate change legislation to be supportive of nuclear. and i would just ask to you put your thinking cap on and help us to do that, if you would, please. second, miss jackson, thank you so much for joining us today. senator lautenberg already mentioned this and i'm going to come back to it. in 2007 we passed cafe legislation as you'll recall. at the time, it was estimated that we effectively took 60 million cars off the road in terms of the emissions reduction and gasoline consumption. 60 million. when the administration a minute or two ago moved ahead by four years, the effective date of

cafe from 2020 to 2016 at the roughly 36 miles a gallon we basically doubled the effect of what we had done in 2007. the last time we raised cafe standards was in 1975. we thought, boy, we're going to save a lot of energy and reduce a lot of fuel consumption but you know what? we didn't because we kept driving more cars. we drove further and we continue to drive more and we can -- given what we've seen in 2007 and what the administration has done with cafe we may end up making no progress if we don't figure out how to get to us drive less. i would like you to be helping us as you approach the markup on this bill. how do we think differently and actively to make sure we don't repeat the mistakes we made in 75 and '85 and frankly up to this day. and lastly, former governor tom vilsack, good to see you. my question to you, in the waxman-markey bill the agricultural offsets are being controlled and verified by the

department of agriculture, how would your agency and the u.s. department of agriculture adopt to the role of regulator it's a role that i don't think usda has tried to assume over the years. or is -- take that if you will. we got this situation where epa has adopted or is considering adopting usda conservation standards as a way farmers are meeting air quality requirements. is that true or not? could a similar requirement work with epa and usda for climate? >> senator, we already work as partners on a number of environmental issues. i see this as a partnership with all of my fellow colleagues at this table. obviously, usda has unique assets in terms of its ability to be in virtually every county in the country. it has technical expertise in this area. that it needs to lend and add to discussion, but i certainly see this as a partnership. i think epa has a set of unique tools as well and we need to figure out how best to use our

unique characteristics and assets. >> good, thanks. >> thank you, senator. senator crapo? >> thank you, madam chairman, because of our limited time, secretary chu, i'm going to focus all my questions on you. i want to come back to the question of nuclear power. there are so many other issues we want to deal with but the issue of nuclear power is one we do need to pursue more fully. first of all, i appreciate your stand on nuclear power and your efforts to work to help us make it an integral part of our energy policy. as i'mooking at some of the efforts to develop a renewable energy standard here both in the senate and in the house, one of the things that strikes me is nuclear power is not allowed to be counted as a part of renewable energy base. i think all of the proposals that are surfacing right now. can you see any reason why we would not allow nuclear power to be counted in that process?

>> well, it is being assisted as already pointed out by the fact that it is a carbon-free source of energy. there are considerable -- i mean, strictly speaking it's not a renewable energy is the short answer. >> neither are many of the things that are counted but go ahead. >> it is being assisted when you have a carbon cap and you reduce that cap and it greatly favors nuclear power. we have -- we're administering $18.5 billion loan guarantees that we hope will bring four new nuclear power plants up. we are looking at ways to help the nuclear regulatory agency speed up using our expertise and our modeling analysis capabilities. i think we can help them speed up the approval processes. so i think -- and ultimately the rate-setting commissions around the country that these are -- local jurisdictions should look towards nuclear power as, you know, is it worth it to invest

in this clean source of energy? >> but is there any reason why we shouldn't count nuclear power in the base of those calculations? >> in the base of what? >> for -- >> well, it's certainly counted in the base of getting off carbon generation. >> i understand. well, let me ask this. with regard to the loan guarantees that you mentioned which i think are one of the key issues we should focus on in terms of strengthening nuclear power, do you have any timeline for advancing the next -- >> we're working very hard. i hope by the end of the summer or early fall to make announcements. >> all right. thank you. i appreciate that. as you know that's very critical and i would say that it seems to me the question that senator carper is one if i had more time i would ask you now and i would hope you would provide some written answers perhaps following the hearing on this. and what can this committee do as an energy bill to do the best job that we can to facilitate our country's reenergizing of

the nuclear industry? i know you don't have time in four seconds to answer that now if you would give that some thought and give us is written reply i would appreciate it. >> i have a couple of requests. i'll be glad to do that. thank you. >> thank you. here's what we're going to do. we have to go fast now because we have the swearing-in on the senate floor and our good panel has been here forever so we're going to go sanders, bond, udall, merkley and we got to end on time. go ahead, senator sanders. >> thank you very much. there has been discussion about nuclear power in questions to the panel. what's the reluctance? well, i have a reluctance. do you know why? do you know why, nuclear waste is highly toxic. we don't know how to get rid of it. the folks in yucca mountain don't want it. maybe the people in wyoming want it and missouri want it but and we'll send it there. but right now to the best of my knowledge no state in the union

wants this highly toxic waste. secretary chu, are you providing loan guarantees to solar thermal plants? >> pardon? >> solar thermal plants in the southwest. >> we're certainly reviewing the applications at present. we haven't provided -- >> my understanding there are over a dozen plants on the drawing board ready to go. and if we're talking about putting money in nuclear energy we don't know how to get rid of that waste i would hope we're prepared to entertain projects which are based on solar thermal. and let me go right to secretary salazar. you mentioned a moment ago in your testimony, which i strongly agree with -- i think you said we have the potential to produce something like 28% of the electricity in this country from solar thermal. is that what you said? >> 29%. >> okay. and what are we -- i think that's an extraordinary

statement. i agree with you. how are we proceeding and when are we going to see the creation of solar thermal plants? >> the renewable energy revolution i think is something which we have begun with some help from this congress but under president obama's leadership opening up this new great opportunity for all of us and just to give you an example, senator sanders, in nevada, just 10 days or so ago, we announced moving forward with renewable energy applications for solar, which we expect -- we will have some 14 solar power plants that will be under construction by the end of next year, 2010, and just those projects alone will create some 50,000 jobs here in the united states of america. >> it's extraordinary. >> and that's just the beginning of this -- >> that's extraordinary. and thank you very much for your leadership on this. i wanted to ask secretary vilsack a question. in europe right now there's a huge growth in use of wood

pellets. in my state we have over 35 of our schools are heating with wood, middlebury college switches from oil to wood, saves huge sums of money what do you see the potential in terms of biomass as an important part of the energy revolution? >> it's a significant part of it and it's recognized by the energy title of the farm bill that was passed in 2008 that created opportunities for the usda to provide grant money to encourage woody biomass opportunities as well as the recovery and reinvestment act also provided additional resources. they are being put to use in a number of projects. there's a significant potential. the whole point is to diversify and have as many options in terms of any reductions that occur in the united states and woody biomass -- >> and it's to create a whole lot of jobs in the woods as well? >> no question. and these are jobs that will most likely be in rural communities which helps significantly revitalize the rural economy. >> thank you very much.

>> senator bond? >> thank you very much, madam chair. we're looking forward, dr. chu to having a real effort to reprocess the nuclear waste that we already have as france has so successfully shown that we can get rid of that waste using what we already have. i would direct a couple of questions to my former neighbor, secretary vilsack about farmers. the strong signal that this bill seems to be sending to farmers in my state is that they're going to face higher costs for farm equipment, fuel, fertilize fertilizers, driving costs, transporting inputs in and goods to the market. do you have any information to show that farmers will not be heavily impacted by this particular -- or the waxman-markey bill or whatever we come up with here?

>> senator, we're in the process of completing a review of the economic analysis, but i would say two things. first, there's no question that innovation is going to make a significant difference in terms of costs. speaking recently to a seed company executive -- he told me he believed it possible to increase productivity in our part of the world by as much as 100 bushels to the acre and still reduce input costs by a third. so that has to be factored into it and secondly, there's no question in my mind that if the offset program is impacted with verifiable offsets at the end of the day, farmers and ranchers will benefit from this. >> how are farmers going to get benefits from the offsets? >> well, they'll be able to -- they'll be able through the use of land, through cover crops, through altering how they use fertilizer to how they raise livestock to what they do with their land -- i mean, there are a series of steps that can be taken and will be taken that will generate opportunities for offsets. >> well, i look forward to

working with you 'cause as we've discussed before, there are tremendous opportunities. we've got new technology that will lower the cost of enzymes with a genetically modified soybean to move forward cellulosic ethanol. if we drive natural gas through the roof as many of these plans would we're going to see the end factor going up and you mentioned, for example -- i guess your testimony manure factors but in california they are costing between 2 and $3 million. how do you make that pencil out for a farmer. >> there's tremendous opportunity for livestock feed that will potentially reduce those gases. that's also an offset opportunity.

there is also no question that when you create biorefineries and regional opportunities to use the waste product of agricultural production for fuel, you have created less transportation costs and you have created yet another income source. i think we are just on the cusp of a revitalized rural america and i'm confident with the broadband money, energy policy you're going to see an increase in economic opportunity in rural america. >> thank you very much. >> new plan in order to make sure governor barbour can do his we have rich hawkins, mayor fetterman and the haley barbour who has a tough schedule but jeff merkley is going to come back here at 12:45 with senator

inhofe 'cause senator inhofe wants to be there for that and any other members who want to be here to just hear from the governor. then i will come back at 2:00 and hear from the three other panel members. so with that, we've got to continue to move quickly so, senator udall, you're on. >> thank you, madam chair. secretary salazar, great to have you back. as you know western states face immediate impacts from climate change. according to the report on climate change impacts, that report found that human-induced climate change appears to be well underway in the southwest. recent warming is among the most rapid in the nation. this is driving declines in spring snowpack and colorado river flow. this report found that colorado -- the colorado compact was based on unrealistic assumptions when it allocated the water and the river among the seven basin states which include colorado, new mexico, and california. according to climate scientists,

if we fail to reduce global warming, vast areas of the united states will likely face severe water shortages. how would you describe the specific costs and benefits of action and inaction to the average western farmer and rancher or residence of western cities like denver and albuquerque particularly as it relates to water resources? >> thank you very much, senator udall. i think for all of us from the west and dry arid places we know that water really is the life blood of those communities. we see what's happened with drought in new mexico and now in california and in many other states. and that's why most water managers, including farmers and ranchers, are very concerned about what is happening with climate change in terms of the changing precipitation patterns that we see in the southwest. what is happening is that the snow packs are melting a lot sooner than they used to which then impacts the capacity of storage that was built under other assumptions in some cases

over 100 years ago and so it is an area of major concern among water users and farmers, ranchers, municipalities, industrial users of water from california to arizona to new mexico and colorado and so we're going to continue to see more of a concern with respect to those precipitation pattern changes. >> thank you. and secretary vilsack, you have a few seconds here to also comment on that with respect to the forests and water supply and watersheds. >> well, first of all, senator, the cost of inaction i think are unacceptable. and i can tell you from my visit recently to colorado, there are significant economic consequences to the forest problems that are being experienced as a result of invasive species and the beetle. secondly, that's one of the reasons why i think as you discussed this and why the house discussed it that they focused on the fact that forests, private land forests, state forests and i also believe the u.s. forest service has an

opportunity to participate in a meaningful way in terms of adaptation and also mitigation. and i think that needs to be factored into your deliberations and considerations. >> thank you very much. thanks, madam chair. >> thank you. senator merkley? >> thank you very much, madam chair and i wanted to address this to secretary salazar and possibly secretary vilsack. oregon has a tremendous amount, millions of acres of second growth forests that is overgrown. it's a disaster in terms of carbon dioxide 'cause those forests are prone to burn down. they're bad for disease and yet they're very -- they're not growing in a fashion that's most productive for either timber or for good ecosystems. thinning strategies and healthy management strategies can address that. one possibility is that by changing those practices on those lands, we have a significant impact on carbon dioxide but since you don't have a private partner, it's not clear how the offsets would work

if purchased from the forest service if you will. but the communities greatly need revenues in order to conduct forest-thinning programs. and the communities need revenue to offset the lockup of these lands. and this goes back to basically the secure rules goals challenges that we've had and have you thought about that issue on changes forces on public forest land could benefit this issue and how we could direct revenues with the health of our forests and our communities? >> senator merkley, the answer is yes, we have thought about it and i think there are two different things that can be done. one is utilizing some of the biomass that is coming off our forests within just the department of alone we oversee about 500 million acres so that's a huge amount of land that's out there and there's tremendous fuel there that could be converted over to biomass fuel and our renewable energy world.

and secondly, as we look at legislation that deals with energy and climate change, one of the things that should be on the table for consideration is the whole sense of offsets that would include private lands for agriculture as secretary vilsack has spoken. we might also want to take a look at some of the public lands in oregon. >> the senate is in the process of putting together a new strategic vision for the forest areas for managing and operating the forests with a climate change and water direction. we think if we do this we will manage and maintain the forests more properly. we will provide better maintenance. we will provide greater opportunities, economic opportunities, both in terms of timber and also in terms of recreation. so you can be assured that we are taking this into very serious consideration in terms of the strategic vision and direction for the forest

service. >> i really look forward to working with both of you on this because currently we viewed our forests as a source of dimensional lumber but we can view them as you made note as a source of biomass that can be utilized in biofuels or used in cogeneration and produce jobs and energy. but there's also the chance of changing those practices and viewing our public forests as an opportunity for offsets or sequestration or that could be a source of revenue so we could get a triple view of our forests and i think that's very appropriate in the type of review that y'all are all talking about. it would be tremendous for the health of our forests, certainly for our ecosystems, for the impact on carbon dioxide in the air. and the strength of our forest communities. so thank you very much for your interest and pursuit of these issues. >> senator, thank you so much. i want to say to this panel, thank you so much for working with us on this. this is a challenge of our

generation. we're all going to work together so just to reconfirm. governor haley barbour will be a witness at 12:45 and jeff merkley will chair that. and then we'll come back at 2:00 pm for the rest of the panel. we stand adjourned. thank you again. >> we take you live now to the u.s. capitol as the senate resumes work on homeland security department spending for the next fiscal year. live coverage on c-span2. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c, july 8, 2009, to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1,

paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable tom udall, a senator from the state of new mexico, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: robert c. byrd, presidet pro tempore. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: following leader remarks there will be a period of morning business for one hour, republicans will control the first 30 minutes, the majority will control the second 30 minutes. following morning business the senate will resume consideration of the homeland security appropriations act. there will be five minutes to debate prior to a vote in relation to the sessions amendment with the time equally divided and controlled between schumer and sessions. upon the disposition of the sessions amendment there will be two minutes of debate prior to the vote on the demint amendment with the time equally divided and controlled between senators murray and demint. senators should therefore expect a series of votes to begin at approximataty -- probably about 20 until 11:00 today. additional roll call votes are expected throughout the day.

the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: every wednesday down on the first floor office, the meeting room, there's -- there's a prayer breakfast. members of the jewish faith and chrisian faith appear there and talk about their life experiences. today was really a tremendously stimulating day. senator ted kaufman from delaware made the presentation. i bring that to the senate's attention for a number of reasons. one, is that ted kaufman has really a stunning life story. not the least of which is starting in 1972 with a 29-year-old man by the name of joe biden who stood no chance of being elected in the state of delaware running against a man who had served in many different

positions, including a member of the house of representatives, governor and was a sitting senator. but this young 29-year-old with ted kaufman helping him to run his campaign was elected, surprising everyone. and, as we know, senator biden recently elected on top of the world barely old enough to serve constitutionally after having been in the senate for a little over a month, his wife and daughter killed, his two boys were badly injured. and ted kaufman served with him as a staffer until i think about 1995 when he went into the private sector and came back as a united states senate, appointed when senator biden was elevated to become vice president. but the most important part that i want to relate to the senate today is that he said from the time he left here in 1995 until

today when he came back as a senator, is the civility that is here that wasn't in the senate in 1995. he said the atmosphere here is so much better now than it was in 1995. and so everyone should appreciate what ted kaufman said. we have tried, mr. president, -- president obama, i've tried. i hope that's helped civility here. we have to understand as senator kaufman indicated to the members assembled there today, there is a difference between democrats and republicans, philosophically. but that doesn't mean they can't work together as friends and he gave a couple of examples of senators here on the floor debating and then walking off shaking hands. mr. president, last month i stood here and told everyone about a young woman from nevada

named elisha. she was born with a kid any disease. one that she fought bravely her entire life. lately things have gotten worse. like far too many americans in recent months, elisha lost her job and that's happened to far too many americans. when you lose your job, as we've learned, your health care often disappears along with your job. elisha did what any of us would do in the same situation, she tried to get independent coverage to get the surgery she needs to get better. her doctors say that surgery is imperative. the insurance companies say, no, you can't get insurance. they refused to cover her. they call her kidney disease a preexisting condition. everyone else, including elisha calls it a tragedy. she is not the only one who has written to me about injustice.

caleb is a also student. like so many kids, when he was younger, he played so many games, he just sticks to skiing and rock climbing. he he was born without any legs. caleb was born without any legs. as kids grow, they grow out of their shoes. a lot of kids get a new pair every year. caleb has needed a new set of prosthetic legs every year since he was 5 years old. you can probably guess what the story is now, and you've got it right. his insurance company has decide it had knows better than his physicians and has decided that caleb doesn't need legs that really work and fit. even after look at pictures of the bruises and abrasions that caleb suffered from the prosthetics that didn't fit, his insurance company decided once again that his preexisting condition is too expensive to deal with. these stories are hard to hear,

but they're not hard to come by. they're extraordinary, but they're not unique. this happens to women all over southern nevada just like -- elisha and boys like caleb, it happens to americans in small towns and big cities. every day insurance companies look at a patient's medical history and the prescriptions they fill and then they deny then coverage or charge exorbitant rates because of the patient's age or specific illness. for every 10 americans who try to get a health plan, nine. they can't get a plan. most of us were born with not the kidney disease like elisha and, unlike caleb, we're born with our legs. unless you're in absolutely perfect health without a risk of anything from heart disease to high cholesterol to hay fever,

you're out of luck. some insurance say that c-sections are unnecessary. more than half of all americans live with one chronic condition and those conditions cause 70% of the deaths in america. right now insurance companies care more about profits than people are in complete control of their well-being. they're holding american health hostage and far too many of us can't afford that ran some. reforming health care is a complex endeavor. one part of democrats' vision for health care is simple, we're going to give people control over their own health. we're no longer going to let greedy insurance companies use a patient's preexisting condition as an excuse to deny them the coverage they need. we'll lower the costs of high health care. we're lower the costs of health care generally. we'll make sure every american has access to that quality,

affordable care and we'll do our very best to make sure that people still have the power to choose their own doctors, hospitals, and health plans. if we leave it up to private insurance companies that are more interested in keeping their profits up than keeping us healthy, that won't happen. nor will it happen if our republican colleagues continue to defend the status quo. we've got to change our health care delivery system in america. a few weeks ago the republican leader from the house of representatives said the following and i quote -- "i think we all understand that we've got the best health care system in the world." end of quote. how can one defend a health care system that goes out of its way not to care for people's health and how can anyone celebrate such a system with a straight face? that health care system told elisha she can't get kidney surgery she needs, that health system won't let caleb get the legs he needs. insurance companies, as most of our republican colleagues seem

to share a common philosophy, they both recklessly say no for no good reason. that's philosophy we can't afford in america. if you're fortunate enough to have coverage you like, you can keep it. if you don't like the fact that your insurance company can deny you coverage whenever it feels like it, you'll agree we need to change the way things are. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is read served. under the previous order there will now be a period of morning business for one hour with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or designees with the republicans oh, controlling the first -- republicans controlling the first half and the majority controlling the final half. the senator from tennessee is recognized. mr. alexander: i ask that the senator from arizona and i be permitted to engage in a colloquy for 20 minutes.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. alexander: mr. president, i heard the majority leader talk about denying care and that's the issue before us, one of the major issues. the vision of republicans is that there won't be someone in between a patient and a doctor who would -- who would get in the way of the treatment that you need or the care that you need or have you stand in line or -- or wait too long. and our great fear is that the democratic proposal so far, which we've not had -- in which we've not really had a chance to participate would put the government in between you and your doctor and the government doing the rationing. republican proposals such as those of senator gregg and senator burr and senator coburn and even the bipartisan proposal by senator wyden, a democrat, senator bennett, a republican, which i'm a cosponsor of all, envision a system where those of us, the 250 million of us who have health care insurance would be permitted keep it and we would find a way to reform the

tax code to give to individuals who don't have good health care the money they need to buy the health care and choose it for themselves. row concern is that the government -- our concern is that the government might become too much involved and we might create a program so filled with more debt on top of the debt that we already have that our children and grandchildren simply couldn't afford it. senator mccain, the senator from arizona, has been, i guess, in more town meetings about health care than any other american. at least any other american who serves today in the united states senate. he was in texas last week and home last week in phoenix, some of our leading institutions to hear what people had to say about it. and i wonder if i could ask the senator from arizona if he heard concern from those in his home state of arizona or those at m.d., anderson in texas about the government getting between the patient and the doctor? mr. mccain: first of all, i would like to thank the senator

from tennessee about his leadership on this issue. it's a privilege to serve on the "help" committee with him and his continued involvement in the ongoing discussion and debate about one-sixth of america's gross national prod you the uct hats been vital. i thank my friend from tennessee. could i pick up on what you were just saying? the majority leader criticized republican leader in the house who said america has the best health care system in the world. what the republican leader in the house was saying was the obvious. america has the highest-quality health care in the world. and as the senator from tennessee just mentioned, i was in houston at m.d. anderson with the republican leader, the senator from kentucky and senator cornyn from texas, and there were people there from 90 countries around the world. 90 countries, most of them wealthy people who could have gone anywhere in the world for

health care. but they went to the best place in the world: m.d. anderson. or one of the best, i would argue. we have some facilities in arizona and probably of tennessee that are of equal quality. but is there any doubt when people come from all over the world to the united states of america that the highest-quality health care isn't here in america? it is. the problem is -- the problem is -- and i'm afraid some of my colleagues don't get it. it's not the quality of health care. it's the affordability and availability of health care. and our effort has been to try to make health care affordable and available. the latest -- the latest proposal of the democrats is that it only covers -- their latest proposal only covers 40% of the uninsured and costs trillions of dollars. why not let people go across

state lines to get the insurance policy that they want? why couldn't a citizen of arizona who doesn't like the insurance policies that are available there find one in tennessee? why not have meaningful malpractice reform? we all know where 10%, 15%, 20% sometimes of health care costs come from. they come from the practice of defensive medicine. everybody knows it. it's the elephant -- it's one of the elephants in the room. and so, therefore, we do not have, and consistently in the "help" committee amendments that have been proposed by the senator from tennessee and me and others to reform medical malpractice have been voted down. the state of california some years ago enacted meaningful and significant medical malpractice reform, and guess what? it has decreased health care costs. so we're not getting -- i say to

my friend from tennessee, and i hope he agrees, that it's -- we're going at the wrong problem. the problem is not the quality of health care. we want to keep the quality of health care. it's the cost and affordability of health care. and we have not yet gotten affordable and available health care for all americans. mr. alexander: i completely agree with my friend from arizona. i think of the pregnant women in rural counties in tennessee who have to drive all the way to memphis, all the way to nashville to get prenatal health care because their ob-gyn doctors, all their medical malpractice cases have driven up their insurance and there is no way for them to get health care. i listened to the majority leader talk about the tragic case in nevada of someone unable to get health care because of a preexisting condition. if i'm not mistaken -- and the senator from arizona knows all the proposals -- i believe all the republican proposals would say that everyone would be

covered. that preexisting conditions would not disqualify you. the issue before you is whether we're going to add trillions to the debt or put the government in between the patient and the doctor. mr. mccain: i totally agree. could i mention since the senator from tennessee and i are going up to another meeting in the "help" committee, the "roll call" article this morning says -- and i quote -- "senate majority leader harry reid on tuesday strongly urged finance committee max baucus to drop a proposal to tax health benefits and stop chasing republican votes on a massive health care reform bill. reid, whose leadership is considered crucial if president obama is to deliver his promise on enacting health care reform this year, offered the directive to baucus through a intermediary after consulting with democratic leaders during tuesday morning's regularly scheduled meeting. so, in other words, according to this article, any shred or

semblance of bipartisanship is now out the window. so i think the senator from tennessee would agree with me, one of the very dispointing aspects of this whole debate is we really haven't changed the climate in washington. has there ever been, to the senator's knowledge, a call to sit down at a table in a room with leading republicans and democrats and say, "hey, can't we work this out? what is your proposal? here's ours. can't we sit down and agree to save health care in america and preserve its quality and make it affordable and available?" the same way, way back in the 1980's when ronald reagan and tip o'neill sat down together and they saved social security. mr. alexander: the senator from arizona -- mr. mccain: this is really unfortunate that even the last shred of attempts at bipartisanship is now gone. maybe it's because the 60th

democrat vote was sworn in yesterday. maybe they figure they have the votes. but it's not -- and maybe they do. but anybody who alleges that this administration, and on the other side of the aisle is changing the climate in washington, that is simply false. mr. alexander: probably no one in the senate, if i may say, who more times than the senator from arizona has been in the midst of bipartisan negotiations, and it's not just for the purpose of feeling good. it's the way to actually get broad base of support for an energy bill or immigration bill or supreme court nominee. and usually it involves, if i'm not mistaken, sitting down with several members on each side, coming to a consensus, really sharing ideas and then fighting off the left and fighting off the right and producing 60 or 70 votes. that's the way we really do bipartisan bills around here, if i'm not mistaken. mr. mccain: i say to my friend, indeed. one of the issues that i think

we ought to continue to understand as one of the key elements of this debate is whether we will have the so-called government option. and i know the senator from tennessee is going to talk about that. i think it's important for us to look overseas at other countries that are highly industrialized, highly sophisticated, strong economic -- economies. countries that have adopted government-run health care. and to say that a government option would be just another competitor clearly is not the case. otherwise we would just have 1,501 new insurance companies in america. if you have the government option, it will lead to government takeover of health care, and we ought to look at what other countries do. and i'm sure that the senator from tennessee knows that. but it is health care rationing and a level of health care that would not be acceptable in the united states of america. and i say that with great respect to our friends in canada, the british and other

countries that have government-run health care systems. so that, i think, is going to be one of the two major issues: government-run health care and the employer mandate. those is what this health care debate will really come down to. and it's of great concern. i know it is to the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: i thank the senator from arizona, and i know that he's on his way to work on the health care bill, to take the leadership to the extent we can in making it a better bill. i thank him for coming to the floor to discuss that today and to help us reemphasize that we don't have any disagreement with our friends on the other side about the need to reform health care. i don't think we have any disagreement, at least we want to make sure that our principal goal is to make it affordable for every american. we want your family and you to be able to buy health insurance at a price you can afford and to take care of tragic cases such as the one the majority leader talked about.

i think there is a consensus on both sides of the aisle to make sure that if you have a preexisting condition, you can be insured. and it won't matter where you live. the wyden-bennett proposal, for example, and others as well also say that you may carry your insurance from one job to the other so that if you lose your job or change your job, you still have your insurance because it is your insurance. it doesn't just depend upon your employer. what we are concerned about is president obama's administration has proposed over the next ten years more new debt, three times as much new debt actually, as this country spent in all of world war ii, in today's dollars. that's the first thing. and the second thing is this idea of the so-called government option. the government -- someone says what's so bad about that? think of it this way.

let's say you put an elephant and some mice in one room and you say, "okay fellows, compete." what do you think will happen? pretty soon there are no mice left. they're all squished, and you've got a big elephant left and that's your only choice. we have an example of that in the current medicaid program, which is one of the worst government programs imaginable. 60 million americans are stuffed in it primarily because they're low-income or disabled t.'s run jointly by the federal government and by the state government. every governor -- and this has been true for 25 years, from the time i was governor -- have struggled with finding money to both fund the state's share of it and still have money for higher education and for the other state needs. it's filled with waste. the congressional budget office says that one out of every ten taxpayer dollars that are spent for medicaid is fraud, waste, or abuse. that's $32 billion a year.

that's $320 billion over ten years, enough to make a real dent in whatever we decide to do on health care. yet, the democratic proposals that we're seeing involve putting more people into that government program. the problem for the taxpayer is how expensive that is. i've got a letter from the congressional budget office dated july 7 to senator gregg, the ranking member of the budget committee, which i ask unanimous consent to place in the record. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. hrebgs threbgs's from douglas elmendorf, the director of the office of budget with whom i'm about to meet along with other members of the health and education committee. it says the proposal envisions that medicaid -- that's the democratic proposal -- would be expanded to cover individuals and families with income below 115% of the federal poverty level. that sounds good, but the draft legislation doesn't include provisions to accomplish the

goal about three-quarters of the people whopld remain uninsured under this legislation. in other words, even though we're spending more on this proposal, a lot of people are uninsured and three-quarters of them are going to be dumped into medicaid. for the federal government, that's hundreds of billions of new dollars that we'd have to borrow. and the thought is that over time it would be shifted to the states. and in the state of tennessee, based upon conversations we've had with the state medicaid director, it might add an amount of money to the state's annual budget that would be equal to the amount that a new 10% state income tax would take. now, if it -- that's not even the worst thing about it. the worst thing about it is what it would do to the low-income americans who are stuffed into the proposal. 40% of doctors won't see medicaid patients for all their

services. 40% of doctors. so if we say congratulations, we're going to run up the federal debt and add a big state tax in order to stuff you into a proposal where 40% of the doctors today won't see you, it's like giving you a ticket to a bus system that doesn't have any buses. now what's the alternative to that? the republican proposals are completely different. they focus first on the 250 million of us who already have health insurance, to try to make sure that it's affordable to us, that we can afford it. and then we say let's take the money that's available and give it to the low-income americans and let them buy, choose, a private health insurance policy more like the policies most of us have instead of stuffing them into the medicaid proposals which are filled with inefficiencies, can't be managed, and which many doctors won't work with. that's a better course.

but unfortunately our voices aren't being heard on that subject. we're going to continue to make our case. we've got the burr proposal, coburn proposal, the wyden-bennett proposal. all are different in the government option and all don't run up the debt. the wyden-bennett proposal, which is the only bipartisan proposal before this body today, with several republican senators and several democratic senators, adds zero to the debt -- zero to the debt -- according to the congressional budget office. now maybe, as we go through, if we were seriously considering it, we would find the need to add some costs. but at least we start with the idea that instead of adding $1 trillion, $2 trillion, or $3 trillion over the next ten years to the federal deficit and dumping a new program on the states after a few years, which the states in their bankrupt condition in some cases can't afford, at least we'd start 0 out with an increased deficit of

zero. we're almost working at the wrong end here. our biggest problem facing the country is the cost of health insurance to every american. not just the uninsured americans, but the 250 million who already have insurance. and the other big issue is the cost of government caused by the rising health care costs. and we've gotten away from thinking of ways to bring that under control. there are even proposals floating around to take savings to cut medicare and medicaid and use those dollars to help pay for the democratic plans. mr. president, if we reduce the growth of spending in medicare, we should spend it on medicare, which is increasing at a rate that's going to cause our children and our grandchildren never to be able to pay off the national debt. so republicans stand ready to work with democrats to produce health reform this year despite

the majority leader's quote that it's time for senator baucus to stop chasing republican votes. we're glad he's chasing republican votes and we hope he gets some. but the way that we do that around here usually is a group of 15 or 20 senators like senator mccain and others sit around and say, ok let's put our ideas together and come up with an consensus bill, and not operate from a procedure, we've won the we recollection, we have the votes -- without the broad base of support, it won't be successful. we've made our proposals. the burr proposal, the gregg proposal, the coburn proposal, the widen-bennett proposal. senator hatch and cornyn have a slightly different idea that would give the known the governors and let them find way

to cover individuals. the presiding officer: there is one minute remaining. mr. alexander: i thank the chair. we have an imaginitive democratic governor in tennessee who has brought the medicaid program there under some control and has come up with several innovative ideas. the difficulty he and other governors have is that it takes a year to get permission from washington to try their innovative ideas to offer the kind of health care to low-income individuals that they might need, which could be different in tennessee and different in california so, mr. president, this is the biggest issue before our country today. it is certainly the biggest issue before congress. republicans have our proposals on the table. we're ready to go to work. we want to make sure that there are no preexisting conditions that are left out to qualified people. we want to make sure that everyone is covered. and that we have access to health care at a price, a cost that the family budget can afford. and we're resolute in our

determination not to add trillions nor the national debt and not to dump new debt on the states and we're resolute in our determination not to dump low-income people into a failing government program called medicaid when a much better alternative, as we have presented, is to give them the credits and give them the vouchers and give them the cash so that he they can purchase private health insurance and have coverage more like the rest of americans have. i thank the president. i yield the floor. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana is recognized. mr. vitter: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for up to 15 minutes. the presiding officer: the senator's advised that the senate is in a quorum call. mr. vitter: in that case, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to call off the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. vitter: and now ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for up to 15 minutes. thank you, mr. president.

the presiding officer: will the -- in my capacity as the senator from new mexico, i object.

mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: mr. president, i rise to speak in morning

business. mr. president, the issues before the united states senate are sometimes weighty and complex, historic. i don't think there's any greater challenge this senate has faced in modern times than our current debate over health care. this is such a major part of not only the american economy, but of our every day lives that it's hard to think of another issue that we have tackled in the senate which will be so far-reaching. the american people understand the need for change it comes to health care. even if they have a health insurance policy today that they value and trust, they're worried about tomorrow. the cost, the availablity, being denied coverage for a preexisting condition, losing your job and losing health insurance. a child who turn age 23 and is

on their own in the health insurance market. a lot of uncertainty that we need to be very serious about. when we think about these issues, many times we put them in the context of washington. in washington the issues are about the people that you might see in the corridors, they're lobbyists representing special interest groups who can afford to send people to talk to senators and congressmen. they represent doctors and hospitals, health insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, medical device companies. they all have an interest in this debate becaus because quite honestly it goes to the bottom line, whether or not they will be profitable. and they, of course, want to maximize their profits, if they can. but the people who are not in the corridors are the one that's we ought to be thinking about as well. these are average americans who got up this morning and if they're lucky enough, went to

work, work hard all day, came home bone weary, trying keep the family together, get ready for another day tomorrow. i think of a mother like karen golba in my home state of illinois. she's a single mom with a 12-year-old boy with asthma. mr. president, i went and visited about ten years ago the university of chicago children's hospital, and the head physician there, the admitting physician at the hospital in the emergency room said to me, "senator, what would you guess is the number-one diagnosis of kids going into emergency rooms in america?" and i said trauma? they fall off their bicycles and things like that? he said, no, asthma. asthma is the number-one reason children are sao*efpb at emergency rooms across -- children are seen at emergency rooms across america. it surprised me because my family has been spared of that problem. i started thinking a lot more about it.

i came to the senate and started talking to my colleagues. i went to ted kennedy, sat back there in the back row, and i said i'm thinking about an asthma awareness effort. he said count me in. my son has asthma. and then i went across the aisle at the time to spencer abraham, who was a senator from michigan, republican senator. i said, spencer, i was just surprised to learn about this asthma being the number-one reason kids go to emergency rooms. he said i know all about it. i grew up with asthma. pat moynihan, who sat in the back row here, same story. it dawned on me that even though this hadn't touched my life personally, it had touched the lives of many people in this chamber and a lot of american families. well, karen golba is one of those families. the primary care physician for her son, her 12-year-old son, prescribed daily doses of a lot of medications. singular, alegra, two different kinds of inhalers. add these medications to the

stratera he's taking to regulate a.d.d., you can see that access to medication is essential in the day-to-day life in this typical active 12-year-old boy in my home state of illinois. there's more to karen's story. karen has a stable full-time job earning a salary of $31,000 a year plus benefits. she falls right into the range of what we call middle-class working americans. at first karen's health insurance premiums were affordable. they reduced her paycheck by $52.50 twice a month. $105 a month. however, costs for that health care have risen dramatically over the last few years. karen is now paying over $300 a month for her premiums alone. remember, she makes $31,000 a year, gross. this doesn't include the $500 deductible for her share of costs for office visits and prescriptions. the yearly cost of health care for karen and her son is now so

great that it's hard forer to keep up with other payments that she has to make, just the basic necessities: food and gas for the car and car payments. she's barely scraping by. she refinanced her condo twice this year just to stay out of credit card debt. she's tried everything to bring down her health care costs. she's looked for other health insurance options in the private market, but because her son has what we call a preexisting condition of asthma, she's been denied coverage. karen golba is not looking for a handout from this government. she just wants some help from the country that she supports as a loyal tax-paying american citizen. all she wants is affordable health insurance. all she really wants is some peace of mind as a mom that her kid is going to have what he needs to lead a normal life. that's what this debate is really about. it's about the uninsured, 50 million who don't have

insurance, but it's also about karen -- a hard-working mom who's watched the cost of health insurance triple in a short period of time and who worries about whether or not she can keep up with it. i listened to a lot of debate coming from the other side of the aisle, and i hope that i'm not misinterpreting it. but it seems that for some on the other side of the aisle, they don't view this as a matter of urgency. they don't see this as a -- an issue that really requires our immediate full-scale attention. i see it differently. i really think this gets to the heart of why we're here in the united states senate. we're not here to stand on the floor and make speeches. we're here to pass laws that make life better for america. it gives a chance for a stronger nation, stronger families in the years to come. and sometimes we have to tackle some of the issues that are the hardest. president obama has told many of us privately and said publicly many times if health care reform

were easy, they would have done it a long time ago. it's not easy. it's not easy because the current expensive system is rewarding people, unfortunately, for the wrong things. i've referred on the floor before to an article in the new yorker on june 1 by guwandi. he went to mcallen, texas, to figure out why in the world, in that town, that small town the average spent on medicare recipients was $15,000 a year, one of the highest in the nation. he couldn't find a reason. there isn't a situation where there's a disease there or elderly people are sicker. what he found out was that the doctors in that town were billing everything imaginable. they were throwing in tests and procedures, piling one on top of the other because they got paid more. the more they do, the more they bill, the more they get paid.

one of the doctors said it's defensive medicine. we can get sued. another doctor said that's not the case at all. texas has one of the tightest med mal laws in the nation, limits the amount anyone can recover from a medical malpractice suit and not many suits filed. the bottom line is these doctors have an incentive to bill more to the medicare system because they get paid more when that happens. now you go to a place like rochester, minnesota, at mayo clinic where the doctors are on salary, and their goal is not to pile up the procedures but to get the patient well. and you find the cost of treating medicare patients dramatically less in rochester, minnesota, than in mcallen, texas. how do you create an incentive in our system for the right outcomes? healthy people with quality care available to them and reduce the overall cost. our health care system spends twice as much as -- per person

as any other nation on earth. our results don't show why that money's being spent. they don't prove that that really is working to make us a safer, healthier nation. so now the argument on the other side is that we've got to be careful because we might end up with a public option. that is a health insurance plan as an option that americans can choose that might be government sponsored. i don't think that's wrong. in fact, i think that's healthy. it's important that the private health insurance companies who now rule the roost have competition. somebody keeping an eye on them to make sure that they treat people fairly. i think a public plan that doesn't have a profit motive, that doesn't worry about marketing and doesn't have high administrative costs could be that plan, that option, that competitive option that keeps the private health insurance companies honest. many on the other side have stood up and said government

health insurance plans are a bad idea. really? 45 million americans are under medicare today. elderly, disabled americans covered by medicare. i've not heard a single person on the other side of the aisle say let's get rid of medicare, it's a bad idea. and you won't hear that. there's another 60 million americans who are covered by medicaid, our health insurance for the poor. i haven't heard any suggestions on the other side of the aisle of eliminating medicaid. so 105 million americans, one-third of our population, are currently insured through a government plan. i think it's a healthy thing as long as the government plan that we're talking about is trying to bring costs down and expand coverage so everybody has the benefit of health insurance, then i think it's a good thing to build into this system. so the debate will continue, as it should, at the highest levels now. but there's one option we cannot accept, and that's the option of

stalemate and the option of failure. i don't know that i'll ever have another moment in time in my public career to seriously take on the health care reform issue. the last time was 15 years ago under president clinton. so we have to seize this opportunity. we're lucky to have a president who has stated to many of us and many of the leaders in congress that this is a priority that he's willing to fight for, even at the expense of his political popularity. he wants to get this job done. that's the kind of leadership this country needs on an issue that is critically important to every single person, every family, every business and, frankly, to the economic future of our nation. so i encourage my colleagues, try to find that common ground, try to bring together a bipartisan approach here. compromise on both sides that comes up with the best approach. let's bring in those medical professionals who really can help us get to a good place. and let's give peace of mind to karen golba and so many other

americans who worry every day about coverage for their kids and the people they love. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. specter: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. specter: i have sought recognition to discuss, first of all, the pending nomination of judge sonia sotomayor for the supreme court of the united states. judge sotomayor comes to this nomination with impeccable credentials: summa cum laude at princeton. yale law school, on the "yale law journal." a distinguished career in private practice.

an assistant district attorney with d.a.morganthal in manhattan. service on the united states district court, trial court. and now serves on the court of appeals for the second circuit. the conventional wisdom is that judge sotomayor will be confirmed. but not withstanding the convention wisdom, under the constitution it is the responsibility of the senate on its advice and consent function to question the nominee to determine how she would approach important issues. it also presents a good opportunity to shed some light on the operations of the supreme court of the united states in an effort to improve those operations. it has been my practice recently

to write letters to the nominees in advance, as i discussed it with judge sotomayor during the so-called courtesy visit i had with her, and she graciously consented to respond, or to receive the letters, and was appreciative of the opportunity to know in advance the issues which would be raised. sometimes if an issue comes up fresh, the nominee doesn't know the case or doesn't know the issue and may be compelled to say, well, let me consider that and i'll get back to you. so this enables us at the hearings to move right ahead into the substantive materials. the first letter i wrote involved congressional power and the adoption by the supreme court of a test on congruence and proportion -lality which justice scalia called the flabby test which enables the court to in effect legislate.

the second letter involved the prospect of televising the supreme court to grant greater access to the public to understand what the supreme court does. and the third letter which i sent to judge sotomayor yesterday involves the issue of the court's backlog and the opportunities for the court to take on more work. chief justice roberts, in his confirmation hearings, noted that the court -- quote -- "could contribute more to the clarity and uniformity of the law by taking more cases." the number of cases that the supreme court decided in the 19th century showed that it is possible to take up more cases. in 1870, the court had 636 cases on the docket, decided 280.

1880, 1,202 cases on the docket. decided 365. 1886, the court had 1,396 cases on the docket. decided 451. and not withstanding what chief justice roberts said at his confirmation hearing, during his tenure the number of cases has continued to decline. in 1985 term, there were 161 signed opinions. in the 2007 term, with chief justice roberts in charge, there were only 67 decided cases. the court has what is called a cert pool where seven of the nine justices, ex-colluding only justice stevens and justice scalia have the clerks do their work and suggesting that the

justices spend a little time, if any, on the cert pools except to examine a memo in this sort of a pool, raising a question as to whether that is really adequate on individualized justice with the individual justices considering these issues. now, justices can't consider the thousands of cases which are filed, but there may be a better system as justice alito have it with their taking their own individual responsibility. there's another major problem in the court, and that is its failure to take on cases where the courts of appeals where the circuits are split. there are many such cases. in my letter to judge sotomayor, i have identified some. the cases are important issues like mandatory -- the pro

priority of a jury consulting the bible during its deliberations. justice scalia in dissenting on one of the refusals to take up a case with a circuit split said this: dissenting, justice scalia wrote -- quote -- "in light of the conflicts among the circuits, i would grant the petition and squarely confront both the meaning of the constitutionality of the section involved. indeed, it seems to me quite irresponsible to let current chaos prevail." close quote. well, that's the kind of chaos which prevails when two circuits split, the case may come up in mother circuit or the precedence are divided and it seems to me the court ought to take up the issues. that could be ameliorated by a

change in the rules. now four justices must agree to hear a case, and i intend to ask judge sotomayor her views o on e subject and her willingness, perhaps, to be interested in taking cases with only three justice ors or perhaps two justices. the refusal of the court to take up these cases, is very serious by its denial of consideration of perhaps the major or at least a major conflict between the power of congress under article 1 of the constitution to deny the foreign intelligence surveillance act which provides for the exclusive way to have wiretap warrants issued, contrasted with president bush's

warrantless wiretap procedures under the terror surveillance program. the detroit district court found the terrorist surveillance program unconstitutional. the sixth circuit it decid decit would not decide the case by finding a lack of standing. in a letter to judge sotomayor, i cite the reason of the dissenting judge showing the fleflexibility of the standing doctrine and then the supreme court of the united states decides not to decide the case. and it so happens in so many matters what the court decides not to decide may well be more important than what the court actually does decide. so these are issues in which i intend to take up with judge sotomayor. i ask consent that the text of my letter to judge sotomayor be included in the record. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. specter: now moving on to a second subject. "the new york times" today has a -- an analysis of health care which bears directly upon the legislation which will soon be considered by the congress on comprehensive health care. the article focuses on prostate cancer to raise the issue -- for illustrative purposes to raise the issue that the key factor of holding down costs is not being attended to under the current system because there are no determinations as to what is effective. the article points out that the obvious first step is laying out -- is figuring out what actually works. and it cites a number of

approaches for dealing with prostate cancer vairying from 2 -- varying from $2,500 t to $12,300 to $23,000 to $29,000 to $51,000. and notes that drug and device makers have no reason to finance such trials because insurers now pay for expensive treatments even if they aren't effective. and the article notes that the selection customarily made is the one which is the most effective. i have talked to senator baucus and senator dodd and have written to them concerning my suggestion in this field. and i ask consent that the text of the "new york times" article be included in the record together with my letters to

senator baucus and senator dodd. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. specter: it is my view that this is a critical, arguably indisputable taken up in the comprehensive health care reform and certainly weighs heavily in my mind and that is to fund the national institutes of health at the $30 billion currently as the base plus the $10 billion in the stimulus package for a base o of $40 million. the results from medical research have been phenomenal with decreases in stroke, breast cancer, and many of the other health maladies and to combine that with legislation i introduced, senate bill 914, which addresses the issue taken up by "the new york times," and that is to make a determination of what actually works.

there has been identified a so-called valley of death between the bench and research and the bedside and application of the research. the pharmaceutical companies do not take up this issue because of the cost. this is something which ought to be taken up as the federal government is the dominant funder for the national institutes for health, so should the comprehensive health care include this issue to address in a meaningful way the very high cost of medical care. certainly if the tests make determination that the lesser expensive items are the ones which ought to be followed, that could be the federal standard and that could prevail. i ask consent that my discussion on this subject appear in a

separate caption under morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. specter: moving to yet another subject, there -- there is a major miscarriage of justice currently being perpetrated on the victims of the holocaust and their survivors. the "washington post" a week ago sunday on june 28th, or two weeks ago sunday, pointed out that holocaust survivors and their heirs are battling museums and governments for the return of thousands of pieces of lootd

art despite the promise of countries a decade ago to resolve the claims. at a meeting in prague, jews are siemied in their efforts to regain art stolen by the nazis. an estimated 100,000 artworks from valuable masterpieces to items of sentimental value are lost or beyond legal research of their victimized owners or descendants. this is one of our last chances to inject a new sense of justice into this issue before it's too late for holocaust victims. the article goes on to point out that in december 1998 after many world famous museums were found to have nazi tainted art in

their collection, representatives from 44 countries net washington and -- met in washington and endorsed guidelines for investigating claims of lost or stolen items and returning them to their rightful owners. notwithstanding of that international determination, the program has not been carried out. the -- the article goes on to cite the case involving mr. michael kleptar, a real estate project manager from prague, who has been trying for nine years to persuade the czech national gallery to relinquish 43 paintings that once belonged to his great uncle, a prominent collector who was deported to poland and perished in the jewish ghetto. proctor's wife and daughter also died in the nazi camps.

the national gallery in the czech has refused to part with the painting saying a law adopted in 200 by the czech government that allows only holocaust victims of their quote direct descendants to file claim for the property." the minister of culture for czech has identified 15 of the looted art works as national treasures, a designation that does not allow them to be taken out of the country. mr. klapter went on to quote that this country, referring to the czech, like most of the region has always been anti-semitic through the centuries. the only difference now, it's not politically correct. that's the root of the whole problem. i'm writing today to secretary of state clinton asking thoar

use the persuasive power of the department of -- asking her to use the persuasive power of the department of state to rectify this problem. also writing tight department legal -- to the state department legal counselor asking what enforcement action could be taken to tribunal to rectify this situation much i ask that the "post" article and my letters to secretary clinton and state department legal adviser be included in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. specter: i ask further that the comments on this victimization of the holocaust victims be printed in the congressional record under a separate section of morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. specter: mr. president, i have been asked by the leader to propound a unanimous consent request that the order of jul july 7, be modified to provide

that after the senate resumes h.r. 2892, the time until 10:55 a.m. be for debate with respect to the sessions amendment number 1371 and all other provisions of the july 7th order remain in effect. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. specter: i thank the chair and yield the floor. the presiding officer: morning business is closed. under the previous order the senate will resume consideration of h.r. 2892, which the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar 95, h.r. 2892, an act making appropriations for the department of homeland security for the fiscal year ending september 30th, 2010, and for other purposes.

the presiding officer: the senator from south carolina. mr. demint: thank you, mr. president. i'd like to speak briefly about an amendment that will be up in a moment this morning. it is about our southern border in this united states and we've made some promises to the american people to secure our southern border. we pass -- southern border. we passed laws that are not currently followed and we are seeing the result of that in mexico as well as the united states. our southern border has become a battleground. it's a place where not only immigrants and illegal workers come into our country, but weapons trafficking, drug trafficking, real security issues. we're destabilizing mexico with all a that is going on because -- all that is going on because we refuse to carry out our promise to the american people to secure that border. we cannot have security in the united states unless we have a

secure border. we passed a law that say that's we have to have 700 -- say that's we have to have 700 miles of reinforced double-sided fencing along the south -- southern border of the united states. of the 700 miles, 307 miles were required to be built by december 71st of last year and we have -- 31st of last year and we have not met that requirement. in fact there is only 330 miles of single-layer fencing and 40 miles to be built. they claim 661 miles are left to be completed but that includes single-layer fencing. they continue to speak of virtual fencing which basically are just detectors if someone is going across. all the evidence is that it does not work well, if at all. the point of my amendment is just to keep our promise to the

american people. let's move ahead with securing the border. i don't like a fence. i don't like the way a fence looks. but in this world today, where we're threatened in many, many ways, it is critically important that we're able to determine who comes and goes and what comes and goes on the borders of the united states. you know, my amendment does two things. it requires 700 miles of physical pedestrian fencing to be completed, and it sets a deadline by december 31, 2010. we can do this if we just make that commitment and fund it in this bill. a physical fence is effective compared to untested hupbz of millions of dollars on the virtual fencing that they're trying to substitute, even though we passed a law that says we need to secure the borders. so i want to remind my colleagues we made a promise to the american people. we passed a law. this is a country based on the rule of law. and we need to follow it here in

congress. we need to fund this and we need to set a deadline sore that this promise will be fulfilled. i encourage all my colleagues to vote for the demint amendment this morning. i yield the floor. mr. sessions: recently the bureau of labor statistics reported that the unemployment rate in june of this year had jumped to 9.5%, 467,000 jobs were lost in june alone. this is the highest unemployment rate in 25 years. we passed earlier this year a stimulus bill, this congress did the purpose of it was to create jobs and to reduce unemployment. we were told if we passed that bill, that unemployment would top out at 8.4%. well, it just hit 9.5%.

reports released by the heritage foundation and the center for immigration studies have estimated that 15% of the construction jobs created by the senate stimulus bill would go to illegal immigrants. about 300,000 jobs. the question is: is there anything we can do about it? and the answer is yes. we have an e-verify system where employers voluntarily all over the country are using a computer verification system to determine whether or not the job applicant that appears before them is legally here and entitled to work. the federal government uses that same system for every employee it hires, but we did not require that for government employers

who get contracts under the stimulus package, contractors who get money under the stimulus package are not required to use e-verify. the system is pretty successful. it's not foolproof, but secretary napolitano of homeland security recently said this: "the administration strongly supports e-verify as a cornerstone of work site enforcement and will work to continually improve the program to ensure it is the best tool available to prevent and detear the hiring of persons who are not authorized to work in the united states." so, mr. president, that was a good statement from homeland security, but the reality is that president bush's executive order that was to take place in january has been -- and it would have required all government contractors to use e-verify, has been pushed back four times.

so that's why i've offered this legislation. it's perfectly appropriate for congress to pass legislation to require this. i have been advised today, though, of some good news. secretary napolitano apparently will issue a statement later today saying that after three or four extensions in putting off the e-verify mandate for government contractors, she will issue a -- that order. so that's good news. so what would my amendment do? number one, it would make that not just a presidential policy subject to delay or implementation or withdrawal whenever they want it, it would make it a permanent rule that people who have contracts with the government would have to use e-verify system. and instead of a three-year extension of the e-verify system as provided for in this bill, it

would go on and make it effective. so it's a cornerstone today of a system that will work to a considerable degree to reduce the number of illegal workers who are getting jobs, taking jobs from american workers at this particularly difficult time that we're in. i think it's a good step. i'm glad the secretary is moving forward finally on making that a reality. and i hope that my colleagues will step forward now and let's make this a permanent system. it's certainly contemplated it will be permanent, but for odd reasons to me, there seems to be a reluctance to make it so. the system is up and running. it can handle millions more than the millions they're already handling today. it's designed for much larger use. it will make a difference. it will identify quite a number of people who are illegally here

seeking to work. in fact, i think the system should be made to apply to all businesses in america, and i believe we can do that and should move in that direction. but the first step, it seems to me, the first step would be to say if we're going to create a stimulus package, if this government is going to give contracts to private contractors who do work for the government, they ought to at least ask them to verify whether or not the person is legally in the country. yes, there's some good things additional that need to be done, such as a biometric identification system that senator schumer referred to last night. i would heartily support that. but i do believe that this is an initial step that ought to be taken. the system should be made permanent. and the requirement that contractors of the government do so, that use it should be a part of our law today. and i urge my colleagues to vote

for it. i think it would be consistent with the stated policies of the obama administration, and it will be consistent with what this senate has been working on for some time. it would be a -- i would be a little bit baffled, frankly, that members wouldn't see fit to support it. i thank the chair and would yield the floor. mr. nelson: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska. mr. nelson: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the banking committee be discharged from further consideration of s. res. 175, the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. further, that an amendment to the resolution which is at the desk be agreed to, the resolution as amended be agreed to, that an amendment to the

preamble which is at the desk be agreed to, the preamble as amended be agreed to. finally, that a title amendment which is at the desk be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. sessions: mr. president, on behalf of several senators, i would object to the distinguished senator's request. i respect him, but there is an objection on this side. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. schumer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mr. schumer: thank you, mr. president. i today rise today -- we're not in a quorum? we're not in a quorum, are we? the presiding officer: the senate is not in a quorum call. mr. schumer: thank you, mr. president. i rise today asking my colleagues to table the pending amendment filed by my

distinguished colleague from alabama to the department of homeland security appropriations bill. his amendment would both make e-verify permanent and would immediately mandate all federal contractors and subcontractors to use e-verify. well, first i have good news for my colleagues, and good news for my colleague from alabama. the department of homeland security has just taken action. they were planning to do it before. it's coincidental but fortuitous that it occurs right now, that addresses the issue, or at least a good part of the issue that my colleague from alabama has raised. the department of homeland security today has issued a statement indicating -- quote -- "the administration's support for regulation that will award federal contracts only to employers who use e-verify to check employee work authorization." as we all know, e-verify is a

voluntarily system, not a mandatory system. for federal contractors it will be mandatory, which is half in the most operative part of my colleague from alabama's amendment. the administration's federal contractor rule extends use of the e-verify system to cover -- the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent i be given two additional minutes. is that possible? the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: thank you, mr. president. to use the e-verify system to covered federal contractors and subcontractsors, including those who receive american recovery and reinvestment funds. the administration will push ahead with full implementation of the rules which will apply to federal solicitations and contract awards starting on september 8, 2009. accordingly, i believe senator sessions' amendment is moot insofar as it applies to federal contractors and does not need to be approved for us for e-verify

to apply in this context. now he has another part of the amendment, which is to make e-verify permanent. i would remind my colleagues that three years is already -- e-verify is in effect for the next three years. so making it permanent would extend to the out years. but as chair to the immigration subcommittee and with the support of chairman leahy, i have been investigating this issue. and i would say to my colleagues, i don't think we want to make e-verify permanent because it's not tough enough or strong enough. there's a gaping loophole in e-verify. it's the best we have now. we should use it for federal contractors. i support that. but there's a big loophole. let's say an illegal immigrant wants to say that they are john jones from syracuse. they know john jones' social security number. they can easily get a fake i.d. that has john jones' address. and they submit it into the system, and nothing in e-verify

will stop that illegal immigrant from getting a job. and once that gleam immigrant is in the system, they're approved time after time again. nothing about e-verify stops a citizen from loaning the i.d. to their friends and family to get a job. we need a biometric system with picture and a biometric identifier. that's the only way we're going to stop illegal immigration. e-verify doesn't do it. i want to assure my colleagues that on our subcommittee on immigration, under chairman leahy's leadership as chairman of the full committee, we are investing a biometric system which will for once and for all stop future illegal immigration. to make this system permanent when there's a better system in the offing -- the senator -- mr. schumer: i would urge the amendment be tabled because are the first part has been adopted. and second to make it permanent

when we already have it for three years is wrong when we can do better three years from now. the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: i wonder if i could ask of the chair if i could have 30 seconds before the vote to make a request? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: just briefly -- the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: my understanding is secretary napolitano's executive order will be different than the executive order that the bush administration had finally, after some delay, approved in that it would say that a government contractor would not have to check the employment history of employees working for them, through the e-verify system, their validity. but only new hires that they bring on, which is quite a different thing. i'm aware of a businessman in

alabama who's had highway-type work with good employees for many, many years. decades. who told me he's not able to compete and losing contract after contract because his competitor is ruing illegal labor and it's not a small matter. i hope that i'm incorrect about what i understand the secretary's decision to be, but if i am correct i don't think the proposal is what it should be and will still be insufficient. mr. schumer: i would ask unanimous consent to respond for one minute with permission on both sides. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: the senator in one sense, my friend from alabama, we think similarly when stopping -- he's right that the order does not require them to check back with previous employees.

that's not how e-verify works. we might want to set up 10,000 or 5,000 people and get them to check on previous employment. that is not how e-verify works. to say that the administration is not doing it, that's true. but neither does e-verify require that. it probably should. but if we have a biometric, if we have a picture, it will be a lot better and we won't need it. so the gentleman is sort of right and sort of wrong, but always good heart. -- good-hearted. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: i thank the senator from washington. i'm here because the -- the senator from nebraska made a motion to bring up a resolution of his a little while ago and an objection was made on my behalf and out of courtesy to him i wanted to explain the reason was that senator bennet and i and eight other senators have

pledges ration that would give the -- have legislation that would give the stock in g g.m. d back to the taxpayers. we're prepared to bring our amendment up and to debate his and to vote on his. there are other senators here with similar amendments. we simply want to make sure they're all considered at once. so i ask unanimous consent that the banking committee to be discharged from further consideration of s. 1198, the auto stock for every taxpayer act, which would give all the government stock in general motors to the taxpayers who paid for it. the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the bill be read for a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: i object. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. the senator from nebraska. mr. nelson: mr. president, if i might have a second to respond.

i think this is something that the good senator from tennessee and i might be able to work out. but until we have -- we have the details worked out as to how this would be considered in both cases, i object. mr. schumer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mr. schumer: i move to table the senator from alabama's amendment and ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are orde orde. the clerk will call the roll. vote: vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, the ayes are 44. the nays are 53. the motion to table is not agreed to. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: i call up amendment number 1407 as a second-degree amendment. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. the senate will be in order. the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: mr. president, i call up amendment number 1407 as a second-degree to the amendment that has been proposed by mr. sessions. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. sessions: reserving the right to object. the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: i'm not familiar

with the --. mr. leahy: mr. president -- the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. please take your conversations outside. the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: mr. president, i believe i have the right to offer the second-degree. do i not? mr. sessions: mr. president? mr. leahy: let me -- while you're determining that, let me explain what this does. it would create a permanent e-v-5 immigrant program. that is program that generated billions of dollars in capital investment in american communities. it created thousands of domestic jobs. there are 24 of these centers now around the country. i mentioned to the senator from alabama, alabama has a strong track record with it statewide. the problem we've had in the past, we keep reauthorizing it for just a few months at that time. people in this economy don't want to put a large investment

in because of that. so i would offer this as a second-degree amendment. mr. sessions: mr. president, i have no objection to the judiciary chairman's second-degree amendment. mr. leahy: i have it as 1407. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: the senator from vermont, mr. leahy, proposes an amendment numbered 1407 to amendment number 1371. mr. leahy: i ask further reading be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. the senate will be in order. the senate will be in order. mr. leahy: and i ask for its adoption. the presiding officer: if there's no further debate on the amendment, all those in favor say aye. all those opposed say no.

the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the amendment is agreed to. mr. leahy: i move to reconsider. a senator: lay upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. the presiding officer: amendment numbered -- the senate will be in order. amendment number 1371 is pending, as amended. if there is no further debate on the amendment, all those in favor say aye, opposed, no. the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. under the previous order there will now be two minutes of debate prior to a vote in relation to amendment number 1399, with the time equally divided between the senator from washington, mrs. murray, and the senator from south carolina,

mr. demint. senators, please take your conversations out of the well. the presiding officer: who yields time? mr. demint: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from south carolina. mr. demint: mr. president, current law promises the american people that we will secure our southern borders with 700 miles of pedestrian fence. obviously, we've seen violence increase, drug trafficking, weapons trafficking, we have destabilized the mexican government because of our inability to carry out that promise. at this point, there are only 34 miles of double-layered pedestrian fences as promised in our laws. we're supposed to have 700 miles. my amendment simply enforces current law and sets a deadline that we finish a pedestrian

fence as required by law -- by -- the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. mr. demint: finance the fence that is required by law by the end of next year. this is a promise we should keep to the american people. i reserve the remainder of my time. the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: i yield my time to the accept from ohio, senator voinovich. mr. voinovich: we oppose this amendment. the amendment would force the department of homeland security to construct hundreds of additional miles of pedestrian fencing beyond that which is determined as necessary. the department of homeland security has studied and analyzed the tactical infrastructure needs including pedestrian fencing or vehicle fencing along that border. it's built, or it is in the process of constructing miles of pedestrian fencing needed that they feel is necessary. the fact is, this bed, when we changed the law, not to are -- we did not detail the location

and type of fencing. instead, we left it to the discretion of the secretary of homeland security. not only is this amendment broad because it overtowns the u.s. customs and border detection determination of tactical infer structure needs but it would be incredibly costly and outstrip the funds provided for this purpose by requiring additional fencing, some miles of fencing have an average cost of $5 billion per mile. i urge we vote "no" on this. mr. demint: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from south carolina. nine seconds remaining. mr. demint: what we're doing is not working. this amendment is designed to add some force and some funding to kept law. i encourage my colleagues to support it. the presiding officer: all time is expired. if there is in further debate on the amendment, all those in favor say aye.

a senator: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote: vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, on this vote, the yeas are 54, the nays are 44. the amendment is agreed to. mrs. murray: move to reconsider. move to lay it on the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. murray: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: mr. president, i

have 12 unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent these requests be agreed to and printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. murray: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: