to be so restricted that they could only say that they would have an abstinence-only program based on a curriculum that didn't work. medical organizations agree that this program has not had the right approach. the institute of medicine recommended that we eliminate the substance only requirements. the american medical association, which also supports our bill by the way opposed the use of abstinence-only education as defined under section 510 and so i think we ought to stick with this health 18 initiative we have adopted and let the states do the programs based not on my on ideology but on pragmatism. but what works and abstinence-only programs and other models would be eligible if they are scientifically shown to reduce teen pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases.

>> would you yield to me? >> i would be happy to. >> i haven't spoken during this debate but like others i feel intensely on this subject and most of us are parents and we had to think carefully about what to council our own children. i would just suggest based on what mr. buyer said and i've been listening carefully what he has had to say and i commend him for his amendment and dr. burgess i don't think any of us and should support a condom only program either. i think what makes sense is to let the buyer language work and then support what the evidence tells us to support including abstinence programs if the evidence tells us that they work and so i would urge a no vote on this amendment and thank you for yielding to me. >> we all agree programs -- would you yield >> no one is disagreeing with that, but if you only talk about

abstinence and don't educate teenagers about the fact that they ought to be knowledgeable about public health information and that condoms to work most time and if they're going to be sexually active and we would discourage a but if they are going to be sexually active there are some steps they could take to minimize their risk again the point mr. buyer made. look for risk reductions. that is at least an honest approach but emphasize abstinence but don't make that the only requirement. >> with the gentleman yield. >> who wants me to yield? mr. picks. >> thank you. i haven't weighed in on this. i would like to. i would like to support the terry amendment. title v abstinence education and temporary medical education programs expired on june 30, 2009. and i have copies of these studies. there have been statements here and i would like to correct a

couple of them. the mathematical study found we did only four out of over 700 title v education programs. programs the selected were some of the earliest programs developed as mr. terry said. abstinence programs have evolved since vault since 99 when the study began. it studied the students only in elementary and and middle school without any reinforcement and high school. far from just say no approach, the skills taught include the following, building healthy relationships, goal setting, effective decision making, self efficacy skills, medically accurate information on contraception and full information on the s tds. and i could go on and on, but let me say that in 2006 as a zogby poll demonstrated parents prefer abstinence education. an overwhelming 70% of parents

believe that sex education classes should emphasize abstinence. 61 activity among teens has physical, emotional, social consequences. in fact, sexually active e-mails are three times more likely, and males are eight times more likely to attempt suicide. rates of depression are three times lower and at stencils and boys. further, risky sexual behavior often leads to other risky behavior among teens such as alcohol and drug abuse. i think abstinence education is important. it's important for a lot of risk. i think it provides teams with active inappropriate information about the risk of sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy, teaches them how to avoid risky behavior. i think we should all support this amendment because we all support our youth and i think we support equipping them to make positive life choices so i urge

support for the terry amendment and i think it's critical and i yield back. >> are we ready for the vote? >> mr. chairman? >> who is seeking recognition? >> over here. mr. chairman, mr. buyer didn't give me a shout out in regard to ob/gyn opinion, but i want to express my opinion on this important issue and support very strongly the terry amendment. i think what mr. pitts just said is so darn important. you know, you gave us the results of the study. mr. chairman, you said that the study showed that abstinence-only is an effective age of first sexual activity, number of sexual partners, but, you know, a dam that was based on early programs, some very early programs that did not have a follow-up from middle school

to high school and what mr. pitts is saying, rates of suicide, success of marriage, mental and emotional status as an adult, the opinion of the parents in the zogby poll, you know, you can quote all these scientific studies you want to and statistics can say whatever you want them to say but when you ask parents if telling children, telling their children to avoid sexual activity until marriage, maybe they don't, but i just can't help but intuitively feel the age of first sexual activity, the number of sexual partners certainly sexually transmitted diseases all would be reduced so i think it is a common sense

amendment. i don't say that a comprehensive approach is not important. it is important, but this title v founding is a very necessary and i want us to continue and i fully support the terrie amendment and i yield back. >> let's go with a vote now. on the terry amendment. all those in favor of the terry amendment will say ayes. opposed, no. let's go to a roll call vote. [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [inaudible] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] >> would have all members responded to the vote? i know there are some members on the way. well, any member wish to change your vote? if not, the clerk will tell the the vote and announce it. >> mr. chairman, on that but there were a 26 ayes 29 noes. >> 26 ayes 29 noes.

>> the ranking member inquire how much longer we intend to have this one tonight? >> i think we are close to finishing on this title so let's see if we can do it. >> i know -- >> you have two amendments i think. >> we have lots of amendments, -- >> will to this title? >> we had to that we were going to offer tonight but we have half a dozen we could offer and i have ten on your side that could be offered. >> i don't know if it is that many. >> i was told they were going to be offered and withdraw and various things. >> there are going to be some amendments offered withdrawn. let's just keep going for a while and see if we can finish. if not we will have to come back tomorrow and finish. mr. pullen, if you have an amendment at the desk clerk will report the amendment. >> amendment to substitute, to h.r. 3200 offered by mr. pallone. >> without objection the amendment will be considered if

read. and circulated. mr. pallone, you are recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this is the class act. approximately 46 million americans do not have insurance over 200 million adult americans lack any insurance protection against the cost of long-term services and support and as a result nearly half of all funding for the services is now provided through medicaid, which is a growing burden on states and requires individuals to become and remain poor to receive the help they need. in order to address this concern earlier this year mr. dingell and i introduced h.r. 728 the community living assistance services and supports or class act as the companion bill to legislation offered by senator kennedy. similar to the class act this amendment would direct the secretary of health and human services to establish a voluntary nationwide insurance program so people with

disabilities and chronic illnesses would have cash benefit to pay for and choose the services and support they need to stay financially functionally and independent in their communities. the program would be financed through voluntary payroll deductions and not through federal dollars. i know some of my colleagues have concerns about the impact of this program on the budget deficit in the long term and i'm very cognizant of those concerns and we drafted this amendment with those concerns in mind so we include language in the amendment directing the secretary to take any action appropriate to develop manage and maintain the class independence benefit plan including making adjustments to the benefits paid out and premiums collected in order to maintain program solvency and ensure the program remains deficit neutral. the secretary will have the tools he or she needs to make sure the program doesn't grow into a new entitlement and add to the economic woes. if anything this program helps

as cbo noted in its analysis the senate held version the class program could save medicaid to $.5 billion the first ten years and possibly additional savings after that and i should note the senate health committee's version of this proposal was unanimously agreed to in part because of an amendment included from senator gregg to ensure the premiums are based on the program 75 your analysis of the program cost and greg explain his support of the program based on this change alone basically. the amendment i am offering includes safeguards like the one senator gregg designed. i think it actually gives even more flexibility in the correct amendment by allowing some flexibility in adjusting premiums and benefits and finally mr. chairman the program we are establishing wouldn't take effect until a subsequent law was passed establishing voluntary payroll deduction that means the program can't even begin until we have a mechanism

to collect to finance the program and this further indicates i think it was designed to run independent of any federal dollars. i would ask for support for this. i know it is many people, many constituents are concerned about the lack of long-term care in the bill. this is something that addresses some of those concerns and doesn't cost the federal government anything. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. mr. bartlett. >> i have questions for the author or the council. you talk about a voluntary payroll deduction. how does one have a voluntary payroll deduction? that would seem to be mandatory. >> basically it's an opt out is the way would be set up. >> so it was taken out unless they opted not to? >> that's my understanding if the council wants to talk about it a little bit more.

>> obviously that provision isn't within the committee's jurisdiction but the way the proposal is conceived as i understand is much like you would decide to elect one benefit or another from your own impleader and have the employer, you would choose whether to have the employer withhold a certain amount and in this case would be the federal government choosing -- you would be adopted into the program to provide long-term care benefits of the sort unless you opted out and then the federal government would no longer withhold funds. >> if i can reclaim my time -- it's actually my time belli will yield to you. >> nothing happens with this on leslie's and means essentially passes the statute that sets up this voluntary payroll program. at this point we are just suggesting this because the act will ballan to reduction is not under our jurisdiction. >> does the author have a

concept how large the voluntary deduction or premium would be on a monthly basis and with a very depending on the age of the volunteer to participate somebody at my age? kind 59. but my deduction if i decided to opt in or not opt out be the same as -- >> cbo estimated it would be about $65 on a month. >> and it's not age based? i'm trying to look who appears to be the youngest member. >> that's an overall, and again it's just an estimate. >> but again i can't stress enough that we are not actually setting this up. we are simply suggesting -- can i get some illumination from the council? >> perhaps. >> i believe the estimate was for a national average assuming the average distribution since we do not have a provision for

withholding we didn't provide them with specs as to an age range or anything like this. we simply said if we had a benefit program like this. so it is my deep believe the cbo 65 what they would project or assume what in role in a range across ages. >> what is the impression the author of the amendment has from chairman rangel or subcommittee chairman stark of the ways and means committee about them moving to affect this provision if it were -- >> with the gentleman yield? this was adopted in the bill and they are in the same situation as we are. they have to rely on the senate finance committee to actually bring about the funding mechanism for this voluntary tax. i would hope we could talk them into it. it would be a voluntary program

and under the way the senate drafted which is the way we are proposing it here would be budget neutral and it would be actuarial -- actuarial sound. >> i support, and i've talked to you publicly and privately about long-term care and congressman deal and i have amendments leader in the markup on long-term care and some incentives so it is definitely something we need to do. i am -- it's very difficult to accept something that we've really haven't fleshed out, but it is certainly an idea that i support, so i am in a quandary on this to be honest. i healed backed. i will yield to my friend from michigan.

>> again, to express my great affection for him. if you read the language of the amendment, page three you will find the secretary is shall establish a national voluntary insurance program and then you will find that page three lines mine, ten, and 11 he must see to it that the program, that the benefit -- the benefits and the adjustments and the premiums are all to be in such balances as to, quote, maintain program's solvency and to ensure the program remains deficit neutral. >> reclaiming my time going to support the amendment without

finding anybody on my side to support it with the understanding that if the smiths for workfare will be a hearing on this and this committee and there will be bipartisan effort to flesh it out. i have that assurance from the chairman? >> you certainly have my assurance. >> it's fine to me. >> thank you, mr. her chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. a couple of quick questions about the author. the federal government offers long-term care insurance now, and if we choose to buy it we can and that is as federal employees. now, how does this plan differ? is it another -- it's an insurance plan that everyone in the country can opt into if they wish to? i am not sure i understand how

we would work. >> the difference is this is a cash benefit basically the you would be paying into and what actually get money to go out and purchase the community services. >> so you have money deducted and the government's 864q and then when you needed -- so it's a savings account? >> or insurance plan. >> thank you. i yield back. >> mr. speaker or mr. chairman. >> seeking recognition? the gentleman from oregon. >> i wonder if the council -- you just thought you were going to get away from the table. i notice on page one, line 18 it says provide individuals who have functional limitations with tools that allow them to do a certain set of things what's the definition of functional limitations and where would i find that? >> i am not sure it is defined in the term. this is an amendment to the

public health service act. i am not sure it is defined in the public health service act however in the social security act for purposes of the decade there are definitions of the activities of daily living, limitations that are for people for instance who cannot carry out the daily activities that are necessary to function for instance dressing themselves or using toilets or baiting and things like that. >> would apply, that definition apply to this term? >> telco technically, no because this is in the public health service act, but to the best of my knowledge i do not -- i do not think the term functional limitations is defined the secretary would probably look to other similar false to try to find a definition but there is nothing in this amendment or public health service -- >> is their anything in this amendment that directs the secretary to define functional limitation?

>> on page two, line 17 through 19, the secretary directed a set of criteria for persecution in the program and i would assume that that would therefore direct her to define functional limitations because the criteria for eligibility would be those people with functional limitations. >> and let me ask another question because i heard the word payroll deduction but i do not see it in the amendment. >> no, sir. the original proposal as introduced as separate legislation and the proposal adopted by the senate health committee both have approaches towards a payroll deduction but it's not within this committee stressed action and it is not included in this amendment. >> this may not be fair to ask this question, but i will. has there been a hearing on the separate legislation when this comes? >> i'm sorry, sir. i don't know.

>> do we know if there has been a hearing? >> if i could just for a second not in this, chris -- >> iowa appreciate that. that is a little different and so i guess my question would be if we pass this language into this bill, the payroll deduction peace does not exist, correct? and so ways and means has already met and marked up this bill and did they include -- they did not include anything related to the voluntary payroll deduction? >> no, sir so the effect of adopting this legislation would be to authorize such a program but not provide the funding -- >> so it is only a partial part of the bill? i'm going to yield now to the gentleman dr. burgess from texas

the remainder of my time. >> i thank the gentleman. this reminds me of a christmas club back when i was a kid. put money away each month and there's no insurance on the account but you have the good faith by christmas time it will be there and it will have accumulated some value. despite what my ranking member says i'm going to reserve the right to oppose this amendment because -- one of the biggest funded liabilities in the medicaid system is long-term care obligation to people who are my age and who will be medicare eligible in ten or 15 years' time. the fact of the matter is we are not doing enough to prepare ourselves for that pagen coming down the python, and i worry this type of legislation will give people a false sense of security that they addressed the problem when in fact they have not. i'm also worried about as

mr. walton already appropriately pointed out there is no number filed in the bill. we don't know if it did become a payroll deduction what amounts are there and whether or not it is age adjusted, with the amount would be when the time comes with the parameter be so i have got serious reservations about us doing this and patting ourselves on the back saying we've done a good job. there's no one who believes in private long-term care insurance than i do. i've had it for years and believe it's the right thing to do and the correct response of my generation to that generation coming after us. i am afraid that by adopting this amendment my generation will say we have done or do and we are now doing a payroll deduction when in fact we may have solved the problem at all. i thank the gentleman for yielding and i will shield back to him. >> the time is expired. are we ready for a vote? >> i would like to ask the council the question. i direct your attention to page

to begin in line 15. it says the secretary shall develop this plan and an actuarially sound manner and then it goes on to say in the number one underneath that that participation should not be restricted, should not restrict eligibility based on underwriting. now, does that mean if somebody, first of all does it mean that only those that have elected to have a voluntarily withheld fund are eligible for the program? ..

that is left up to the secretary so it could be as you describe that the secretary is empowered and i believe the secretary is empowered to set differential levels two. >> so you could have paid in for only one month and still be eligible to participate in the program if the secretary structure the program at the benefit level in that fashion. >> well, he would be ordered to make sure that it is not restricted the on eligibility based on underwriting. >> you just raise a good point and i asked the council, could

you have a program without underwriting as soon as you need to go to a nursing home u.s sign-up in the program and he pointed out to me that there would be a requirement investment, you'd have to pay into the program for a certain time before you be able to get any benefits at the program. >> well, i appreciate the chairman's explanation but doesn't seem to jibe with the language i see here. if you don't restrict eligibility based on underwriting then i don't see how you could make it actuarially sound or how you make a differentiation between the people who have been in for a long time versus those of only paid into a short time. >> will the gentleman yield? >> perhaps as counsel indicates that the benefit levels under section three there might be added different benefit level. >> of the gentleman would yield, that is actually what we're doing establishing criteria for benefits which would mean you'd have to been paying in for a

certain time, establish benefit levels, mechanisms and how much you pay income of what traditional problems are also those would determine whether you receive benefits and when and how much you paid into it. now they're all men to establish. >> well, as we all know one of the things that insurance programs and this is basically an insurance program is to try to avoid adverse selection and it seems to me that this is wide open for adverse selection to take place it, in fact, make the entire program not financially solvent. i support the concept quite frankly. unlike the ranking member, i think i would like to see us have programs of this type. i have serious doubts about the language being adequate to address the problem we are trying to sama. >> if the gentleman would yield, let me say we adopted the

language that is on page three specifically to deal with that and again this goes back to the greg amendment in the senate where we are saying did the secretary would make adjustments to benefits paid out in order to maintain program insolvency image for inmates definitional and is specifically put in there to make sure that that happens over the life of the program. that's why we have that line went. >> i & not part, on not just sure it reconciles with the other part but i yield back. thank you. >> thank you mr. chairman, i will go back to dr. burgess point which is i'm more concerned about now than i was when he made it as i heard explanation here. i would ask the author, how would you know what the benefit of this plan was when you signed up for it? >> well, again as i say we are

not specifying that now. we're asking that the secretary would develop that. i mean, that's got to be done by regulation and by the secretary's action but when you sign up the window because the regulations would specify. >> is there anything here that would protect you from having to spend down and so that you wouldn't go for medicare to medicaid or any of the other incentives that seem to be to make more sense in encouraging moving into long-term care? >> i mean, i don't know if this answers your question but the whole purpose is basically to have some kind of cash payment that you could use to buy services and essentially in a voice to the problem that you have with medicated now were you have to spend down and that's why they're the cbo says there is a living in savings in medicaid to the point of $2.5 billion and people have the

pay -- the money to pay they would have to spend down the way we do now under the existing program. >> i reclaim my time in when this convinces you you have a benefit you don't have, there is one of us men out there from some group that maybe this would be no more than 12% and there are likely by this is from the american council of life insurance or something. we all got it today. piatt like the ranking member and our subcommittee ranking member of mr. deal, i would like to see as do something on a long-term care but i think there are things that would be a more creating more incentives to encourage the states to work with us so that you didn't have a, have to do the medicare spend down totally to get into medicaid if you have planned appropriately and i don't see any of that here. i will oppose this amendment.

>> is a gentleman would yield. >> i will. >> and try to make it clear that this is not paying for nursing-home care, it is paying for services that to buy to keep you at home and essentially. >> it doesn't pay for nursing home? >> no, the idea is to prevent institutionalization, people don't have to go to hospitals and they stay home and live independently. that's why the costs of that is as high as you might imagine because it's not pay for that institutional care. i listened to what dr. burgess said and i appreciate the fact that you want people to have high expectations and reared there is something that we are not, but i also think that since we're really not doing anything else of like this which is a voluntary program and does encourage people to be able to stay at home and provide them so that they can -- it would be real in that sense and would achieve not only savings in

medicaid because people would have to be institutionalized but also and better quality of life two. >> with the gentleman yield? >> i would a. >> i think the gentleman from missouri. i was to ask also a question -- mr. pallone, do you envision then that the this week with foltz, you say this on a voluntary basis would have to be an opt out, do you envision that this money would be invested in an individual personal account or do you think that this money would be invested in states like the medicare trust fund and that is currently probably earning 25 basis points or quarter of 1%. >> it is a trust account. >> it would be in a trust account earning current rates which are probably less than 1% so you don't envision this money, individual being able to

say i want to withhold invested in maybe a small percentage of my withhold to be invested in the individual personal account and the idea would be a trust fund and. >> people would only be able to take offense to the program if they had a functional limitations. they have chronic illnesses and were unable to take care of themselves essentially needed care. >> and a gentleman suggests this would cost me $65 a month hoping you wouldn't have to go to a nursing home? >> that the cbo's estimate, but again if you think about it when i talk about community services, services that avoid institutionalize asian they are a lot cheaper than a hospital or nursing home. >> the gentleman's time has expired, mr. dingell. >> there is a great axiom in the gunsmith and traded, when all

else fails for instructions. i think here what we ought to do is to read some of the language that we've got. it has been reported is going to be $65 a month in premiums. now, the purpose of this program says in the secretary shall establish a national voluntary insurance program to be known as the class independence by the plan for purchasing committed date living assistance services and reports and. that is the first page one, 13316. then it says such program shall provide individuals to have functional limitations with tools that will allow them to maintain their personal and financial independence. to limit a committee for a new pricing strategy for committed to living assistance and

supports. and then the secretary has instructed to establish an everest russia that will halt the nation's committed to living assistance service and support needs. and then there are some other currency has given, but doesn't change the basic purposes set forth. then it says the secretary shall develop the glass in the palace benefit plan in an actuarial sound manner. and set criteria for participation to class independence plan that and not restrict eligibility based on underwriting. shall establish the criteria for eligibility for benefits, as abbas benefits levels, as i was mechanisms for collecting and is giving payments and provide the mechanisms to assist beneficiaries in the use of benefits. i am reading from the language of the amendment. then he's directed to promulgate such regulations as are

necessary to carry out the class program in accordance with this title. and then under seven to take any action of appropriate to develop manage and maintain the class independence benefit program a including making adjustments to benefits paid ads that premiums collected in order to and then this is the language i read earlier -- maintain program solvency and ensure the program remains that as a neutral. and then he required to report. there is nothing here to frighten anybody. i am just reading to you my dear friends in politics the language of the amendment which should be a great source of comfort. it is voluntary, they don't have to do it, it's got to be naturally sound, and the secretary is given clear instructions as to how he is to

administer it, and to keep an eye to rarely sound, and deficit neutral. >> with the gentleman yield? >> i'd be happy to. >> on the point number seven that is what concerns me is the most by randy, and that you included making adjustments to a benefit to pay -- outs in premiums collected in. you could start in to this program and not know whether benefit you're going to get our web premium you're going to pay as you got into it because the secretary would consistently be able to adjusted to keep an eye to rarely sounded. it seems to me is a big step to take without any -- without having the hearing on and and i think it is not comforting. it is actually just the opposite not to now with those adjustments would be when you decide you want to enter it into the program. >> reclaiming my time and with great affection for the

gentleman, i read the language the gentleman refers to earlier, but the secretary's instructed to do certain including establishing the program and criteria for eligibility establish benefits and a bunch of other things to trade the plan and in doing so he is instructed the to maintain a program insolvency in the coming ensure the program remains deficit neutral and in order to do that he is instructed to make adjustments to benefits paid out in premiums collected in own to ensure program's solvency and that the program remains that as a neutral. what we're trying to do is set of something that is not going to cost the tax pain problems anything but see to it we have a program that takes care of the particular concern. there are two other points import here.

first of all, it has been said that it will save and this is a congressional budget office that will save about $2 billion to medicated and second of all they have pointed out that this program herewith will be voluntary and will enable the people here to begin two finally live on their own would and to get around the the judge that has been a matter of concern from my colleagues on the committee wants to amend the gentleman's time has expired, how many members wish to speak on this proposal? one, as two, three, four -- would you be willing each to take two minutes? >> i will agree to that. >> two ministerial to view. mr. stern's first. >> second the last word, i would

say to the gentleman from michigan, tell me one federal government program is actuarially sound. tell me one in this country. medicare, medicaid, social security -- all of those are not actuarially sound and you keep saying that this is going to being. the gentleman from michigan is plans of the cost savings in medicare -- how can you possibly talk about cost savings when you don't know of the premiums are, you don't let the benefits are anything about the peril and, in fact, this is a tax because if that to opt out. >> with a gentleman -- >> he does not know he is being taxed. >> with the gentleman yield? >> i am saying here you've done something that is a more of this type of bill that is really not in our jurisdiction and asking to solve this thing here was saying is going to be actuarially sound and have no proof anywhere and there is no benefits that are outlined his we don't know anything that

mr. deal indicates that is to benefit to medicare or medicaid or anything the leslie and tell my colleagues, you don't want to force a person to go to programs that is basically a mandatory. you guys to have the will, the wherewithal to get opt out and you don't even know kind of benefits you're getting so i think it is a bad bill. >> the gentleman yield back this time. who is next? mr. shimkus. >> thank you mr. chairman, danny davis and i have been dropping a bill many years buonaparte was, but the basic premise was a medicaid disability money follows the individual and the premise is the same thing is the premise of this if we had keep people in the home wouldn't be an institutional care and use the medicaid dollars to help offset the intended care we're all winners. i think that is a better option and that's really a freedom option. instead of forcing people into

institutional care. i know senator harkin had a bill on the senate side in the things that is a respectful way quote to help people really determinant of their own lives and i wish to the good that nurses this. a long i would rather incentivize the private-sector to a tax incentive and payroll deduction like deferred compensation plan where you get the tax benefit and then incentivize the private sector because i again also, i have the same time problems. having the money is going to go like everywhere else we go period is going to go to the u.s. treasury and is going to offset with, it is going to be income generated until we paid out and going to be like the nuclear waste fund or social security trust fund. there are no trust funds. the highway trust fund -- unit that is where this will go. but if we would like to work on

medicated dollars following the individual and not incentivizing institutional care and freeing up the disabled to choose the areas where they want to live and how they want to live i'm willing to work with a. i yield back my time. >> who is next? mr. moyer. >> i have the cbo letter in my hand and i'm surprised nobody else is talking about the cbo letter. cdl has expressed some pretty strong concerns about what you're proposing, mr. pallone, and i guess when you look your legislation i have to ask this question -- in the cbo letter they talk about the average premium would be limited to $65 per month in 2011 indexed for inflation. i don't know whether getting these numbers and how they're setting this up, i mean, when you give us this amendment we don't know but you must already know and assume some type of a program because cdl scored it.

and so even when it the chairman had a question at the chairman was even aware he had a five-year vesting time. so if there is a moment here that as chairman we should not be marked in this bill up commend this amendment to this bill, this is one whereby i would ask the chairman that he withdraw this. we have a separate hearing on this and move this separately for legislation and lettuce or a bipartisan fashion with regard to this specific legislation. cbo has expressed great concern with regard to the solvency and if we're talking about a $50 benefits, and on medicare certified home health aide to charges $19 an hour, that is two and half hours of labor. we're not talking about a huge benefit here. and if we are talking about charging system $5 per person per $50 benefits, weak as some issues we need to work through so i would ask chairman paul

loan with thomas and even as a stand-alone bill and work with both sides and that would be my request. >> with the gentleman yield? >> yes. >> the cdl letter you are reading, we essentially responded to that by adopting a as i said that the great language or something similar to the right language. what they say is that is a problem the secretary did not modify the program to assure inside two rarely sound but that is why we have that language that does, in fact, in to the actuarial soundness and allow the secretary to go in and made the changes and thus exactly what was adopted in the health bill in the senate. >> reclaim my time. >> in order to address that. >> senator gregg recognize this and offered amendment accepted that would require the secretary of hhs to establish a premier made to prior to enrolling folks in the program that insures solvency for 75 years. >> and that is why we have that language on page three that we mentioned in a time that says

the secretary can take action to make adjustments to benefits paid out in premiums collected to maintain programs, sea and sure the program remains of his initial, that's exactly what the cbo suggested in order to address the problem. >> mr. terry. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> my ibm included in those who wish to speak after mr. terry? >> two minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to commend mr. polo and for identifying an area that i think is sometimes skipped over who was significant and the continuum of health care and if that time were people were teetering between being able to stay home and having to go to a facility in skilled nursing or facility during even the hospital and i believe that your focus is in the right place.

i am just curious because here's how i see it -- if you remember in my opening statement i talked about how part of the pay for is for this plan is creating a savings which providers u.s. cuts and we're taking a $57 billion cut -- i'm sorry, a savings to home health care and we are replacing that piece of home health care where people go to your home and help you to stay in your home so you're not institutionalized and now replacing matt was an opt out pay for a programmer. if republicans offered a calving home health care and medicare benefits and then replacing them with something that people had to pay ford to receive again, i'm sorry but you guys would have gone ballistic on the side of the aisle and so now it is our turn to go ballistic in this

sense that yes, this is necessary to keep people and is more humane than the people who want to say in their homes and the incredible cost savings that they are going into institution. but it strikes me as on a the same time we're trying to create this program here that we're cutting produce $7 billion of home health care. all i yield back king and the gentleman yield back, to close the debate, mr. radanovich. >> thank-you, mr. chairman, i do have a question of council, council on page 31 1/7 211 it talks about the premiums collected in order to maintain program solvency and ensure the program remain status n/a show. in a fund it generated by a proposal such as this is there any chance it could be i owe you like the social security trust fund?

>> i'm sorry, i don't understand the question. >> this would create a fun and is there any chance that fund would be i owe you like the social security trust fund has been? >> do you mean the essential purchase of social security funds? >> meeting it is i owe you. >> i think we are saying the same thing. as i understand that there is a general rule in the ways and means committee that all trust funds held by the federal government to be invested and not technically treasury bills, i think there are treasury warrants and i believe that they are all regardless of what the fund is about to they are all this and in treasury warrants to mexico could go into the general treasury and be at that later on? >> the treasury warrant has a face value so technically the

holding of the fund is still valuable when. i'm china to say that the money -- is is as it was invested in a treasury bill and that the fund held a treasury bill during that time which is redeemable at full faith and credit much like social security trust fund. >> and i think you're a tackling a problem that is to be tackled. because of the problem we have a social security right now very easily could do the same thing and that is why i'd support it. i yield back. >> we will now proceed to a vote. mr. byrne. >> mr. chairman, 40 years ago 1156 approval into our time today in daylight savings time neil armstrong became the first person to land on the moon and

almost four years ago to this meant that clock is correct and anybody over 40 years old in this room probably remembers exactly where you were i was not in a hearing room on health care markup i can assure you that is a great occasion for all of mankind and i had this off to nasa and neil r. sean and all the heroes. [applause] >> we on the west coast thought it was 856. [laughter] we now proceed to a vote, all those in favor, all those in favor of the amendment will say i. opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. now have another amendment on this side or could we proceed to amendment on our side?

mr. gregory, do you have an amendment? >> i do 1302. >> the clerk will report the amendment. >> amendment offered, section 931b of public health service act as added by -- >> without objection, the amendment will be considered as read it, the gentleman is recognized to speak on his amendment. >> mr. chairman, i thank you. early in the evening i had an amendment that the majority decided to turn down on pretty much strictly a party-line vote and that, of course, was two not allow the center for quality improvement to dictate to positions were to take away essentially the art of the practice of medicine. mr. chairman, this amendment i think maybe even more important

-- >> would you yield to me? >> yes. >> we are prepared to accept your eminence if you don't talk on a. [laughter] >> let me one -- let me just say this. >> quotes, but, both. [laughter] >> i hear a lot of votes on this side of the aisle so i graciously accept your acceptance of this amendment. i think it is absolutely essential that we don't ration care to our seniors. let's vote. >> all those in favor of the amendment say i, the ayes have it, the amendment is agreed to appear and now we have a few more amendments but now like to ask unanimous consent that we limit the debate to five minutes for the amendment and five as against although they will not all be opposed. what do we have an album.

>> mr. doyle. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> you have an amendment at the desk can add the oil number one, mcnerney number two and angle at four -- 003. mr. chairman come out like to ask unanimous consent that these amendments be considered on block. >> without objection. >> observing the right, i just want to make sure that these are the amendments we have agreed to that are in blocks. is that correct? >> we think so. >> we will dissuade and pass them on. >> we have the titles of the amendment before we put the unanimous consent and consider them and block. >> boyle amendment sometime l grant for our national training. >> we are okay on that one.

>> without objection that will be considered as read a. >> amendment dwell with by ms. degette of colorado at the end of section 240. >> without objection that will be considered as read. >> amendment in the nature of substitute by mr. angle of a york. >> without objection to that will be considered as read, let me put consent without objection these three amendments be considered as blocked. without objection that will be the order. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i also request unanimous consent to have a co-sponsor of mr. doyle, number one also. mr. chairman, i offer this with my friend and colleague who has worked with me on this provision in our bill the autism chairman exhilaration and which was also

introduce with my co-chairman of the coalition on autism research and education christmas from new jersey. we recognize this because there is a critical shortage of appropriately trained personnel across numerous and important disciplines who can assess current tightness, trade and support to children and adults with autism spectrum disorders and develop disabilities and their families. i am glad to know the pledge to work with my top priority making sure that this bill ends autism discrimination but the has this division of the bill addresses 24 century healthcare workforce issues i want to make sure we're translating current and future research results into effect practices. we need to support children and adults with autism spectrum disorders and related development of disabilities with early intervention and preschool programs, child care, committee schools, employment and first responders. this amendment creates a national training initiative on

autism and technical assistance center to develop and expand interdisciplinary training and continuing education on autism's by john disorders here and i hope everyone will support this amendment i like to yield to mr. engle. >> i think my colleague for yielding to make, i had the privilege of working with mr. doyle is co-chair de tauzin con cousin, prince of ought to some legislation for several years and now with a growing number of people diagnosed with autism many of whom are aging at the school system is imperative -- >> if they keep talking we will john our support. >> we shouldn't have to hear the nine great things about these although there are great eminence which is why we're supporting them. >> i will put it in the record as long as mr. barton supports the bill. >> i support in its current form as long as we don't talk to that. >> are we ready for the vote? >> all those in favor and fox8

high, a post say now, the ayes have it in the man as are agreed to appear in mr. matheson, do you have an amendment, that would give you two minutes. >> mr. chairman, i will offer to put my fulsome in the record if i can. i just want to call up my amendment the bipartisan amendment mr. rogers from michigan with and my colleague from ohio. >> without objection to the amendment will be considered as read and without objection the gentleman's full segment will be in the record demand very briefly i want to say while they're in a geographic shortages across the country general pediatrics also shows there pronounced shortages across the country in some pediatrics with surgical specialty is. i know that on mr. talking about specialties as of special days this could open up a number of different challenges. i would just point out in terms of pediatrics and this is an

issue where there are some specific problems around the country. i know that it creates challenges and that is why i will agree to offer and withdrawal the amendment but i hope mr. chairman it you'll be willing to work in of my colleagues want to say anything on the amendment. >> i want to work with you on this amendment. >> i just want to commend the gentleman on this issue for working together and it is important that represents the best work here. >> i yield to mr. burgess. >> i appreciate the gentleman bringing this up, i just want to make the point that cannot be made often enough that unless we do something about our nation's medical justice system about our liability laws pediatric surgeons will continue to have liability two years from the date of discovery and the date of discovery cannot begin until age 18 in most jurisdictions of that is an incredibly long time

as a statute of limitations runs who do very risky operations often on very sick patients so i think it is imperative that if we do this we need to obligate ourselves and dedicate ourselves to fixing the problems and perhaps even for this of specialties of pediatric surgery are these high-risk specialties but if we don't to something about the liability climate we will never solve the manpower issue. >> i also yield? >> alan to thank mr. matheson, thank you for your commitment in working with us in the area of rheumatoid arthritis when it comes to children there are 11 states that don't even have one and rheumatoid arthritis specialist. and this is devastating for children. as they go undiagnosed there it also is essentially a body that looks like a pretzel so we have a lot of work to do on this.

i appreciate your willingness to work with us and i think the gentleman for yielding to me. >> they give mr. matheson, you withdraw your commitment and will continue to work on a. >> thank you, i have an amendment to met without objection it will be considered as read the, the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. >> i am offering this with intent to withdraw. imminent being offered with concerns that the provision in this legislation creating a medical device registry may be unnecessary while i join all my colleagues on both sides supporting ways to reduce costs, i fear this new registry will not accomplish, it is our goal and in particular i worried many of the duties would be redundant with responsibilities of the fda. it's already implementing its sentinel initiative to allow them to pull data from existing registries to help understand medical device performance

safety issues and in light of those redundancies' screening may not be productive and comparable registry implemented by american academy of insurgents and the net cost of 25 billion for year. again because this is and i believe that further discussion is merited before we sign into law. and giving your indication on this issue i offered. >> in indiana we have many medical manufacturers and if you're going to work for the chairman and like to be included in that. >> would the gentleman yield? >> thank you. two my colleague. it is my understanding that a person of the gentleman raises a very important point and i would

like to ask the i don't believe that the fda has consulted on this issue. i think it needs to be brought into its long and as i understand the amendment, i think it is a star merilee complicated in we need to appear to this very carefully. is an important area with so i thank you for yielding to make and look forward to being part of the team that will work on this. thank you. >> and look for to working with you and all our colleagues have an interest in this very issue. do we need more discussion? >> i want to weigh in for about 30 seconds mr. chairman of justice said the fda is started during a sense no initiative, cms and ages and health care quality, the american academy doing stuff so you'll find a lot of support against duplication

and this is fairly. i was like you to join my colleague in this amendment also. >> thank you very much. mr. space, you withdraw your eminence? >> i do, thank you. >> the republican side, is there an amendment on the republican side? >> mr. burgess. >> mr. chairman, all like to be recognized to engage in a colloquy. as you well know and we have had this discussion before the work that has gone in this committee tried to ensure have a future position workforce to care for america's patience mr. green in nine past earlier this. in fact, last year began to pass only to die in the senate to. would my intention is to offer this bill as an amendment and the underlying bill place good investments in the workforce.

it is my understanding i have been told willing to work with a further this unborn aspect of the broader health care reform that are sapping continue to work to find ways to assure this provision could be modified to be part of the existing package and i was simply ask if i'm correct in assuming the commitment on that. >> you are accurate. i want to thank the gentleman for this idea of providing more incentives to sir residency programs, an idea we took seriously when designing our work first program. some of this policy is similar to sections of the americas affordable health choices act, section 2214 direct grants for the purposes of initiating a new primary care residency program and an outpatient centers in supporting programs. i think there are some good ideas and i want to see regular together on them and see if we can put them into the legislation.

>> when anybody else waiting? >> i have an amendment at the desk. is an inappropriate time are we going to colloquies? >> is it an amendment to the title? >> yes. >> yes,, the clerk will report the amendment to mcginnis starting at the end of section 31 of 11 of the public health service act as being added by section 231 day of the bill. >> without objection them and is considered to recognize. >> is going to be opposed.

>> i need five been as to why the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> want to ask for unanimous consent to amend this to 1 trillion as opposed to the 100 billion or less currently in the amendment. thank you. no objections, so ordered. [laughter] >> what is your bill? >> i thank you just accepted it. >> i ask unanimous consent of. >> you want to put in this amendment can and he was to strike -- chemical and six and 700 billion or less, just 1 trillion. >> without objection that will be the order. >> thank you. this amendment is than ever to stop wasteful spending by the federal government, the

amendment would prohibit new prevention animalist trust from going into the night and was the projected federal deficit for the next fiscal year is 1 trillion are less. section 231 of the chairman's bill authorizes 35.3 billion for new prevention and wellness trust which will be used to fund a public health and work for such activities in the bill. this includes grants to state and local public health departments for providing community wellness services. this could mean anything from we've heard on various news reports and newspaper articles from installing more jungle gyms to creating by trails and parks. inherently municipal responsibilities for recreation. just this week it was reported that our federal budget deficit at our top $1 trillion for the. was 2 trillion by the fall. the chairman's bill will add billions in new spending.

of this amendment would help stop this wasteful spending. according to the congressional budget office is enjoying committee on taxation assessment and then to the chairman's bill will result in net increase in the federal deficits of two and a 39 billion from 2010 to 2019. even president obama has promised the the health care reform must be and will be a deficit neutral in the next decade. this will help president obama promise to keep his promise to the american people. is prevention and welfare -- well the stress is part of a massive new public health investment fund. the fun has authorized a 8.7 billion and assets of any budgetary requirements so this time i would deal and to the rank a member of the committee. >> this is pretty stable orbit. what we're saying here all the

folks trying to be physically conservative and believe in paygo we are not going to let the sanctions go into effect unless we get the budget committee in the budget deficit for the whole federal government down below a jillion dollars a year. is currently 1.6 trillion. now the president obama's budget in the republican budget that was put on the floor president obama's budget to get below the trillion dollars and republican budget that will blow a trillion dollars of this is a target that is sensible and still a huge button -- a trillion dollars is nothing to laugh about but at least to give us a start to be fiscally responsible is that straight short of that we would work together to get the deficit below and in all cases a trillion dollars per year before it goes into effect. >> the chair recognizes himself. >> i will yield a my remaining

time. >> and opposition to them and we need to reduce the deficit and work toward a balanced budget and that why we have produced a deficit neutral over 10 years and that is why the bill contains the largest reductions in spending for medicare and medicaid ever proposed and that is why the house in some stores pay-as-you-go rules with the dollars we spent on prevention will be the most efficient and cost-effective investments we make in health reform and makes no sense to pull prevention hostage to the broad as of the budget. this would say all the cutting edge ideas that we are agreed to to provide prevention and research and deliver innovations to try to prevent diseases who no longer be, in fact, so i urge my colleagues to propose. we now proceed to vote, all those in favor of the kerry amendment will say i, all

supposed will say no. >> let me ask for a roll-call vote. chemical will go to a roll-call vote. the man downs this is the last vote of the evening. we will not need tomorrow. because we have discussions on going with members. i think we're making good progress and that want to pursue those discussions further so this will be the last vote and we will meet on wednesday at the call of the chair. >> i have an amendment to the desk that has been there at two hours 54 minutes and it did submitted yesterday. >> we're in the middle of a roll-call and then will talk about your amendment. >> the clerk will call the roll.

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

any other members wish to be recorded? with -- if not the clerk will tally the votes and announce it. noir >> mr. chairman the eyes are 23 and and a 33. >> the amendment is not agreed to. mr. rogers, you have an amendment, and others and will be precluded from offering these men and. will either come back the next markup and go forward with those amendments of this title or we will recognize them later in the markup, but as long as they will be precluded. but i made a promise it would be out of here by 12 and one to keep that promise.

[laughter] so california you are keeping a but in washington your not. >> we stand in recess to the call of the chair. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

the house energy and commerce committee wrapping up. while award [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

next the nation's governors on energy in the economy including comments from business leaders on their efforts to address climate change. from the national governors' association meeting in biloxi, mississippi, this is an hour and 25 minutes. >> the provision of a portable reliable energy is so fundamental to our economy, our economic recovery, and also to a national security and i will say

that the choices you make of this administration ranks of our congress makes in the coming years will be with us for some decades to come so i need to approach with a purpose level of seriousness and is to be fact based. but before we know where we are going, where are we? that you center did a poll in january but was on the minds of american citizens in a energy came up as number six behind the economy. i would like to say that global warming came out as number 20 on a list of 20 and that is for the american mindset. when gallup did a poll in march about climate change and interesting is is is it came out that there is an increasingly growing population out there that is skeptical of what they are being presented in the media and as fax -- 41 percent of the american people are skeptical about hipaa ability of what is being presented and when they're asked whether they were going to be willing to pay more to address climate change he was a huge change from where we were

in the '90s when almost double the amount of people were willing to pay more and now we are because of the economic times in which we find ourselves basically split on whether we should or should not be paying more to address the challenges associated with climate change to pare down what is happening in the world. between now and 23 the demand for energy is going to go up by 50 percent of a 7% will be the developing world, china has 30 million cars on the road today and will have 300 billion cars on the road by 2030. and we still have a million and have people without access to electricity but the demand for electricity around the world is going to go up by 100%. here and the united states we so demand will go up by as much as 30% and no electricity demand will go up by 20%. what are we doing about it? coal which provides 50 percent of our electricity and many other governors are blessed with natural resource in your states, we're making it difficult for the producers of coal and the

utilities that use it to expand their business. .. blessed with that natural resource, if we have climate change legislation passed through the senate, those in the coal business will face new penalties. nuclear, which provides 20% of our electricity, we have 20 utilities which have put forward applications to the nuclear relative a story commission to build 26 new reactors in our country. we have not built a new one in 30 years. funding for to reduce capital cost of these nuclear plants, to underwrite them was excluded from the stimulus, expanding guarantee authority has been eliminated from the 2010 budget. we have defunded yucca, no longer have the proposition of a permanent repository for our nuclear waste and the administration announced we will no longer pursue near-term reprocessing of nuclear waste and the utilities are still paying every year into a nuclear waste fund and yet the government is in breach of its

obligation to remove that nuclear waste. on the transportation side, we are 96% dependent on oil for our transportation, but we are not doing anything to access the tremendous reserves we have in the united states. we have placed 85% of our reserves off-limits for 30 years. the north korea have expired and we have not put any of those new leases out for elise, and we're pulling back on the leases that are available and allowable for lease. in addition, in the budget that has been considered in congress, there are $80 billion of new taxes on oil and gas companies. we are extracting -- restricting access and taxing as companies on their existing operations and we are blessed with great news of new natural gas around our country but we will make it very difficult to get to and that is a game game changer. if we have more natural gas we have more energy security and it is a cleaner-burning fuel. just show you a quarter by quarter basis the second quarter

of last year versus the second quarter of this year you see a reduction in the gas well completions in our country. so it's happening in real time. it's not been to happen in five or ten years. we are talking about decisions to the impacting us today. on the other side let's talk about renewables. solar and wind account for 1.3% of electricity. we are investing tremendous resources and hard and deep. production tax credits, manufacturing credits, mandating the expansion of this. it is all good and we should be doing that but even if we quintuple the amount of wind and solar and our supply we would still need for base load power. we can't forget we need to keep the economy humming. on the efficiencies side of things there's great opportunity. we could do more with less energy, and we are investing a tremendous amount of money in there and also may seek the making our passenger fleet more efficient but i like to see with renewables and efficiency it's not sufficient. we need more energy supply.

the problem is we have a new thing. if you remember nothing about what i said today remember banana. we now have a plague and the economy is banana, build absolutely nothing anywhere near any one and the reason is we no longer have red tape, we have a green tape. we have projects all across our work country that are bottled up with litigation, abuse of siding regulations of the state and federal level and this is what it looks like. over the past two years we have looked at 300 energy projects that have been put forward for licensing and all of these have been stalled or stopped by litigation using environmental regulations. and it's not just a natural gas and its conventional fuels, these are in the projects as well so we are taking viable options on all forms of energy off the table. we were talking about before this session we are even making the building of a solar panel and solar raised in the mojave

desert, not doable according to senator boxer so we have a real problem. we need more energy and infrastructure. they create jobs in your communities but we are letting them be held up. a couplexd of words on climate change. certainly the epa has a full plate with proposition of endangerment finding. we know the waxman markey bill that passed in the house, to 19 to 12. i will note from a state stand .22 delegations have a majority voting for the bill so you can do the math how many delegations didn't have a majority voting for the bill and i think that complicates the senate debate tremendously. we know the debate will happen under senator boxer coming in september and the president just returned from the g8 where they committed to the developed world reducing their emissions 80% by 2015 similar to but the waxman markey bill was but the developing world walked away

from those negotiations and did not agree to any binding commitments. where are we? will the u.s. emits about six gigatons of co2 per year. that sounds like a lot. it is a lot but there is one sliver of good news and that is we are emitting less now than we did in 2007 and in fact 3% less. who's doing better? one country and one only and that's friends. that's because the have 80% of electricity derived from nuclear power by you see the rest of our colleagues in europe for whom we take a lot of grief about what we are or are not doing as well as we are and then you see the developing world on the bottom part of the graph that have tremendous growth in greenhouse gas emissions. in fact 80% of the greenhouse gas emissions in the future will come from those economies and not for -- for hours. as we look forward to copenhagen and beyond it is imperative that the developing world be part of the discussion and ultimately commit to binding obligations

otherwise anything we do will not have any impact on the environment and only at first, adversely affect our competitiveness. just a graphic depiction of waxman-markey. no, you're not supposed to be able to read it because it is very complicated. but it shows there waxman-markey proposes 370 regulations and over 1,000 mandates. it's complex by any stretch of the imagination. it is a bill that is 1500 pages long and it has multiple components to it but i think the most interesting part is a provision that came in about 3:00 in the morning of the day before the bill was supposed to be voted on which is an unemployment assistance program and this is for any employee in the fossil fuels industry that loses his or her job because of the promulgation of this law that you are then eligible for 156 weeks of unemployment assistance at 70% of your salary. it's an up front admission there will be job loss for this bill.

there are big differences and analysis of this bill. the national black chamber of commerce says 2.7 million people will lose their jobs because of this. there's other analysis this is the impact will be smaller. the bottom line is it is so complex we don't know. we need their analysis and more transparent discussion. what we do know is if it's successful and there will not be a test on this slide, but i put it up there to call your attention to it is successful we have to remove a gigaton out of co2 in the atmosphere between now and 2020. for those of you without your pocket calculators east of building coal-fired power plants we are replacing them with 130 new nuclear plants. we haven't build one in 30 years. or 127,500 windmills. to be have the policy and regulatory in place to do that? do we have the manufacturing base to do that? do have the credit and capital available to you that?

if we do it, if we are successful this is what will happen to our economy. we will have the co2 emissions intensity what bangladesh has today. that's the red line, thus, in 2015 as opposed to the other countries at the top. that is where they are as of 2005. if we are successful, we will have the co2 emissions per capita, that means per person of north korea. i am not doing this to fear monger. we need to be doing something. this is to put reality on the table that the transformation we are talking about is huge and we need to approach it very seriously with the appropriate amount of policy and regulatory and capital incentive to make this type of change feasible. so what we need? we need more realism. we can't pick and choose our solutions for the future. we don't have silver bullets. i like to say we have a silver buckshot. we need oil and gas seem to produce more of homes. it creates american jobs and

industries and certainly increases our energy security. we need nuclear, clean coal, no alternative transportation fuels that don't compete with food over the long term. we need renewables. we absolutely need renewables but we need a sustainable policy to insert themselves into our energy mix. you know we need to modernize the infrastructure seeing it every day in your state we of 20th century infrastructure trying to support a 21st century economy. it doesn't work. china is leapfrogging over in their infrastructure quality. we need to get serious about overcoming that and get beyond nope, not on planet earth, banana, what ever you like to call it unless we build something we will never have the infrastructure so we need to streamline that permitting process to streamline and get this moving. last but not least we need to invest in our innovation and intellectual infrastructure. at the end of the day, innovation will carry this economy and if we don't remain competitive in that area, we

won't be competitive in any of theirs. but i have to say there see these clouds and the horizon. we need more options, more american jobs, not fewer, and there's a growing gap in the public and policymakers policy going one direction and the american public is another. 77% of the american public want more oil and gas and 52% want more nuclear and yet the current administration policy congressional action is taking those options off the table. we need to transfer a discussion on cost and benefit. it's going to cost something. we all know that. but we need to bring the american public along better the and we have to date and we need an inviting investment plan. katulis scarce. we want to invested here in boise, boston, not just beijing and mumbai. we have to get serious about the climate making sure those investments have been here. and last i would like to remind you as government leaders that we have to be very, very serious about the role of the private sector versus the public sector.

it is on the back of the private sector that our country has become so successful and it's on the back of the private sector that will drive our economic recovery and so as we seek to define the delineations between public policy in the private sector we have to be very careful we don't one incentivized their activity here because it's very important that the bea participants in our recovery and fuel the recovery and energy obviously begins and ends with energy. if we don't have affordable energy we won't have a successful recovery. thank you. [applause] >> i want to thank karen for a wonderful presentation and her comments. and we have time for one or two questions any of the governors would have at this time. >> just on the oil shale side, i think i have to -- the state with the largest oil shale so i think it is not fair to characterize the government is backing of the commercial leasing that permits, it's actually the private sector that said they don't know the impact

of the technology that they are trying to demonstrate. they don't know the impact on ground water, so they backed off the commercial lease. i know the secretary of interior pretty well. he supports oil shale development. he supports the r&d programs. but i think it's at this time it is just not fair to say that the federal governor is backing off. what we are asking them to do is what they are doing. we are asking them to make sure that the technology is proven out, you know what the impact is on the water quality, the technology and also the amount of water consumed because there is a scarcity and second the amount of energy that is consumed to do the technology they are demonstrating, basically stick a heating element in the ground and convert shale to liquefy the wheel and extracted through a conventional process. and so we have asked them to go slow because we've danced the stance once in the early 80's and we built up an entire community and an entire commerce

around we'll shale development and it went aground in a day when the price of oil changed, so from our purposes we are not -- we are not about trying to prevent oil shale development. in fact, i think i even speak for the folks who were governors and other states where there's we'll show we've had discussion about this. we want to go forward but we don't want to go bust in a day because communities can be impacted and dramatic way and we absolutely want to know the impact on wildlife and on water and air and until we do we don't want them to design the rules for commercial leasing. >> there has been significant investments in their research and development. you're right about that and those me to continue over time and their needs to be a partnership between the federal government and private sector in that regard. what the sector is singing is in order to realize there's going to be a benefit at the end of this very significant investment they are making hundreds of millions of dollars, and investment in r&d that there will be the prospects for

greater commercial leasing. they want sureties of the can actually commit to the funding stream for increase r&d. it is a partnership that needs to happen that there needs to be an endgame and promise they will be expanded commercial leasing. they want that long-term view and that is what i think they're looking for from secretary salazar. we've had discussions with him and would like to see more movement. we'll shale can be a very significant contributor to our energy security at home but we need to make sure there is a signal to the private sector that ultimately they will be allowed to recoup those investments they are willing to make now and that's important. those investments being made and jobs being created but they will not make those if they don't think ultimately they will be able to bring the resources into the marketplace. >> time for one more. >> governor schweitzer. >> when i see a chart by presenters -- thank you for coming -- that predicts what was going to look like in 2015 there's only one thing i know for sure, they are not right.

and we saw the chart that showed how much co2 china would be producing relative to the united states in 2015. i don't think we know. but i do know in china that they are leading in value technology, leading in solar technology. they are leading and coal gasification technology. so they are making some very significant steps. and if what we are able to do is to look at 18 or 15 year progress grade and then predict where we are going to be in 2015i am going to predict something else. just a few geological structures in montana has enough oil at a rate that we have increased technology during the last ten years the price of oil would be $2 a barrel in 2015. so, i think for those of us to say we cannot move on climate change because china and india will not and are not, america leads, either we will need to legally or we need to get out of

the way and right now what is happening in china is they are beginning to lead in the green technology. so i think we need to lead the world and we can just say china isn't moving so we won't. that is just my point. thank you. >> i agree. any forecast out to 2015 and should be circumspect about. the problem is the negotiations under which we are trying to participate use that as the endgame is where do we need to be in 2015. some people are trying to see beyond where they can. we have no idea what technologies will be available in 2015. you're absolutely right but we are trying to define target's and that is very tricky if we were to be more realistic and design something much more near-term we would be better off because we know what tools are, with the instrumentation is that we have today. you know, prior to the stimulus package we were investing less in research and development here and energy than we did after the 1970's or oil embargo. so, we have ignored the opportunity, and we are paying the price. so we should be investing in

more and r&d, but we need to be concerned about those investments just staying in the laboratory. we need to get them more quickly out into the private sector and sheep the market and provide concessionary financing so that we can use these technologies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and keep our economy competitive. i think we are in violent agreement here that we can do things to improve the environmental stewardship while improving security that gives access to some of montana's resources. >> one final very quickly -- >> i wasn't quite say anything but i can't help it. [laughter] one area where we have actually put the technology in the field where it isn't an r&d and one area where it's not the government that has caused the reduction in the productivity of the natural resource, but the private sector because of the natural forces of the private-sector is natural gas. we've had a huge -- and your slide show a huge reduction in natural gas. it has nothing to do with the government. it has everything to do with the fact we have been good at

implementing r&d we now have she'll technology and she'll fields all over the country now that they've opened up and natural gas went from $13 nces down to, as the other day, $3.33 and mcf. it is a product of competition. it's a product of supply and demand and a product of the capitalist system. so, the slide that you had on their about the natural gas, the reduction in the natural gas is because this is working. it's because r&d did work, because we did apply in the field and we've actually commercialized to the point that now we have got plenty of natural gas and in fact so much natural gas we need to start using more of it. and if you want to cut down on some of the coal over there, joe, we will send you some natural gas [laughter] >> we should be able to use that natural gas and as i put up on the slide can be a game changer that is a huge opportunity to increase our energy security here at home and be able to put

policies in place, however, to actually get into the marketplace. thank you very much. >> [inaudible] >> anybody that wants a copy of care in's presentation, she would be happy to supply that. thank you, karen. you can see it's an interesting topic. something very important state by state and in our nation. our next speaker is kathleen, a founding partner. a firm focused on commercialization of clean technologies and operating partner at element, a private equity firm investing in early and mid stage clean technology companies. in july of 2008, ms. mcginty stepped down as the secretary of the pennsylvania department of education and as the chair of the pennsylvania energy to a limit of 40. where she helped bring more than $1 billion in new investment and created some 3,000 new jobs. previous to her service in pennsylvania mcginty chair of

the white house council on environmental quality under president clinton and regulated environmental advisers to than senator al gore. please welcome the kathleen mcginty. [applause] >> thank you very much, governors, and for hanging in there at the tail end of this very good session that you've had and to governor barbour for hosting us all, thank you very, very much. it's been a flying saucer welcome that we've had. i wanted to share ideas especially in light of this tremendous expertise all of you, many of you governors, governor schweitzer four mick sample have tremendous expertise things energy and can hold forth in great detail as best as any of us can. so there are three points i felt i would share today. before i do i did want to both

complement karen on her presentation and comment on a couple of the things that she had to say. on nuclear programs for example, one of the acts that i wear today is as a director on the board of directors of the company called an nrg. we've been in the news when there is a in a matter of interest in exxon on nrg and we have members meeting on that proposition tomorrow. but we happen to be the first to file, to build a new nuclear plant in the united states. and from nrg's perspective, this administration has been very thorough and forward looking on the nuclear program moving right along with the loan guarantee. so we are very pleased in what we see. on oil and gas, i want to echo some of the comments made. to my experience, especially

when previously as a secretary at edp in pennsylvania we oversaw a very robust oil and gas program. our experience as it's all about price. when the price is high, the investment is there. and as the price of oil went up, we saw a tremendous explosion of interest in developing the oil and gas resources we had so that by the time i stepped down as the secretary of last year, we actually were permitting 8,000 new wells every year so for me that the driver is is the cost is there, the price is there than the investments will follow. but let me come to a couple of points i would love to share with all of you today. first, as a country we have been able but fickle about the energy agenda. it's on our mind and we in this and pay attention in one year and the price comes down and we have other things to occupy our attention. so first an argument we need to stick and stay with is this

agenda. second, not only that we need to, but that we should want to, that this is about offense, not just defense in terms of what is coming at us in the global energy economy. third, that if we do stick and stay that there is a very significant upside for us, our economy and our security in pursuing a robust energy agenda. so, coming back to the top in terms of we need to stick and stay we solve the oil price spikes of last year. we have a sense right now crisis is over, the prices come down and it certainly has from the $140 a barrel. while we have now been paying attention, we have the 2x in the price of energy since its low in february. if you look at the global picture in terms of oil resources, what we are seeing is that as compared to the 70's where it was very much about

geopolitics is much more about geology. it's much more about the fundamentals than the things fickle today. so the national energy agency for example for the first time ever last year went and examined each of the 800 major oilfields in the world. and their report was that those fields still producing, yes, but very much of the decline. in effect at the risk of predicting where and trends ago their estimate was just to keep pace with current levels of production of oil that we would need to find 4x collis saudi arabia's current production annually. if you figure and anticipated growth and demand that number looks like six x.

now those are macronumbers. we can look at individual oilfields, one of particular interest and concern to the united states, mexico's major field is the trail field of importance because until recently mexico was the second leading supplier of oil and because oil is such an important part of mexico's but and important in keeping a strong and sustainable neighbor to the south. two years ago the country of mexico reported in seven years the would be out of oil for export from the cantor belfield and since then the level of production has declined even more capitally. while all of this is happening, there is a tendency for us to think we'll prices spiked must be conspiracy, price setting,

that cartel playing us again and certainly there's probably some piece of all of that going on, but if you look at, again, karen focusing on the facts at the time that we were looking at $140 a barrel of oil it was just at that time we had more oil rigs deployed across the planet than ever in history. nobody was hiding the ball. are we out of leal? no pity is a good prediction to say we might be out of cheap oil? that's looking increasingly likely. if that's the situation with oil, many of you had coal reserves in your state, certainly pennsylvania the fourth leading producer of coal in the united states, and there we have had a sense that coal is endlessly abundant and cheap.

that was a good bet for many years until something happened in 2007 and the something was the government of china announcing that they had become a net importer of coal, building 40,000 megawatts a year of new generating capacity very substantially driving up demand especially for a highly btu, northern appalachian coal, so that $40 per ton you could always get on in terms of the price of coal overnight became $140 per ton. and companies were paying $140,000 a day in the port of baltimore in order to research board space to move that coal into increasingly lucrative and pricey markets. sokol, too, some very substantial upward pressure on

prices. now, natural gas has been mentioned here, too new opportunity, especially in the unconventional gas formation, the marcellus, barnett, hansel formations. these gas formations are proving much more robust and even had been anticipated and potentially develop at a cheaper cost than had been anticipated. but here i think a note of caution is in order. gadson can and should especially the new formations be put to work in our economy but it shouldn't be about putting all of our energy in any single basket and specifically natural gas, we did that before in the early 90's the prediction was we have a tremendous oversupply of gas. the price of gas will be $2 for every and ever and ever and so there was the rush to focus

singularly on natural-gas powered electric generation and a tremendous build out in natural gas plants but then as the governor said, that $2 became double digits and then was $13 in msf and now we have illustrated gas assets and so in terms of diversifying the energy resources and expecting as economic growth returns in a robust way while we can't give the precise prediction the better odds are the price of energy doesn't look like a smooth slope, it looks like hockey sticks with prices shooting back up. so one, we need t stick with an energy agenda. second, it's in our interest. this is about offense, not just defense. why is it in our interest? you know the statistics on

transportation fuels we're exporting a whole stimulus package worth of dollars every year, $700 billion in order to buy the transportation fuels from overseas. those dollars would be better invested in our own economy. but what's the story with electricity? their we potentially have the makings of a perfect storm. .. y. much of our fleet is 562 even 70

years old. there and with that, our regional transmission operators, the guys and gals who dropped the transmission and distribution a tremendous strain on with big grins, declining margins where for liability purposes we like to have a 30% reserve margin, those numbers now 910 to 10, 12, 13 percent. add those three things together and again investment in the energy space is a must for our economy and security and for avoiding what we're seeing today which is every year a million dollars plus an economic loss because of poor power quality and because of blackouts and brownouts and because the loss of productive activity in the economy. third and finally will call if

we stick with this energy agenda and there is a tremendous upside for our economy and our security. one answer on the flip side of the problems i just identify and but it is in three ways of building out and diversify our energy resources will be a boon to our economy. first and foremost i think americans agree and all of you believe when you to make things in this country again will. we can make things in this country again. steel we can make in this country new. of the stuff we can make there are a few things that are mar vital to our security and our economy that energy infrastructure so let's put people to work in building that out. secondary to build out that diversity of energy resources when we see is the cost curve on

most technologies coming down substantially pare down and so as to look at the renewable and conventional energy resources that we can bill today ec prices levelling amount applied for example lobbing i.r.a. who will a r&d curve and captured it coal. in on the order of about $6,000 a kilowatt. with well, how is wind and solar comparing to coal from the perspective of? win today installed cost shifting hundred $2,500 a kilowatt. ciller is a bit higher at 5,000 to $8,000 a kilowatt depending where you are in the tangerine, but even that is in laying with new nuclear plants that we can build which are coming in at

about 7,000 to $8,000 a camelot so what we see is with the investments we have made to improve these technologies already been the cost curves are coming down and the availability of energy options is increasing who us. last point when terms of why it makes sense would to diversify energy resources and to bring those resources on-line, we have an idea that renewable energy is expensive and no energy is free and there is a capital cost in building any and every kind of energy and i just shared with you some of those numbers. the up-front cost is one piece of the equation, but what about the cost for the price realized by the customer? were here looking and alleges city markets and how they're structured is key and in particular would wholesale energy prices are governed him

by costs on the margin. those costs and terms are governed almost exclusively by fuel costs when you bring and when a seller and hydro resources for example into the generation mix, you have resources with 020 costs and and then driving into the wholesale price of power and what effect does that have. it brings the cost of electricity down. with not just in theory but, in fact, what we're seeing for example in texas where there has been a very substantial investment in wind energy in west texas now. 11 percent of the times the stock-market price for electricity with zero or negative.

one foie pretty good deal if you can get a. that is not an argument to say it again all eggs should be wind or solar, it is to say though that these resources have an important role to playing wimbledon and if we are smarter about putting dollars across the spectrum in our energy resources yes there is an up-front cost, but there is a pan out in employment, and affordability and in driving our economy forward. thank you all very much. a [applause] >> thank you, katie, for a wonderful presentation and we have time for a question or two for any of the governor's. governor culver from iowa. >> thank you very much for the presentation that. will you talk about our operative named to make things about and i think there is a lot

of low hanging through right now surly in the midwest and other parts of the country related to renewals. for example in iowa we have created in the last two and a half to three years 2300 screen caller jobs. all brand new jobs. we are making tabriz, turbans and delays and that is all new economic development, new investment. we have an nine win energy companies that have come to iowa. the supply chain is calling them. the, but my concern is that we need the federal government to set a renewable electricity standard and so that we encourage more use of alternatives. i agree we have to have a a diversified portfolio.

we need it all, but we have a window right now certainly in the next couple of months in washington where we have a god -- we can have this debate about climate change a capt. trade in all of that but i think we need to go aggressively for something and think all of us can agree on is a minimum standard for renewable electricity. in iowa live we have had a codified in a readable and electricity stan and since the early '80s. we are now producing 15% in part because of that standard. 20 percent in 2009 just from win alone a. we have 2900 turbines operating and state. every state couldn't do that. and there might be solar, it might be geothermal and it might be when it comes but i have not heard any discussion about the

urgency related to what i think is the easiest way in america to create a green shirt caller job if we're serious about creating one wore a green caller job is to pass that renewable ledger city standard that i think -- and i don't know exactly what of this bill have viscerally rasul var otherwise we risk losing what we have and so i hear all this talk about making things and creating these new jobs of the future and here it is. we have got an amazing workforce ready to do it. there are talented and ready in cable. we have community college graduates with an associate degree making $50,000 a year coming out of these programs in iowa and they go anywhere in the world to work but if we don't have the parallel state and federal policies we are going to miss this opportunity monmouth of the 21st century. >> governor, i think your points

are right on marked, we have now grown in manufacturing sector that is not new economy versus old economy. is giving in productive economic opportunity to the skills as we have always had. we know how to build things, the 3,000 jobs is what we realize the and i think the importance you're talking about in terms of renewable porfolio standard what we're talking about their what is working with the markets of because an earlier davis in the '90s for example, the idea was it the bill that they will,. would well, that wasn't true then and investors that it had been burned with the idea are not buying it now. of the importance of the portfolio standards is a taste

of that market risk away. if you build it there will be a market that is think especially where we find ourselves right now where we have some bit of liquidity coming back in the financial sector will certainly not enough to win. if there is an overhang high risk and uncertainty those dollars will not be invested in the reverse is true. if we can provide that strong market signal the investment will follow. whew. >> thank you so much, let's give appreciation their. [applause] and assigned us to ask her neck speaker to come for arraignment wong. >> i'm glad to introduce woman, a former sissons, with a great facility in suburban jackson and another in our state and. daniel dimicco is in the ceo of the largest manufacturer of

steel in the united states as well as the largest recycler in north america. and he's done alone and the review on energy policy. his was the country's biggest energy consumers in the private sector. one [applause] >> good morning, is everyone going to stick around cranks' we're going to be here as long as we have an audience releases long as the cameras are rolling. when two things out like to start off with. number one think year-and-a-half before sending a realistic tone. i appreciated. as a miniature in this country into thousand hard-working men and women.

mw. katie, what can i say. number one message that i heard and we have been preaching and since the 90's and before and since the '70s is we have to have an energy policy and energy agenda that is organized, well thought out and includes everything. on and the reason why it didn't materialize and anything was because we did not have that. and natural gas the reason why we did not have that was because of the access issues i care about us time on as we know today there is natural gas around times a thousand. we have to access the property but is there. what a great resource to have a fighting great hope for our country's energy situation but the key has always been we have nine and an energy jenna and the leaders in this country who have let every american down since

that first oil crisis in energy crisis back in the '70s. let's american people down and they also have a responsibility will because i hope the leaders accountable putting together something that was going to stick around and we would of had the oil we're having a last year or so, what and how those issues and would amend the right thing so if we had an apology program for national energy strategy that in these encompassing everything. so i commend you love very much from making that point driving home. we don't agree on anything so if we have some contrary thinking one thing i can tell you about duke is that between now and 2050 we have to replace one

every power plant have today. every power plant between now and 2015 so how is our energy strategy as a country going to be put together to make sure that is done in a best possible way for america and for our environment. that is not even my prepared remarks, that is just a reaction to what i ever so far. a plus for both of you. , the slides you need to focus on because no business leader can get up here and no american who is the concern about what is going on with our economy cannot appear in not talk about the number one who priority and protocol thus for some time. one week and that is creating jobs. this slide is two carefully look at it is to show you the reasons why it is so important one and this light is showing you the number of job losses the twa and

what to seeing and the 500,000 more jobs announced friday will will be over 7 million jobs lost lives since the beginning of this recession. and this economic crisis. will do what you need to focus on the is that this shows the plot of a recession going back to the 1970's. unwed and as you watched this curve go from 72 as 29 is to 2,000 recessions which you see is a flattening of that occurred. two go for demons out after the p twa with job recovery is becoming flatter and flatter and tougher and tougher to come by. in and that is one thing you should look at, look at the time

at the bottom and women got to the bottom and look how far have down it is only reached the bottom. if you look in that and you look at today and what we are seeing today which is a lower curve unfortunately. what we have here is a crisis that is going to be with us for the rest of this next 10 years, not just next couple years. what people don't understand is how many jobs we have to create paragon every month when hundred 50,000 new engines, into the workforce from and colleges and high schools, your children of my children, grandchildren, and immigrants come to the workforce and these numbers don't include those. so you had better multiplying every month 100 of 2000 for however long it takes us to get back up to positive jobs.

if you really want to know the magnitude of jobs problems that we have in this country's job creation problem we are not talking about having to raise 6 million jobs for having to raise 7 million jobs. we are talking of having to create 13 are 14 million jobs over the next five years just to be able to take care of what we have lost in the new entrants in the workplace every month that goes by 100 of 2000 and the members to give the government to not include those people. and the numbers you get in the government and the unemployment rates don't include the people given up looking for work which is at a record high and don't include the part-timers which set a record heart. if you don't lay anybody off. we are incurring a over $100 billion additional not to lay people off and 40 plus year history never lay anyone off.

it costs money to do that. [applause] the reason i emphasize that is a day those people are working 50 percent of their normal hours. and there are not laid off. but they're working half the time. they have the new record total number of part-time workers. and when you start to look at the real unemployment rate today based upon those who give up looking for work and those who are on part-time it is moley 15 christine%. and not the one to put those numbers together although we have our own. you can pick up a paper when talking about this and not start to see the paragraph that talks about that group and real unemployment rates. that is a fact and not fiction, that is reality like karen was talking about. hard reality. we've got our priorities must up not focusing on the right ball.

where are you going to trade 13, 14 million jobs over the next five years? there is no one solution to it. it's got to be a broad base and we're going to talk a little about that. with the number one priority in washington and for business men and leaders in this country has got to be jobs, jobs, jobs. down -- and we've got to build to get our economy back to the point where we can do all the things we want to do including those debated hotly in washington today but we shouldn't be doing those things until we have treated the thai economy that gives us the money to pay for a. and we are not doing that. nominee think about 13 or 14 are 15 million tons that need to be created we're not looking at the right targets, not looking at the real severity of this problem peridot don't kid yourselves. and is that serious.

this is the son then this committee made up. this is real. book and how deep the drop-off is. it's going to go down another 400 to 500,000. imagine if the trend continues how long this is going to take for us to get back 20. cumulative job losses. you are talking way past 40 months. this is serious. there should be job priority number one for every leader in this country. everyone including the governors in this room. we have had a serious economic crisis greeted by serious structural problems in the economy baerga we had a financial crisis created in fi two much of something for nothing. well, we've had too much easy money. created by a lot of different

things not the least of which was attacked as of etiquette to buying on ardennes which of the treasury riss santa which gives money rates down which allowed for this fiasco of borrowing to drive consumption instead of what we all grew up with a need to go back to. and that is you don't buy until you have saved. we need to go back to that model which was called layaway. you want a new refrigerator you

save for a. you don't run up the debt. and the fact of the matter is the credit rules of change for individuals. to buy homes, to buy cars and refrigerators and for businesses. if you don't think this is a big issue think again.

it is downright scary. all the things that we have neglected. to ten years, weld were two. need to create those 13 million jobs and build things, rebuild our infrastructure, get on trade deficits straightened out. free trade, yeah is critical but only if you enforce the rules. guess what we don't do and haven't done since ronald reagan? bush one, the clintons, boys to, we have not held our trading partners accountable for the agreements they made to have access to our markets.

whether it be our free trade agreements, whether it be-- which china agreed to when they made certain rules the weathered the the favorite nation trading status we have given shine in other countries to have access to our markets. we don't do it. a free trade does not exist, what we have is a global trading world based upon mercantilism. china is doing its like no country in the world has ever done it before. before then the koreans did it, before then the japanese did it. it is okay to a point. we did it at one point i am sure in our history but when things get to an extreme then you've got to say time to play by the rules. you are no longer a developing country. china has the world's largest steel producing. in 2000, if they did 200 million tons of steel it was a lot.

in this country we make maybe 100 million times other over five times as big as us since 2000. i have a problem with china growing. they have got a lot of people. god bless them. get the currency where does deli in the market's earlier consumers can actually consume instead of having to say because there's no safety net. stop trying to export your way into wealth and start giving people an opportunity to become consumers because the united states, guess what? where going to be absent for the fight for some time. all of those consumers created in that big bubble that we saw in housing and everything else are gone. not only are we going to find a crisis in the great recession, but those consumers are gone because of credit issues, because they lots $15 trillion of their wealth. all that talk back in the earlier part of this decade about how people work

refinancing in taking the money out and spending it on things, how great that was for the economy. that was a short-term fix in a long-term disaster. created by lack of leadership. short-term fix, long-term disaster. people living on stuff that they had no right to and in this country, you don't have a right to own a home. you have the opportunity to own a home. this is the land of opportunity. yes, we have rights but when it comes to this stuff, we have the opportunity for a job. that is what my grandfather came here for in 1906 as a 6-year-old boy. he came here to live the american dream, and because of what was in place with the manufacturing society, his grandson got to move up to be ceo of fortune 200 company, making seven to $10 million a year. by the way the six most efficiently paid ceo in the united states, okay, so that is

not outrageous if anybody thinks so. i am still trying to get our defensive ends in charlotte getting $60 million for one year. it does not work out that way. it is not the way our company is set up. if we do well we get paid well and if we don't we get the salary, 800,000. that is the way it goes. that is the way it should go for everybody. including those guys on wall street that are handing out billions of dollars in bonuses today. we have got failed trade policy. we have got to revamp it. we have got to hold people accountable. we still have the market to do it and we need to do it. energy, what is this got to do with what i am talking about so far? the there should not be one conference on energy where you were not buying it back to the economy. katie did a great job of it. think about all the revenues that will be generated if we

truly develop a broad based plan that uses all forms of energy. by the way, added to a board meeting to put things in perspective to go along with your barbara boxer or dianne feinstein story, it in the mojave desert and how 500 acres could not be used for solar because there was an environmental group that said there was something special about the mojave desert there, solar power, which everybody wants could not be put into place because of that. there is another story. board meeting two years ago, i am sitting there. question after question for poor jim rogers bonn green this and green that, your coal-fired plants in what you build and at one point, it wasn't obvious jamaz going to jump in there and say nuclear powers the grannis form of energy and there was this young lady 23 years old who just graduated from college who said, you are wrong.

you are absolutely wrong. the grannis form of energy is wind. wind h%) manufacture of steel and i am single cover year here and i'm trying to get his attention every winter melon is made with the what? steel pier and or fiberglass. how much co2 is generated during the production of those raw materials here you want to buy a foundation for a windmill, how that -- do know how much reenforcing is in that putting? there is nothing green and about the products that go into from the standpoint this young lady was talking but she had it in

your head and have been indoctrinated and that is the problem we have. it we cannot be using on a lot to do with will world problems. this is not talking down to the windmills' and i hope there are a lot of them. we put a lot of steel into them. but there are a lot of problems with every form of energy we have here and i don't care how green you think it is a dozen have a significant co2 footprint. none. elyse none that we know about today's. we have got to have an energy policy that creates jobs. number one and gives us energy independence number two. i have to fight to stickier. i'm going to jump to the slides, this is manufacturing jobs since 98 in you is you're the have gone period and lost 5.8 million

and navy a third new to productivity and the rest due to a failed trade policy. here is how manufacturing jobs coordinate with trade deficit. the let's talk energy. you want to have an impact on the trade deficit, once you have an impact on on the living dead or a train debt to from a $13 trillion in the world today and. look at this chart here that shows you what percentage of our trade deficit is due to energy. there is no reason that could not be zero in 10 years. and none. but we've got to have energy policy that is real world unbalanced. there is no way. we are the innovators by recognition around the world for changing the steel industry. we have revolutionized the way it is made in our carbon footprint is one quarter what it is for the conventional still making. we recycle over 20 million tons

a year that doesn't go into landfills and use as one-third to one-quarter the amount of energy that produces -- steel. we're also the nation's largest purchaser of an individual producer of electricity. nuclear, hydro, natural gas human. this is a need to be this way. well we had in 2008 was roughly $800 billion of which 390 billion was energy. and there is no reason why we can't make that zero and as zero. we've just got to have energy policy that recognizes we need to drill for natural gas and sometimes we need to use nuclear, we need to use when power and need to use solar. we need to use hydro and need to

use everything to make that number go down by 400 million. you don't have a choice as to what you use. you have to use at all and use it in a well thought out orchestrated way. we have the lead in innovation but i will tell you right now takes decades to get from conception to develop the technology and then to implemented you better put another decade in their. so where is this magical technology that is when to make as carbon free overnight? it is unfair but in time it will be. we have a national energy policy led by our leaders and washington and business leaders of this country. we will get to the point where we are drilling everywhere we can and environmentally friendly way and if we can we don't tell but we have to be realistic and use all of our resources to nine to get that jazeera as soon as possible and while we're doing that will take some of the revenues been generated from that and set them aside and

develop the technologies for as wrinkle on ever we need to do and make wind power more cost-effective to get nuclear power plants built in the government will have a big role, they've got to be a leader. now this country got to where it is not because of iran stayed out of things but because there was a working realistic partnership over the decades between government and free enterprise, between government and business leaders who focus on and go and may happen. like the apollo program. if we can go to the moon we can take care of this problem but it won't happen overnight so we're going to have a multi stage energy policy that says and then to zero now because we're paying interest on that every. trade deficit going of the tunes of china's of dollars and we've got to get that down now. and then we can't use the money

that we say from that and revenues that come from that to build the green future, to build that carbon free future or minimize our carbon footprint. if we truly believe that co2 is a major culprit in man-made global warming. that is what we have to do and we're not doing it. we do not have a national energy policy to deal with this type of thing and we don't have the natural mfg. -- national manufacturing policy to get people back to work and rebuild their promising global manufacturing. whether it be windmill's or whether steel plants or whether it be car plants or whether the next generation battery plants and by the way in china, i know i've got to get going so i have a second year, i will stick around for 45 minutes just for you. [laughter] china is building coal-fired

power plants quicker than you can say jump in joseph ad. there are building nuclear power plants quick and then you can say the same thing. and their entry into battery technology with all due respect, there is a spit in the ocean compared to what you're doing to build nuclear power plants and coal-fired power plants. there are going to get into this no doubt about it. i agree with the gunner and we're not doing enough, but don't mistake of fact and that is what they're doing. and as i call prices are going up as you mentioned earlier. they are building more coal-fired power plants and you can shake a stick and we're doing nothing. we're not doing battery or any of it. is it any is to be a governmental effort to enhance the business and free enterprise to make it work, got to be a world war ii time and effort from everybody gets into the act and we're not doing it and need the leadership in this country to do it and pray that president obama provides that leadership and going to be told not to get

up about half with my talk. thank you. [applause] >> i want to think and for that positive encouraging presentation. [laughter] we appreciate very much. with that one to introduce our necks speaker, our final speaker this morning the ira magaziner. he serves as chairman of the climate clinton foundation and a, hiv/aids initiative and also on the board of alliance for health your generation and clinton initiative. from 1993 to 1998 he served as senior adviser to president clinton for policy development of the white house and in this capacity he supervised the department's implementation of the administrations policy for commercialization of the internet and work with first lady hillary rodham clinton on the development of the president's health reform initiative. prior two his white house appointment he built to a successful corporate strategy consulting firms that is as

major corporations in developing their business strategies. the clinton private initiative has been working on energy related initiatives worldwide including a project to bridge of buildings and reduce energy use. please welcome ira magaziner. [applause] >> i think i've got about two minutes in 30 seconds so i'll do the best i can and i realize i only thing standing between you and lunch which is not a good place to be. the only good news for me is not here to talk about health care. [laughter] let me just try to be practical on a couple of matters. what we're doing the clinton crime initiative is to try to actually implement real large scale projects around the world that will demonstrate the business government models about

how to get a technology is moving into investment moving toward clean energy future. on and on going to get specific and mentioning a couple of the areas. first we haven't talked about energy efficiency today and it is really the fastest way to get to energy independence in any country. we're burning with 40 of the largest cities in the world on projects to cut energy use and trade clean energy in those cities and there are a couple of major ways you all as governors can also engage in this and i know some of you are already. one is that an retrofitting buildings for an efficiency a typically can get 30 to 40% improvement in energy use and also establish building stock in this country. and get paybacks that the three or four or five years on that investment. we have been pioneering a number of different models that allow the building owners not to have

to put up any money initially but rather to finance to the energy savings and through other means to do this. agreeing with the issue on jobs when you actually a retrofit a building is a huge job greater because if you're going to put a green roof on a building something has to stand the building and is not the job in outsourcing in yet even if you wanted to so it is a huge job creator. we just recently initiated 500 million square feet of buildings around the world that we're retrofitting this year through all our programs including the empire state building in new york and merchandise and one of the largest commercial buildings in china high. we're also doing all the public housing in york and toronto schools and 15 different cities around the world and an edge of municipal and state buildings and places ranging from johannesburg to london to houston to bangkok to melbourne

from all taking their city and state buildings for richard and savings and living in amounts of energy. it's an economic case as well as one that saves energy. integrated waste management -- a place like new york spends 130,000 a ton to bury their waste. it is crazy. you can do integrated waste management now where you recycle and take the biological waste and turn it into compost or energy its south and these integrated waste management projects now, we are doing them in developed countries, redoing the whole wais system in london and a project in houston taking building waste and turning into compost and partnership with wal-mart and a lot of the supermarkets and others in this city and then also in places like new delhi integrating waste management there you have these new mega cities growing at

hundred million huckabee. we are replacing all the israelites in los angeles, it is going to save 70% on energy use. and all this lying right now when you have streamlines and traffic lights 80 to 90% of the energy goes with a heated to light with the lec lies you can change that around and now we are in 10 cities around the world based on los angeles model. implementing a ladies tree lighting. in places as diverse as bogota columbia and melbourne, australia. progress on clean fuel vehicles, they have been talked about, hybrid vehicle buses, garbage trucks and also eventually of research for electric cars. these are all things we're implementing and projects around the world. water systems, places like

london, 1500 you're own infrastructure and the same is true in many systems in the nuys states. the pump without water and the biggest energy is the biggest energy they have a inouye can use marra to energy and passion palms and repair the lakes and do other things that we use much less energy and water systems around the country. these are of practical things that mayors and governors have control over. we started in urban areas because the use of a percent of energy in the world and therefore if you get energy-efficient you want to stretch their but it can be done in small towns as well as cities. we are in addition promising clean energy that have been talked about today. we believe that also fuels will continue to be a fundamental source of energy in the world whether people like it or not for many years to come by you can develop clean coal technology is the two coming caption storage, we are engaged in large-scale projects in

pennsylvania. in victoria and australia and rotterdam to mention a few. to implement in addition, and capture and storage and also involved in projects with new technology that will essentially combine its co2 emissions with bryant or a sea water and create a cement so you financially embed the co2 in a building material that can be used as concrete aggregate or cement which would sell out two co2 problems, one in accretion of concrete but also being able to take the streams from power plants and imbed the co2 in the solids so you don't have to transport and very at. on solar when involved in applying the first large-scale solar deployments in the world, three to 5,000-megawatt solar parks in two states in india and australia and south africa and hopefully in southwest united states. one thing that i will agree with it earlier presentation is that

people think of india, they think of bureaucracy often in getting things going but it's much easier to get a project going of this scale in india many in the hobby in the southwest u.s. right now ortiz year in australia and so on that it is here which is something that should give us pause in something we should think about. let me just finish by saying these kind of projects, yes, we do need national energy policy and as we knew the jobs focus and reestablish them and ragin basin in the states, something i have been riding a bus since the early 1980's and our economy will never floors of us we reestablish ourselves as a manufacturer and producer of real things in this country bear down and use our innovation to do that. yes we should have national government policy is that foster that three industrialization of this country and using that associated with our energy

policy is as a natural. one of the things that i had in a career at the white house or in the beginning i was with health care reform which time, all the people of our friends of mine in washington also said and walked to the other side of the soccer field one playing and used to come over and mommy and then when i started the internet work and that was successful they were all my friends again that shamelessly, interesting experience, but with the internet policy which is the successful part of what i did during white house tenure when we were able to do is establish a policy for commercialization of the internet which not only helped launch the internet, it was very market-driven policies that helped launch globally through seven international agreements and also domestic policy initiatives but created millions of jobs in this country in the process. because we relators and internet technology. we need to do the same thing with energy. and have the opportunity with

energy efficiency to do that and i agree with the previous speakers that should be job number one right now because we can't raise some of the 13 million jobs we are going to need with significant infrastructure developments in this country that we absolutely need. it is shocking as someone who travels the world that infrastructure in places even in africa now where we do our as work is kneuer and superior to infrastructure in the u.s.. we have not revived our infrastructure and to do any to do it in a way that uses of the technology that we have a list of that is primarily manufactured in the united states. and we can do that, just as we did with internet technology we can do that. that should be the way we integrate our economic policy and energy policy together, but i would say you as governors and mayors from the front lines of this. because whenever policies and implemented globally is going to be used the local level that

connection is that the programs in motion that will make sure the infrastructure gets billed and make sure that building retrofits take place, make sure that we have voice management facilities updated, make sure that your water facilities are updated and so on. you did the government to help provide the policy framework in some of the money to do that. and also to give you take some of the handcuffs off so that you can actually get on and do that effectively. thank you very much. [applause] >> wanted thank you for your thoughtful comments and i believe governor barbara has a good question can i thank you very much. the way that mississippi like chet talked about for iowa, we are going to have the first commercial scale, and half years in the administration called power plant in mississippi in permitting right now. our other big utility big industrial utility is trying to build in that second nuclear

power plant in you'd be happy to know the local city and county have asked for it to be built there. but i was interested to see in the paper that yesterday the indians apparently told secretary clinton that they are not about to get involved and as dan mentioned that there are building about five coal-fired power plants the week in china. if i remember your presentation earlier that you didn't get to today, it's about five times more greenhouse gas emissions per ton of steel made in china than the u.s. so the question i've got. i happen to be at the hearing and the head of the epa said in answer to a question, if we do waxman markey or something like that and shine on india refused to participate and then in 100 years it would be no material difference in climate compared

for are doing it. >> well, let me be correcting and giving the indian and chinese point of view on this so what they would say. is that right now the united states team is about 25 tons per person per year of co2 in india is about 1 ton in china is about 5 tons per person and they would also point out that the accumulated co2 stays in the atmosphere for 100 years and if you look back to the accumulation of co2 they didn't have much to do with that compared u.s. and europe's other argument is to say don't come lecture us until you fix you're own house there. having said that, i don't think the world is going to be a better place it would just point fingers at each other. each of us having good arguments and bad arguments. we've all got to get on with it so in indiana that are moving ahead on solar and we have shown

them and there isn't a time to get into this, but the two key things when building of new infrastructure like solar is that solar has very high capital cost of fun to build but once you build it is very cheap energy because you just have to clean mirrors and replace mirrors on the break but then it works okay. but 89 percent of the total cost of building a large scale solar is in the capital costs in the financing. the other thing that is a born about solar committee bill about 3,000 megawatts or 5,000 megawatts will be 40% cheaper than if you build the plants so what we have shown them in india in doing this in two states is that within a few years we can to make solar cheaper than coal-fired power in india so they have been building, they have been building out coal-fired power plant every week and have. they're interested in going solar to do that. on curbing capture and storage they don't have places to store

like we do in the u.s. and can be saved so there we think eventually the technology we prove out totally this technology of converting co2 into concrete pillar then there will be very interested in that because they're building a lot in india and if we can get concrete that has diverted and comes from co2 that will be a technology civility now urges that first and foremost we should tend to our own garden here and make sure that we're doing the job here. end use the land that others are not to give us an excuse not to do what we've got to do, but the call i would make here. i don't think i would make politically and economically in -- that we win this argument nor do we do the right thing in america. if we try to artist as on the basis of climate change. i think climate change is real and we've got to address that

the first and foremost is has to be about jobs and about economic recovery and many to marry that because only when people understand that we're creating jobs here and i think economic transformation that we will win the particular argument to get the investment we need in our infrastructure and energy. thank you raymond. [applause] >> thank you to all the speakers and the presenters, we appreciate very much they're very informative and we appreciate you being here.

next a review of the major decisions handed down by the u.s. supreme court during is recently concluded term. you'll hear a group of legal analysts discuss the long-term effects of rulings that involve employment law, congressional redistricting, campaign financing and political speech. this is a little over two hours. [inaudible conversations] >> good morning everyone and welcome to the heritage foundation, we are proud once again to be sponsoring the annual scholars as crabs review of the supreme court term. will talk about the supreme court term in a minute and i'm sure that some of us will want to look ahead and make some discussion of the term that will begin next year. so let me to a quick

introduction here of our moderator and will turn it over to him for the rest of the introductions. he is the director of the center for legal and judicial studies at the heritage foundation and is also commissioner on the u.s. commission on civil rights. todd has been here for a number of years, he worked before he joined at the heritage foundation in 1997 was chief counsel to the house representatives subcommittee on national economic growth, national resources and regulatory affairs, served in the office of legal counsel and the u.s. justice department, and also as a judicial clear to the honorable ethan jones u.s. judge for this circuit court of appeals and has been here since 1997 so let me turn it over to you. >> thank you, rich, for the introduction and for you and the communications department helping us organize this great event every year. to paraphrase garrison keeler, it's been a big week in

washington. the cbo warned the democrats that their health care plan will cost more than their sponsors i. the manager of the washington national, many at that were fired for the worst record in baseball, and an aggressive driver was shot and killed by capitol hill place. is there anything else i am forgetting? well, we will let our distinguished panelists decide whether anything else is worthy of adding including those pesky for the hearings in the senate judiciary committee. the introductions of them however will be necessarily brief to get them more time to discuss them burn cases of the term. miguel estrada will go first, he is the co-chair of tipson appellate and constitutional law practice group, we're always delighted to have miguel on this program for his incredible when and wisdom including his experience arguing it 18 cases before the high court and participation in many others.

miguel was an assistant to the solicitor general from 92 to 97 when began a supreme court practice and also served as u.s. attorney and deputy chief of appellate section in southern district of new york. miguel as a trustee of the supreme court historical society and has been recognized by his peers in the appellate park is one of his most outstanding practitioners. his name has also been invoked recently because his nomination to be a judge on the d.c. circuit did not receive a final vote in the u.s. senate. the relevance of his non event today may be debated but i remind our audience that a lawyer john roberts suffer the same pain in 1992 and he was forced men to make a lot of money for another decade before his time came again. and given the miguel, his brilliance in the courtroom, i predict the same fate for miguel estrada joining the federal bench. [applause]

well, as for now, miguel i'm sure will have a smart remark. [laughter] his firm practice group was involved in several important cases in terms he will discuss. next on a program is neil, currently the principal deputy solicitor general of the united states and for a time earlier this year serve as acting solicitor general peritoneal has argued several significant cases before the supreme court but as private practitioner and the government. since 1997 neil has been a professor of law at georgetown university law center when not in government service in the late 1990's he was special assistant to the deputy attorney general and adviser on national security affairs including defending the constitutionality of u.s. military operations in cousin of. while working as a law professor neil defended the guantanamo detainees before the