wounds from inside. in the last eight years we have seen rising conflict between sunni and shiite, and between muslims, and provinces. ..

>> the next day they are on the screen, experts, analysts of the great conflicts that have been taking place force interest. that is not the choice for media to be informative and to give excellent for the audience. and empowerment with knowledge that we are not empowering

people with knowledge. we are giving people some data, fragmented ones, that does not really create balance, you know. but it does create a lot of, you know, faith, understanding. the middle east, i look at the news and sorry to say so, i have been watching the news during the last few days here. if you look at the middle east as a black box, people are killing each other, suicide bombing. everything is going wrong. you know, if i were an ordinary american i would say i don't care about it. those guys are crazy. i think they are humans. they are not aliens. they would also love to live their lives, you know, like americans would love to live their life, you know. we are like anyone else. we have families. we have children. we would love to enjoy our life and we would like to live in peace. but there are issues, and unfortunately the form factor is

very important. the fragmentation that is taking place in the region was a result of many things, the major and most important one was intervention. without separation to the interest of the people themselves. so that is something that should be looked at here can because not because we are crazy and make suicide bombing, it is not. we are inherited complicate situation. since the first world war, this region did not seek stability. we did not. authoritative regimes supported by the west, sometimes for certain battle enters. many of these regimes were undermined by the public. people do not see that the front of -- they see puppets who have visions.

so therefore people question. for much more balanced, paradigm thinking. they would like to see something that would represent them. this is what pro-arab nationalism emerged and islamic movements emerged and they represented that kind of feeling that established a collective mind in the region. after the collapse of the auto empire we now have fiftysomething states, and i think that keeps changing, you know. some countries go, others separation. we need to understand that and agree with it. and journalists should look at it carefully. to continue covering the region, the wake of an yet we are not serving the audience, neither are we serving political leadership or analyst. we are giving them, or misleading them sometimes to take different and might be wrong decisions. i wonder if we really did cover the middle east as it is

supposed to be covered. would we as journalists be able to sort or introduce knowledge about what is happening that could really lead to something that might not have created this kind of violence? that we have to go through all this kind of difficulty at this time in iraq, afghanistan. have a journalist really been open to open news and listen to all kinds of, you know, society factors and try to introduce much more balanced, understanding of iraq. this is why we became partners with politicians. i do not accept politicians. we are journalist. that is wrong. that has never been, but foreign politics including the last 18 years it is the case. politicians are the driving line for a lot of us.

and that should stop. we should start fresh. anyway, al-jazeera today we are lucky that people can see us here in washington because we are available for years now. we are here. you know, a lot of rumors were created about al-jazeera, but i think now people can see for themselves and judge for themselves. we demand for the people to see al-jazeera and judge what they see. what they see. we don't want to speak good about because the media is there. something that you cannot hi. it is on the street. go and see if what al-jazeera is about, something that you really adds knowledge and it gives you proper understanding. that choice i leave it for everyone. thank you very much. [applause]

>> of course, my microphone is not working. great, thank you. thank you so much for your outline and stimulating, and. time magazine, under the publication, has regular he said you are one of the great arab leaders of vision in the region. and i am interested in just posting this first question to you. when i am on al-jazeera shows, i am often compared to clerics or scholars or other people from the region, you know, obviously have worked different worldview. there is very clear there is doubt about the united states. even though there is fascination about obama, there is fascination. what advice would you give up barack obama, u.s. government, with what it intentions are in

the region to overcome those doubts. what are the measuring stakes, those benchmarks that your world needs to see to take the united states more seriously? >> i think i warn against the micro- movement of issues in the region. you know, i have seen people trying to revisit the policy, the strategy. they are just making about the things, not the overall. i think the region is important for the necessity of america. one of them, we have rising powers now in the world. and the americans have to understand who could they deal with now. the problem is if we continue, just enhancing the dates without looking at the overall picture, we might be even and we might not achieve much. people have, you know, really they appreciate the speech or the speeches. a lot of things that happen here, and it was really something great. however, that might not continue

forever because people want to see something on the ground. we don't want to be caught again in semantics on issues that are related to palestine, and iraq. we need something important and something with substance. and that is what i would say at this moment. >> right now i was over discussing and a conference in europe israel palestine issues and settlements. been a large one. i would be interested in you thought you have on the settlement issue. but one of the things that seems to be clear is many, not all, but many arab muslims don't believe that the united states is a fair broker and less invasive israel pay a cost where they see some negative for israel. and likewise, israel in terms of talking about the very term pro-israel almost requires there

to be a zero-sum loss for arab interests. did you see, does the network promote the notion or do you see developing anywhere in the arab world the notion that you can have a win-win solution that is not based upon one side getting a tilt from the united states and ultimately leads to a cost of the other? this is one of the biggest issue that perplexes me. >> we can for example take the issue of sentiments. we can forever argue about sentiments. this sentiment, how many meters they extended. how many houses were built, so on and so forth without looking at the big picture. the big picture says the following. that the palestinians did not get anything out of the peace process. if you take on the amount of suffering and amount of economic crisis that they are going through, and the fragmentation of the west bank and the siege in cozza, it does not give

magnificent picture about what peace should be about. i think, you know, people are negotiating for how many instances now. there is no delivery on the ground. that is number one. second, people do not see this process is actually moving toward something that could really be materialized as if the process itself has become a packet. not the peace. we are talking about the process. the process should bsl. the process should continue. the process for what? the process for us to lead into something solid. that something so it does not exist. we would have lacked the vision of describing what exactly this process should lead to, as if politics -- the politicians are not brave enough to confront this goal. so they would like palestine through just fragmenting the scene in speaking about, and that is a problem. yes, i argue a lot of people in

the region, including that most people would argue that we need something that could be workable. everyone understands power. the most extremist through the region would see the news, read the news and understand that things are changing. and they'd to change. sometimes we look at these actors as aliens who do not understand anything, and they are just on one way or another. i think that is wrong, what al-jazeera has been doing. is introducing all openings and i think a politician should look at all openings, open there with everyone. speaking to everyone. all people who are influential should be, you know, included in discussions. that will lead to something. but if you feel that people are excluded, i don't think that they would be part of any peace

process. >> thank you. let me open the floor. >> thank you very much for your presentation. if you meet or will you meet with any american officials, and if so who and why? and second part. >> i didn't plant that. >> the magazine mentioned which focuses on the roll out of zero played in the identity, the feeling of being arab. and it said any political movement. do you agree with that? >> my visit first of all was to speak to you at this form and to speak to some other people as well. and to communicate with our colleagues of the broadcast. as you know, we have the biggest broadcast in the government between english and arabic and washington.

and also to speak to some officials and to some journalists. and yes, we have requested certain meetings and we are in the process of arranging some meetings. regarding al-jazeera, we have never felt of our services as an ideological movement. we have never thought of ourselves as a reform movement. we are journalists who would like to break the practice of profession based on universally accepted, you know, professional standards. and that is what we have been doing. however, if i interpret what you are saying, just to be clear, it was not us who demanded the position. it was not al-jazeera worked to be the voice of the arabs. it happened that there was vacuum, mistrust between the public and government. and people were looking for something to symbolically represent them.

they found al-jazeera as the voice of independent opinion and independent from governments that really could do something. so the vacuum led to the status that al-jazeera is enjoying as the entity introduces coherent identity of. people watch the same headlines, and that may lead to certain priorities as well in their mind of understanding the region. but we have never really introduced ourselves as players within the region. we want to act only as journalists. >> thank you. [inaudible] >> sorry? [inaudible] >> we have asked many officials in the department and the white house, and we hope very soon. >> i will be blogging about it later in week after the meetings take place. this gem in right here. >> i am a political analyst and

activist in the arab-american community and the american muslim community. short comment and then a question. i am here is to press on your hand to say you are filling a void, a needed void, onward. onward. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> my question is, we, our community is concerned these days about something that the american administration seeking peace in the middle east seemed to be promoting, which is normalizing relations that we are asking for normalizing relations between arab countries and israel. the other initiative is to do that after israel abide by relinquishing.

your information and opinion. thank you. >> again, as i said, you know, i'm afraid that people will concentrate on the issue, and people had hope and they still have some hope that what is happening in washington will lead to change. and this is a wonderful opportunity and as i said it will not last forever because of the liver is important on these issues. so far, what we are saying, there is no, i would say a lot of people and analysts appeal to al-jazeera that they would argue that they don't see very much of change. you know, what we see is magnificent discourse, but without action. and we are repeating many stores that we have been living to the last 30 or 40 years regarding the peace process, regarding the naturalization issue of israel. and in my opinion piece that

will never materialize that might change the region. >> right here in the middle. >> i wanted to know what the reaction has been to your reporting on iran and whether there's any kind of plans to have al-jazeera farsi service? >> atchley, first of all we did report elections in iran as many other for both arabic and english news. >> were you put under the same restrictions? >> eventually come immediately of the elections, finished that same day, our reporters were asked to leave from iran. and of course we continue to report through our deal which has iranians working in iran. unfortunately, i would say the story we still face obstructions

in covering the story in iran. as you know, images were especially during the first few days and we were not allowed to film. and that created a problem. and we, like many others on youtube and twitter of covering images and stories. however, we also have excellent network of analyst within iraq from previous groups covering, telling us information that we may not be able to tell you that is regarding the issue of iran. in principle, al-jazeera actually is brainstorming the idea of expansion, in general. i mean, we would like, we have al-jazeera english now but we would like in the future maybe to concentrate on certain other languages and mainly in the region, but i cannot say that we have a definite decision on that issue. >> this gentleman here. right here.

>> i wonder first how, you know, i follow al-jazeera very closely. i think you are very biased and reporting about when it comes to iran and syria, and hezbollah. i mean, you are pro than. you don't have even a second opinion allowed to appear on these issues. most of the time, you are with dished. >> let's get to the question. >> second, why? why biased? why do you take all over the world to opinioned except when it comes to these three issues, hezbollah, iran and syria? second, how can you sustain yourself if your advertisement is zero. you are only petro advertising. how can you sustain yourself? >> interesting question. >> number one, the issue of

iran. i disagree with you. that is not to entirely. we have taken very clear coverage on the issue of iran. again, minute by minute. we have a quality assurance. if you would like to say we are biased compared to other networks, it is up to you. but when it comes to our standards, when we have conservatives, we have to balance them at the same time on the same news policies. five minutes, five minutes. that is the standards that we follow. unfortunately, we were to do that. some people have taken again, you know, on the issue of iran i have seen some kind of coverage in the western media where people have, you know, we're just supporting one way of thinking. we cannot afford to do so. that would be a departure from our norm. regardless of what we think about the conservatives, for example, we had a choice. they had the opportunity to be on the street. our relationship with iran was never the most smooth

relationship. the first time al-jazeera was close is because we did report about the only coverage of the arab minority, the people that iranians in the south was done by al-jazeera. it was one report that led to a little by the parliament and a huge protest against al-jazeera. then the second time it happened woodley didn't start reporting as well within certain conflux and again our bureau was closed in 1996 for one year, you know. so our relationship with iranian government was not the most smooth, but that did not leave us to take a stance against the iranian government. we did balance our coverage. some people would judge us because they want us to take the same whereby where we are pro, that is not the way we do think

that when it comes to other issues like syria. our relationship with syria has never been the most smoothest, and our bureau many times was close as well. we were almost few of the stations inside syria and outside syria. just two weeks ago when the head of the brotherhood, who is classified as the arch enemy of the region of syria we gave him one hour. and many other leaders within the syrian community h. [inaudible] >> i don't imagine any leader from the syrian opposition or any syria or any human abuser that was not covered by al-jazeera, you know. but again, again as i said we do not play a role of being the campaigners for certain opposition groups in order to wage war against the government. that is not our position. that is what they can do and we will report about them but they cannot ask us to be the

campaigners against a regime or. >> i happen to know a case where al-jazeera anchorman was arrested in syria, so in any case. just. right here. [inaudible] >> i'm sorry. we have roles. [inaudible] >> okay. it is not a secret that algeria was funded by government. and on this day, by choice i would say that we are not very keen on commercializing al-jazeera, especially news channel. why? advertising in the region is controlled by governments. . .

they have benefited from al-jazeera because it hosted al-jazeera and they also host al-jazeera to the world because it made it on international and regional scene. but it does not al-jazeera took a line to be the spokesperson of the qatar reform politics. if it was not true, it would never be accepted by the arab audience. because many other areas in the region were established with billions of dollars much more than what qatar spent on

al-jazeera. because they always continue to be the mouth of certain groups. >> i'm a u.n. consultant. and those who lived and worked in the middle east for 10 years. and as such i have a special knowledge a affection for the arab people. >> thank you. >> i'm a member -- well, i've been a follower and admirer of al-jazeera ever since you people began. because having lived in the middle east and listening to the coverage here, listening to the coverage in europe and in the middle east -- of course, i don't get my news just from u.s. sources because it's very hard to get the news here. and i really want to commend you on the service that you provide

for the world community, not just for your own region. my question is, at the moment, do you have foreign journalists working on your staff. >> do we have foreign -- >> yeah, uh-huh. >> and which countries are they from. and what is the editorial policy regarding their coverage of the news? >> great, thank you. >> we have actually the most diverse newsroom in the world. >> i can validate that. >> we have about 53 nationalities working for our newsroom. from the entire arab world and from all over the area, latin america, africa, wherever you go. our recruitment policy is to look at the credentials of the journalists themselves regardless of nationality.

it's difficult to streamline in certain direction. if there is a conspiracy that i would like to establish an editorial policy that i would like to impose, it's to bring all these kind of people. diversity within al-jazeera is actually an assurance because every journalist has joined al-jazeera was never pressurized at all and we have people from all walks of life with us. we never dictated on them how their roles should be otherwise we would really be in a bad shape. >> very back. >> yeah, the gentleman with his hand up. unfortunately, i'm blinded by the light so i can't quite see you but that's the right guy. >> i'm from radio free europe radio free liberty. you mentioned based on al-jazeera's coverage you don't want -- you don't want your children to grow up in the shadow of guns and, you know, you want everyone to have a peaceful future and everything

like this. but i watch al-jazeera and i see things like the birthday celebration from the terrorist from lebanon. and similar glorifications of this type of thing. and i wanted to know how you can balance that with what you said today? >> okay. thank you very much. you know, issues related to the concept of terrorism and the principle we have difficulty of understanding or dealing with -- maybe there are certain issues regarding terrorism. it has not been clarified properly, you know? especially the definition of who is the terrorist and who is not the terrorist? this is why the editorial policy with al-jazeera since the beginning was not to use the word "terrorism." unless if it's qualified. the so-called terrorist. so-called terrorism. if we would like to take certain standards in describing who's a terrorist and who is not a terrorist we will appoint

ourselves as judges. so we describe things as it is. we don't say terrorist movement. we say the name of the movement. we don't say the terrorist leader, we say the name of the leader and the group that he is leading. so if you come to the region, the issue of terrorism is very relative. a lot of people whom we meet on the international scene are terrorists for some people they may not be terrorists and we as a media we don't like to go into that discussion. we just describe the phenomenon or the story without getting involved in giving judgment. it is politically laud eed terminology and we're not the only network or media organization of the world that don't use the word terrorism or terrorists. there are stories we could look at or sometimes like the issues of promoting or not promoting.

we were accused of promoting osama bin laden speeches and we covered every other incident. based on certain professional standards. and we felt that it is our duty to do so. now, a lot of people argued, especially, here in the list, that once you brought bin laden on the screen means you're promote can his thoughts. we thought it was not true. professional standards say when osama speaks that is news. we cover it but that doesn't mean we glorify it. actually sometimes we help in demystifying this kind of discourse because it will be followed by analysis, it will be followed by a lot of discussion and a lot of people will be doubtful about certain issues we are teaching our people to be more rational at receiving stories like that or speeches like that. and allow them to have some kind

of time to contemplate and think about this so-called terrorist or that so-called terrorist. >> thank you. brian from the center for american progress. though the obama administration has recently engaged with the syrians and they approached the possibility of engaging with the iranians, it stands on and engaging with hamas so far has pretty much mirrored that of the bush administration. do you think the time to engage hamas has come and it's the step that the arab atmosphere come to? >> i would like to say in general, you know, i feel that we should speak to all. i'll give you something from al-jazeera. when we started in 1996, arab media did not host israelis. they took a stand against israeli because that's normalization and al-jazeera was

the first tv station to allow the israelis to appear on screen including officials and military and including analysts. we were condemned at that time. because this is not patriotic. we are going against -- and i stand in a press conference or a lecture in cairo or any other capital in the arab world, the major issue i would be confronted with is hosting the israelis. we are accused that we are normalizing the relationship between the arab world and the israelis. i think as a journalist and that someone who's living in this region that we need to talk to everyone. simply, you know, and i think in order to talk to everyone, you need also to think of him as someone who could evolve and change. and people do change. when you put someone on the screen, regardless of how extremist is he, when you look into the screen he behaves differently and his discourse

becomes more moderate in general. and i have in my mind something that i say always that the camera has effect on extremists and on many other people because it leads them to be a little bit more rational in their thinking. because they're not reaching for the discourse. they are reaching for the public. so always talking to the people and allowing them to speak is important. in media, and important in politics. >> since you asked me to make a quick comment, i am probably quite publicly aligned with brent scowcroft in speaking of brzezinski and a number of people, tom pickering, paul volcker and others have not called for the united states to necessarily bilaterally engage with hamas right away. but to end the isolation of hamas and the french come to mind in particular.

my view is that the political terrain in the region won't allow one not to eventually deal to sort that out doesn't mean you appease bad behaviors but not to have an engagement to me doesn't make sense. it doesn't make sense in terms of driving our policy forward. so i do believe in ending the isolation of hamas there. and let me say one thing about the obama administration. the folks that matter in making these decisions are struggling over this themselves and a lot of that struggle something going on right now this weekend as we speak. some who have come from the center of american progress folks want to try to make mahmoud abbas and fatah and give them another chance at legitimacy and they have been undermined whether by israeli governments or that the united states their legitimacy and their credibility has been undermined and negotiations and moderate players can be winners and deliver, you know, positive public goods their people.

i call that too much too late strategy. and fundamentally it depends upon you not taking into account at all what has happened under the bush administration. and how that group collapsed in terms of legitimacy in the eyes of their people. so i don't know -- dealing with hamas is not a quick fix to anything. but not finding a way to sort of look at it probably continues the incrementalism and inertia that's been preventing any sort of leap forward. i believe there's no incrementalist ways and you've got to begin in a very nixonian way begin imagining ways things that gravitational forces have taken and taking leaps in doing things that seemed quite impossible today but you've got to think of a very different vision. so i am definitely an engager. this gentleman here. i want to ask before we get here, fox news, cnn, bbc all

have moved into the blog arena. and i'm a blogger. and you see anderson cooper have got his blogs -- i should know this but i haven't seen it on the al-jazeera english site, are you promoting bloggers? how does blogging fit into your media awareness? >> new media in particular for us is a good opportunity and we defend it and al-jazeera is known in the region that it is a tv station defend bloggers because most of them or a lot of them have difficulty of regimes, some of them were these blogs were deleted and so on. always we open our doors for that and we encourage this. and we have one of the most active new units of the region in the media and we have encouraged a lot of blogging. it's regarded now as the most

popular blogging site in the arab world. it's open for journalists, open for the public even to write. it is not associated with al-jazeera directly because what is written there is not necessarily a representation of al-jazeera. it's an open forum for people want to say whatever they want to say but it is definitely given the opportunity by al-jazeera. al-jazeera.net is the most popular in the world. al-jazeera english 60% comes from america. we are in the process now of developing more blogging within the website itself. so very seen we're going to have that integrated in al-jazeera english and al-jazeera arab. >> yes, i wanted to ask the source of anti-shia movement in al-jazeera especially in iraq and in the gulf. shia arabs, i'm excluding lebanon. what is the source of it? is your policy or qatar's policy? second part of the question

regarding the saudi relationship and the fact that you don't receive instructions from the politician but everybody knows in the arab media here and i'm not sure about the americans that following the qatar saudi improving relations, qatar is like a 6-year-old ballerina. you don't support saudi arabia or invite any critics. your coverage actually is even much softer than the saudi press itself. where does that order come from? >> you know, it is interesting that we have anti-shia movement. [inaudible] >> so we are anti-shia and pro-shia operations. i can listen to a lot of things and what is interesting about al-jazeera it has created so

much diversity of opinion about itself. that we are not, you know -- i think we have been criticized by all kinds of people. you said that we are anti-shia in the arab world. not in iran. he said that we are pro hezbollah -- okay. -- >> it sounds like you're doing your job. >> i say we are not definitely. and a lot of our people who are working in our newsroom are shia. and a lot of our analysts are associated with al-jazeera are shia. i myself when i was in baghdad -- i did not actually who were shia and sunni. later i was educated thanks to mr. bremer when he decided to have the sectarian governing council we started discovering who's shia and sunni. that was not part of our culture and our judgment and never will be. the issue of saudi arabia did not allow us to cover in saudi

arabia so the only source we had at that point in time was operation people in certain kinds of places. at this point in time we are allowed to come from within saudi arabia. with our relationship and qatar and saudi arabia is enhancing or deteriorating at least now we are balancing the story through actual feed from saudi arabia which is what every journalist should do. if they do not allow to us report from there and unfortunately it looks not balanced because of the -- of the lack of their voice, we have never stopped the saudis participating. it was their choice not to appear on the screen and now it is their choice to appear on the screen. like actual at this moment in time. the iraqi government has taken to take a stand against al-jazeera and they are not allow them to appear on al-jazeera but we are continuing to be one of the most, you know, best coverage of iraq.

okay. we may have many operation leaders but not that -- not because we'd like to have other opposition leaders because the other side is not allowing us to have a view. for four years we are not allowed to cover within iraq because of the government opposition to al-jazeera. >> al milliken, am media. what pressure has been put on al-jazeera? for its coverage and images of death, collateral damage and suffering? and since its beginning has al-jazeera changed its editorial policy or practice in that regard? >> so covering violence. >> in 2004, in july, 2004, al-jazeera launched its code of ethics and code of conduct, which was which was a few months of deliberation in our newsroom. that was launched actually in a

forum that hosted more than 150 international journalists in doha. we do have very clear rules on issues related to graphic scenes, you know? we do not, for example, show close shots of fragmented limbs and the bodies and so on and so forth. and we do have also very clear standards of reporting conflicts. in order not to go far against our sensitive audience. however, we also do show images of war and destruction. maybe these images are not the close shots. we don't want to pick up certain images which are awful unless unfortunately sometimes when things like in gaza when live on air and we were confronted by certain images that was deleted immediately after the first time that was shown live.

the philosophy of al-jazeera is the following. you should show what destruction is all about. otherwise, you will cover up the ugly face of the war. but when you show it, show it with responsibility so you don't go extremely on the other side. >> this gentleman. >> you're doing a great job and we're live on the show -- >> i wondered if you could comment on the film "cold room" was it a fair portrayal of al-jazeera? >> we did not participate, of course, in making it. it was actually during the war. it has introduced certain suspect that was seen by a foreign journalist who comes to al-jazeera. and some of the people at that point in time seen al-jazeera as something black box, you know? they don't know what's happening there.

the image of journalists with long beards and, you know, anchor woman with head scarf sitting trying to support taliban. unfortunately, that was an image because if you listen to what mr. rumsfeld had to say about us, it was really difficult to imagine and a room like people like every other newsroom doing business like every newsroom. so it introduced that perspective of al-jazeera, i must say. and they spent a good time in the newsroom projecting that. do i feel like does it present al-jazeera philosophy and the understanding of journalism? i'm not sure. but it does introduce something different from the stereotyping and image that was, you know -- >> my name is mark nadel. i have a question about whether you've reached out to schools, high schools, colleges?

and if so are there teachers who want to show your sign watching a particular show or a particular issue or is there a resistance that you're showing facts and they need to learn what the government wants them to learn and not be confused by facts? >> you mean here in the states? >> no, in arab countries. do you reach out -- do you have relationships with schools, you know, the department of education, i guess, where -- or individual schools where teachers -- i'm sorry, i guess i'm asking multiple questions. whether you're reaching out and -- >> actually, i would say al-jazeera speaks to iran because our audience from every sort of and rank of age. also, al-jazeera launched in association with qatar foundation al-jazeera children. which is supposed to target children and introduce educational programs to them. qatar foundation is the sole

owner of it but al-jazeera also participated in forming and funding it. we do try through this point in time few projects that we have in mind to speak mainly to people who are under 13 years old. especially, children and youth. either through the screen -- by the way, al-jazeera, no, it is not one channel. we have by the end of this year we'll have 14 channels now so we have various kind of channels from sports to documentary to -- like c-span and we have many channels that are under construction at this point in time, so, yes, we do target this sector of audience through certain kinds of programs and through certain kinds of operations. [inaudible] >> the education community i think we are not -- we don't have a specialized education channel but we do engage them in discussion about crisis of education of the arab world and the problems that they are

facing. they are always presented on the screen and we have some kind of discussion but i cannot argue that we have specialized directed channel toward the issue of education. >> let me ask one question, i see bo stebbins who is the head of the bureau in washington and i'm lucky to be on the al-jazeera english sections. sometimes i'm on al-jazeera arabic and it is interesting you walk around in an arab airport and people say, aren't you that guy? but i have noticed that your al-jazeera arabic content is largely completely separate from your al-jazeera english content. what is the pluses and minuses of that and do i have the right impression? >> yeah. actually, we do have al-jazeera arabic targeting arab audience in particular, wherever they are in the world. and we reach out to them all over the world. arabic english is speaking to english-speaking, you know, people. and i understand that the arab world priorities of the news will be different.

because eventually they are considered and issues reiterated to their daily life and some of them regard al-jazeera as a domestic channel because you need to meet certain needs, especially, because of the lack also of other channels in their countries. some of these countries are -- the governments are controlling channels. however, we decided from the beginning that al-jazeera arabic and al-jazeera english, both of them, will have the same spirit of reporting but we will not have one common newsroom. the priorities for al-jazeera arabic will be different from the priorities of al-jazeera english. the same professional standards, same rules, and same understanding of journalism. and we have intensive discussion always between the two teams. we have one shared editorial port, we have most of our bureaus now talk to each other actually not actually integrated with each other but again we do not have al-jazeera english as translation of what al-jazeera arabic has to say.

and i think that is much more wise to have because in my opinion, al-jazeera english have succeeded in the two 1/2 years or three years only to do something different and to go to new territories. we have audience in at least 140 million households all over the world and from south africa up to prussia, we get a lot of popularity and audience. >> thank you. yes, sir. >> hi, jared from enterprise service. two quick questions. number one, i understand al-jazeera in yemen just got into some hot water with somebody for the reporting you're doing in the south? can you elaborate a little bit on where those threats came from? and what's going on there and number two, in terms of u.s. media, either print or television, who do you think is the most successful in reporting on the middle east? >> i'm sorry? >> which u.s. news outlet, either print or television is the most successful in reporting on the middle east?

>> okay. thank you. >> you know, first of all, in yemen, in the last few days we have faced difficulty with the opposition and with the government. so the opposition, unfortunately, our reporters were attacked in the south. from some angry mob. demanding that their voice should be heard immediately so on and so forth. and that led to some kind of attack against them. and one of our journalists was injured. on the other hand we have received threats from the government to close down the bureau because they feel what we broadcast al-jazeera is inciting anger. of course, the people in general are much more friendly than governments. but that particular incident that you're referring to, it was actually from some angry demonstrators who attacked al-jazeera and then later on from the government as well who threatened to close down and they came out literally

demanding some members even representing the ruling party demanding from the parliament to issue a decision to close down the al-jazeera bureau. >> is that still pending? >> we are actually continuing. so far our bureau is opening and functioning with a lot of restraints, i must say. it is not free that our journalists and camera people roam the country. some of these images are confiscated and some of these are not allowed to be broadcast to our headquarters. so we face troubles in yemen. but to go back to the second question. the second question, i cannot pick up one particular, you know -- i read the blog and i read a few other blogging sites, you know, i feel a lot of people are really brilliant and very -- they are reporting the middle east in particular with new alternative, different angle of reporting. and not enforcing stereotyping

and certain kinds of thinking. and also i look at, you know, someone who's -- of course cnn was available and we look at that. "new york times" i read the "new york times" always as other journalists do. i mean, we have different sources in the states. >> let me just take this last question from this gentleman. i sort of see through the lights here. are there two back there? >> thank you. john from the foreign service institute. two related questions. one is -- it seems to be whether you like it or not you're part of the -- whatever the arab cold war that's happening right now where there's -- you're on different sides and you're understood to be on different sides. i don't say you intend to be. but what's your feeling about that? and then related to the question, is it like pepsi and coke where you need each other? [laughter] >> or do you feel like it's, you

know, a real fight to the, you know -- for the soul of the arab populi populist. >> an absolutely wonderful question. >> you know, we have adopted a philosophy of reporting about the middle east. we put the human being of the center of the policy. we are a tv station that has maybe covered intensively the dynamics of the society more than concentrating on figures of government and people who have already been at the center. we have never had friendly relationships with governments but we have friendly relationships with people. so that was -- sometimes we are accused that we are populist channel. i argue that we are not. i argue that what -- a lot of things happening in the middle east are not happening in press conferences, not happening in meeting rooms or happening in the margin without understanding the people themselves, the social and culture fabric of the

society without aligning yourself with the public and listen to what weep have to say and meeting with people from various walks of life. some of our channels would prefer to be more on the site of what governments say and what governments do. it is, unfortunately, or maybe fortunately or our philosophy of promoting governments. governments officials are on the bureau of al-jazeera but we don't see ourselves as a tv station that's focusing on the center or repeating what politicians are talking about. or alienating all sources with certain governments. and i don't want to talk about anyone else, yeah. >> let me before i bring this to a close ask you -- as you look at your network and you look at your achievements and successes, what would you say is the biggest deficit, the thing that al-jazeera isn't getting right quite yet that you and your

management of the network are really applying yourself to that you think you've got to overcome? >> two major challenges we have pointed out in our strategy. the first one is to reach out to more youth and this is what we are intending to do very soon. i think, you know, while everyone is busy talking about conflicts the new generation of the youth would like to see something different and sometimes politics is monitored and people politics -- the second issue is more activity intergrate agnew media in a traditional media itself reaching out to certain platforms that go beyond traditional means. we would like to include that as well in our editorial programming sectors. >> i want to say i'm thrilled

the u.s. government came to its senses and get you a visa and i will be blogging with what i'm allowed to share with the important meetings that the tem from al-jazeera are having in the u.s. government. not to be a friend of the u.s. government and one to have access and not have access and i think it's very clear -- and i can say that without you having to say it that looking at the meetings that the obama administration is trying to push reset. we'll see what happens and it's a great pleasure and privilege to have you here in washington. i know you're speaking on the council on foreign relations later this week in new york. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> how is c-span funded. >> publicly funded. >> donations maybe. i have no idea. >> government. >> c-span gets its funding through the taxes. >> federal funding. >> part of a public funding thing. >> maybe, i don't know. >> how is c-span funded america's cable companies created c-span as a public service, a private business initiative, no government mandate, no government money. >> we take you live now to capitol hill as the u.s. senate

convenes on the agenda fiscal year 2010 spending on energy department and water infrastructure programs. the second of a dozen spending bills. the house has passed 11 of these measures with the last one defense department spending scheduled for wednesday. now live senate coverage on c-span2. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal god, whose power is

unsearchable and whose judgments are great, quiet our hearts in your presence. teach us to be still and know that you are god. bless our senators. give them hearts to listen, teachable minds to learn, and humble wills to obey. let the light of your purposes guide them from bewilderment to trust in your infinite wisdom and resources. lord, use them to bring about an ordered society of nations that gives substance to humanity's

dream of unity and peace. watch over the entire senate family and surround us with your protections. we pray in your great name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c, july 28, 2009. to the senate:

under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable roland w. burris, a senator from the state of illinois, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: robert c. byrd, president pro tempore. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: following leader remarks, there willing a period of morning business for one hour. senators during that time will be allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes. the majority will control the first 30 minutes, the republicans will control the second 30 minutes. following that morning business, the senate will resume consideration of the energy and water appropriations bill. the senate will recess from 12:30 until 2:15 today to accommodate the weekly caucus luncheons. mr. president, i have spoken to the republican leader at some length over the last few days, and we all know what we have to do before we leave here. we are going to finish the energy/water appropriations bill, the agriculture

appropriations bill. we have the travel promotion act we have to do. we have to complete the sotomayor nomination, and we have a package of extenders -- for lack of a better description -- that the house is going to send us. they're going to likely be out tomorrow -- i'm sorry, next week, but not for certain. and in that package they're send us, there will be a -- extend the highway bill. i think it goes -- all this goes until about december. the postal service that we have to help them. we have to do something with f.h.a. we have to do something with unemployment compensation. that's all in one thing they're going to send us for short extensions. i have not seen what they are going to put together. therefore, i couldn't share it with my esteemed colleague. but as soon as we have some

information of that, we'll make sure the committees of jurisdiction on both sides have knowledge of what that is. but we have to complete that work before we leave here. i hope that we can do it sooner rather than later. i hope we don't have to work this weekend. but we have a finite number of things that we need to do before we proceed on to the summer recess. this is something, mr. president, that members look forward to. i personally have a very busy schedule, as i'm sure most members do. but once a year i get together with my family. i'm looking forward to that. it's for seven or eight days. but we -- to just that, we have a lot of work to do. if we look back in years past, mr. president, congress adjourned by this time in years past. they were through for the year. we're unfortunately not able to

do that, much as we'd like that. there's a lot of work we could do at home, but we can't because we're -- this is where business is when we're in session. so we're going to continue to work -- get through these things and do it as quickly and as efficiently as possible. mr. president, fixing our broken health care system after decades of inaction is no small task. with such an effort comes no shortage of strong convictions, diverse ideas, rigorous analysis, and constructive criticism. as the plans, proposals, and policies evolve, our principles remain constant. though we navigate a sea of choices, we know where we'll end. first, we'll bring security and stability back to health care. second, we'll not add a pe penno the considerable national deficit which has ballooned over the past eight years. mr. president, this work we're doing on health care is budget-neutral. that means it will not run up the debt.

we're obligated to do that because that's the budget resolution that we just -- we passed earlier this year. that's what it says. we can't do health care if it costs an extra penny. so we'll do that. and finally we'll remain focused on seeing the fight all the way through, because we're long overdue for a change. those who are fortunate enough to have health care now might wonder, what are you talking about? you may wonder what's in it for you, people who are listening in. well, health care reform helps everyone and affects everyone. it will help those who have insurance today that don't know if it'll be there tomorrow. it'll help those that worry about there being just -- about their being just one illness away or just one accident or pink slip away from losing the insurance they have. it will help those who have children but fear their insurancchildrenmay not be ablen

they grow up, that they have coverage p. it will help 50 million people who have no insurance to begin with. it means making sure if you lose juryour job, your health care wt go with t health care reform means lowering the cost of care and keeping it low. it means improving the quality of the care that you get and keeping the quality of care high. reforming health care means that if your mother had breast cancer or you had minor surgery last year or your child gets alette allergies every spring, your insurance company can't say, i'm sorry, you're too much of a risk to cover. it means the premiums you pay every month won't go up because jury insurance company feels like it. it means keeping costs stable. it not only means making sure you can keep your family's doctor or keep your health care

plan if you like it, but also that you can afford to do so. no one can predict when the next accident may occur or when one might lose his job. we don't know when we'll get sick next or when one of our loved ones will become ill. but we can take the uncertainty and unfairness out of the current system. we can make sure they're stable, more secure, more reliable, and more dependable. second, mr. president, every one of the many plans we've heard for fixing health care have something else in common: they each have maintained president obama's commitment that this effort, i repeat, will not dig us deeper into debt than we already are. any plan that passes this body will be fully paid for, i repeat. when all the news are crunched, the number-one bottom line is zero. it won't cost anything. in fact, as we improve disease prevention and better coordinate

medical services we'll be lowering future costs even further. families will also save in the long run because the status quo becomes a hidden health care tax. if you have health care now, you're paying at least $1,000 more for that health care than you would need if other families had some insurance. when we reform health care and you're no longer responsible for covering the uninsured, you will see those savings in every paycheck that you get. the only costs that worry me are the costs of doing nothing, of inaction. we've already seen what happens when we do nothing. over the past eight years health care costs have risen to record levels. the number of americans who can't afford insurance did the same. the number of people who lost insurance rose dramatically. every day, mr. president, 14,000 people in america, seven days a week, lose their health insurance. right now in nevada, half a million people already lack the

coverage they need or struggle with inadequate coverage. if we don't act, many, many, many more nevadans and millions more americans will lose their health care as it gets more expensive day by day. for a generation we've been working to fix this broken health care system. throughout in year we've explored numbe numerous proposan numerous bipartisan committees hearing and today we're closer than ever to getting something done. lit me just add to what i said -- let me just add to what i said to the senate. senator dorgan is an experienced legislate tealegislator. he is working with senator bennett of utah. they are here and will be in an hour to start accepting amendments, if there are any. this -- people -- i had one of my democratic colleagues say, i have a problem with that bill. i said, get your amendment there

today. because if you wait until tomorrow, you may not gat get a chance to offer it. if republicans and democrats haven't agreed on much here, there's been a commitment to get our appropriations bills done p. we're behind schedule now. we don't want another big omnibus bill. we want to do these appropriations bills, get them done. and we're going to be able when we leave here this work period, we at least got a third of them done before the august break. we're going to come back p in seantdz continuing to work through these -- we're going to come back in september and continue to work through these. so i repeat, if you have an amendment, better get it over today because tomorrow may not be available to you.

mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, as the debate over health care continues, it's important that we not lose sight of the fact that the american people expect results. no one is ever elected to congress to push a problem down the road or point fingers. the americans certainly want reform and that's exactly what they expect us to deliver. at the same time, americans have a right to expect that the legislation we pass actually addresses the problem they face and that we don't use the need for reform as an excuse to pass legislation that doesn't really help or that makes existing problems worse. this is the nature of the debate we're in. some in washington seem to be rushing to push through

so-called reforms just for the sake of reform, regardless of whether they actually help the situation. while others are insisting that we take the time to get it right. fortunately, with each passing day, more and more americans and now more and more americans of congress are insisting that we take the responsible path to health care reform, even if it means hitting the "reset" button and meeting in the middle on reforms that all of us can agree on and that americans can embrace. here are some of the cost-sharing notes we've heard from senators just in the last few days: one top senator said -- quote -- "it's better to get a product that's based on quality and thoughtfulness than on trying to just get something through." and last week nine freshmen senators wrote an open letter to the senate finance committee calling for a solution that doesn't bankrupt our health care

system. here's what those nine senators wrote: "in the face of exploding debt and deficits, however, we are concerned that too little focus has been given to the need for cost containment." end quote. we're hearing the same things over in the house. one congressman said on sunday morning that -- quote -- "the american people want to take a closer look. they want to feel comfortable with it. we have a long way to go." another congressman said he thinks americans are -- quote -- "shell shocked." unquote. after last year's financial bailout, the stimulus, the cap-and-trade bill, and other measure bills approved this year. another congressman, referring to health care reform, asked: "why are we rushing? why are we rushing?" he said. "let's get it right." america's governors are also

calling on the administration and congress to slow down and insisting that congress take the time to produce the right reform. one governor recently was quoted as saying that he personally was very concerned about the cost issue, particularly the $1 trillion figure being batted around. here's another one commenting on a proposal to shift medicaid costs on to already cash-strapped states. as a governor, she said, "my concern is that if we try to cost-shift to the states, we're not going to be in a position to try to pick up the tab." another governor had the same concerns about medicaid. here's what he was quoted as saying in "the new york times" last week: "medicaid is a poor vehicle for expanding coverage. it's a 45-year-old system originally designed for poor women and their children. it's not health care reform to dump more money into medicaid."

all these people have something in common. they all want reform. they have concerns about the proposals we've seen so far, and they have something else in common too. every one of the lawmakers i've just quoted is a democrat. every one of them. some are trying to portray this debate as a debate between republicans and democrats. this is a distortion of the facts and is a disservice to the millions of americans who want us to get this reform right. as i and others have said, the only thing that's bipartisan about the reforms we've seen so far is the opposition. and the reason is clear. they cost too much. they don't address the long-term challenges in our health care system. they don't reduce long-term costs. they'd add hundreds of billions to the national debt. and there's no way the american people will embrace them because

all of them fall well outside the boundaries of the middle path that americans are asking us to take. this is why so many within the president's own party are now standing up and telling the administration to slow down and to reassess. and this is why even traditionally democratic groups like the afl-cio are having second thoughts. just last week the afl-cio criticized a plan to tax so-called gold-plated insurance plans because of the impact it could have on workers. why? because they know that when politicians talk about raising tax on business, it's average americans who end up shouldering most of the burden. americans don't want to lose the quality of care that our current system provides, and they certainly don't want to pay trillions of dollars for a government takeover of health care that could lead to the same denial, delays, and rationing of

treatment that we've seen in other countries. they have heard the same stories we have of someone with cancer being denied a drug because it costs too much or the woman who came here from canada to deliver her babies because there wasn't any room in the neonatal intensive care units back home. or they visited places like the m.d. anderson center in houston, texas, as i have and seen how dozens of patients from other countries go there for treatments. we don't know the exact circumstances that brought these people here, but we do know this: that they decided to come to the united states, in some cases traveling thousands of miles to do so, to get the kind of care that only america could provide. some people for some reason seem afraid to admit it, but the fact of the matter is that american health care is the envy -- the

envy -- of many, many people around the world. and americans don't want to lose it. that's why americans are telling us that we can reform health care without bankrupting the country or destroying what's so unique and special about our current system. that's why a growing number of politicians in washington are hearing the people's concerns and speaking out. and that's why many of them are now urging the administration to take a different path. now, mr. president, on another matter, i rise on behalf of the people of louisville, my

hometown, and across kentucky who are saddened by the news that after 40 years on the air, chief meet -- meteorologist tom wills is reting. tom first joined the station and began to be welcomed into people's homes over the air waves back in 1969. many louisvilleans cannot imagine turning on the tv and not being able to find a forecast from tom wills. it's a rare and remarkable achievement to reach 40 years in broadcasting, and even more so at the same station serving the same community. tom earned the level of respect he has in louisville by being one of the best meteorologists in the nation. he is the only broadcast meteorologist in louisville to hold a certified broadcast meteorologist seal from the american meteorologist -- meteorological society, and he is among the earliest holders of

the a.m.s. seal of approval in the nation to still be on the air. we in louisville have appreciated waking up every morning the last 40 years knowing that tom is there to tell us whether we need our coat or our umbrella. tom has also been a calming presence on the television screen at time of severe weather, helping to save lives by providing crucial information. tom was on the air on april 3, 1974, the day when the most severe tornadoes in living memory cut a path of destruction through the city of louisville. when it was over, lives had been lost, hundreds were injured, and over 900 homes were destroyed. throughout the night and into the early morning hours of the next day, tom wills was on the air telling people the information they needed to know. as tragic as those events were, we know things could have been worse if not for the lives saved

and the tragedy averted, thanks to tom's work. tom wills grew up in west reading, pennsylvania, and knew by age seven that he wanted to do the weather when he grew up. while earning meteorological degrees at penn state and colorado state, he specialized in the science or tornado formation. in addition to his way 3 duties, he passed along his knowledge and experience by teaching meteorology at the university of louisville. now that he will no longer have to wake up at 2:30 a.m. every day, i hope tom will have more time to pursue his other interests -- bar tkpwepbg and following our louisville cardinal sports teams, and of course his wife pam, his kids and his grandkids will be happy to see more of him. tom is known throughout the community not just as a fine meteorologist but also as a gentleman and friend to the many

people he's met in his 40 years on the air. he's going to be greatly missed, and i want to take this moment to thank him on behalf of kentuckians everywhere for his service. we're honored that for four decades he chose to share his talents with the people of louisville and kentucky. now finally, mr. president, i'm saddened by the recent loss of my good friend david fuller. this was a man who certainly had an impact both on his community and on the nation as a whole. it is no exaggeration at all to say that thanks to david, thousands of workers at nuclear plants in this country have safer jobs and healthier lives.

that includes david's coworkers at the paducah gaseous producer plant in kentucky where for ten years he served as president of the nuclear workers union. the nuclear gaseous producerrers plant produced enriched uranium since 1962 and is currently the only operating enrichment facility in the united states. for much of the cold war the paducah plant produced fissionable material for our country's nuclear arsenal. it also enriched uranium for commercial nuclear reactors helping provide the benefits of plainly generated electric power to millions of people. those kentuckians who worked in the paducah gaseous diffusion plant played a vital role in america's victory in the cold war. unfortunately, mr. president, their own government did not look out for them as it should have.

about ten years ago we learned that there were risks associated with working at the paducah plant particularly during the early years of its operation. some workers who were exposed to cancer-causing chemicals and radiological hazards. some were later sickened and even died. david was tireless in advocating for the workers at paducah. he was one of them. he put in 33 years as the cascade operator and electrician. his testimony before congress was key to advancing the effort to care for those who had been harmed by the government's careless treatment. thanks in part to david, we created the energy employees occupational illness compensation program to ensure that our nation's nuclear workers finally now get the attention they deserve from their government. medical screening is available to all paducah workers so that they may be tested and treated for any illness they contract as

a result of working at the plant and we're working to clean up some of the legacy waste materials left at the paducah plant. and i also might say, mr. president, my wife, elaine chao, who served as secretary of labor during the bush years, was deeply involved in setting up this compensation program there in paducah, and she too became a friend of david fuller's. david testified before congress on behalf of his fellow workers, including before a committee that i chaired. he served as his union's president for five years, longer than anyone before, and never lost an election. david and i worked side by side for a long time on this issue. he visited my office frequently here in washington, and on several occasions i was his guest at the paducah nuclear workers union hall to meet with and speak to the local membership n. that time i saw how determined david was to help develop a program that would

ensure all current and former plant employees were tested for exposure and that would provide sick employees with the treatment they need and deserve. of course nothing can take the place of life or good health, but david wanted to see every effort made to provide compensation for the workers and their families. thanks to his extraordinary work, he lived to see that happen. i know his tireless service will not be forgotten by his friends and coworkers, and even the paducah workers who did not get to know david personally know they certainly have him to thank for the justice that was provided to the workers who took on this vital duty. elaine and i have lost a good friend. we send our prayers to his wife, catherine cooper fuller, his daughters julie fuller ladaker, laura ann nickel, nick can i

fuller and megan joan fuller. his son john david fuller, his flee grandchildren and many other beloved family members and friends. not everyone, after he or she is gone will be able to show as easily as david that theirs was a life spent helping others. david gave so many the simple gift of time. more time spent with their family, friends, and loved ones. sadly, david's family has run out of time with david himself. as he passed away on july 19 at the age of only 62. but i hope they can take solace in the tremendous work he did on behalf of others. kentucky has lost a great man. he won't be forgotten. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time be reserved. under the previous order, there

will be a period of morning business for one hour with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each, with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees with the majority controlling the first half and the republicans controlling the second half. the senator from washington. mrs. murray: thank you, mr. president. on behalf of senator tester i ask that his science fellow david semansky be given floor privileges during the energy and water appropriations. the presiding officer: woubgz. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mrs. murray: a few moments ago, the republican leader talked about rushing to a health care reform debate and bill. mr. president, i want to assure everyone, no one is rushing anything. everyone is working hard to come up with a good, strong health care reform bill that addresses an urgent need here in this country.

in fact, last week president obama spoke to all the nation about the urgent need to reform the health care system. he spoke about premiums that have doubled over the last decade. he's -- he talked about the out-of-pocket costs that have been shooting up by over a third. he talked about deductibles that all of us have seen skyrocket. he talked about the families and the small business owners who have to work harder and harder just to stay afloat. president obama spoke about the work that has been done to put a health care reform plan together. i sit on the health care committee here in the united states senate. we spent months having hearings and working through some of the tough, difficult challenges. we spent weeks and hours working through a debate on a health care reform package. we looked at hundreds of amendments, many of them republican, a lot of them accepted into our health care bill before it passed out. we are working very hard now

with the finance committee for them to work through the challenging issues and to come up with a solution. as the house is as well. mr. president, we are working hard to come to a solution with the health care reform plan that protects patient choice, that reins in those costs i just talked about, and provides coverage for millions of americans. -- for millions of americans who don't have any today. the president of the united states spoke frankly about some of our republican colleagues who are standing out and speaking out for the status quo. mr. president, president obama spoke plainly to americans about the devastating cost of inaction, the devastating cost of inaction if we do nothing and what will happen if we maintain that status quo. i'll tell you what will happen if we do nothing. premiums are going to continue to rise, benefits will continue to erode, out-of-pocket costs are going to continue to

skyrocket, and more and more employers will do what i've seen too many in my state have to do drop coverage for their workers. we talk about 47 million americans today who don't have coverage at all. that's going to seem like the good ol' days if we do nothing. mr. president, despite what some of our colleagues would like us to believe, americans do want health care reform. they need health care reform desperately, and they're not going to accept another year of talking and bickering and stalling. mr. president, last month i sent a letter out to families across my home state of washington asking for their help as we work here very hard to reform the health care system. i told them i wanted to pass a plan that protects existing coverage when it's good, improves it when it's not, reins in costs today, and lowers them long term and guarantees care for the millions of people who don't have health care today. i asked my constituents to share

with me their stories and ideas about how to make this vision a reality. i told them that i know health exir is a very personal issue, but i also told them their personal stories have the four change minds and transform debates. mr. president, the response i got was overwhelming. i came to the floor here last week several times and shared some of the over 5,000 stories that have now poured into my office from my state. and i underscored the need to fix this broken health care system and to do it this year. mr. president, i come to the floor today to share a few more stories, and i want to talk about a specific aspect of health care reform that i've been working very hard on, and that's as we reform this health care system, we have a skilled health care workforce that's ready to step up and provide the care we need. mr. president, judy allen from moses lake, washington, sent me a story about her son.

she told me that he had been diagnosed with cystic fibrosis at the age of five and given a 50-50 chance of making it to his ninth birthday. now, judy said she and her husband had good insurance. they had good health insurance. but they had to travel over three hours to get to a clinic with the resources that her son needed. and, mr. president, they couldn't move close to this facility because moving would force them to switch health care insurance providers and they knew that if that happened, they would get rejected because of their son's preexisting condition. well, sadly, mr. president, judy's son died three years ago. but the reforms that we are working on will help mothers like judy across the country. we want to stop insurance companies from spending our premium dollars figuring out ways to exclude people from coverage, and we're going to

ensure that nobody will be denied health care coverage, even if they have a preexisting condition. unfortunately, mr. president, judy's story is not unique. millions of americans who have insurance today, who have good insurance today, struggle with a broken health care system. they struggle with the skyrocketing costs, they struggle with the complicated system that works for the insurance companies but it doesn't work for the patients. so i agree with president obama. we need to reform the health care system this year. and, mr. president, as we work to provide quality, affordable health care coverage to all americans, we have to make sure there are enough health care professionals to provide that care. you know, we can write and pass a bill that improves the coverage and reins in the costs, but without an educated, accessible system of doctors and nurses and x-ray technicians and physical therapists and other health care professionals, that coverage isn't going to mean

much. if we provide health care coverage without the workers, it's like build the schools and not hiring i had teachers. so it's common sense. but it makes economic sense as well. not disoal this shortage make it hard to access care -- not only does this shortage make it hard to access care even if you have insurance today, it makes it more expensive. that's why we have made a number of investments that are going to create and sustain good-paying jobs and sustain access to care so that americans remain healthy and productive. we know that too few medical students are going into high-demand general care fields. many students enter specialty fields, in cost to pay for th ie cost of medical school. our bill includes incentives like loan repayment programs, scholarships and grants to encourage students to go into high-need fields and to work in underserved areas.

it invests in education and training and retention efforts, not just for new health care workers but for all of those who are already providing quality care in this country. because, mr. president, investments in our health care workforce create jobs, they ease the strain on overworked health care professionals, and they keep americans healthy so they can be productive on their jobs. so i'm going to keep working to make sure these investments remain a priority as we move this health care reform forward. now, quickly before i yield the floor, i do want to reiterate the critical need that i talked a minute ago about fixing this health care system, and i want to share a story from my home state. sharon alengths ander wrote to me from -- sharon alexander twroat mwrote to me about her be with brain cancer. now, sharon, again, had health insurance, but she wrote a understand told me that while she was running from doctor to

doctor and undergoing radiation treatments, she and her husband had to spend a great deal of time navigating the different copayments and policies of all of her doctors. she told me she was lucky she had insurance but still had to jump through hoop after hoop to get the care she needed. she discovered that in our broken health care system, high-priced insurance does not guarantee high-quality health care. mr. president, that's why we need to act. we need to lower the cost of health care and ensure that americans have high-quality health care and in these times with premiums rising three times faster than wages and every day 14,000 more americans losing their health insurance, we're not rushing, mr. president. we're working hard to get this right, and it needs to be done this year. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania.

mr. specter: i thank the chair. mr. president, i have sought recognition to comment about the status of efforts to legislate comprehensive health care reform. recently there was a comment by a senator opponent of president obama who disclose what had has been known for sometime as to the tax deductio tactics of pres opponents. the senator who opposes president obama says this -- quote -- "if we are able to stop obama on this, it will be his waterloo. it will break him." this is essentially the same tactic which was used by president obama's opponents on the stimulus package. i'm not betraying any confidences, but commenting only about matters which were on the public record but immediately

after the inauguration, within two weeks, when the senate tuning the stimulus package, it was apparent that president obama's opponents in the senate were simply going to say "no" and obstruct the matter. it is a matter of public record that only three then-republican senators would even talk to the democrats about the stimulus package: senator collins, senator snowe, and myself. and now it is apparent, with what the senator opponent of president obama has said, what the plan is. well, now that we know we will not vote on comprehensive health care until september, there is time for a little bipartisanship, perhaps even a little statesmanship, to come together on this issue. we have been sent by our

constituents to washington to solve problems, not to obstruct potential solutions. there are many items where we can all agree. there are many potential savings available, which i outlined a few weeks ago in an extensive floor statement. for example, on advanced directives, estimates are that as much as 27% could be saved on medicare. so much money is spent in the last few hours, few days, few weeks of a person's life. we know from the statistics that funding from the national institutes of health can prevent illness and cut down tremendously on the cost. we know also that by changing the prosecution on medicare and medicaid fraud and imposing jail sentences that there would be a deterrent to that tremendous

amount of fraud and abuse. a fine is simply a license. we know also that substantial savings are possible by covering the 47 million americans so that we have medical care at an earlier stage to avoid chronic illnesses which are so very, very expensive. so that we could come together on these items where i think there is general agreement. the senator opponent of president obama is referred to in this morning's "washington post" as saying that he is in favor of fixing the system that has been one of the causes of his creemplet a specifihis care.

a specific quote: "we need some real health care reform." it would be worthwhile to have that senator opponent of president obama to say whether he feels we ought to cover the 47 million americans not now covered covered. if there are differences of opinion, let them be stated because if we agree that the 47 million mernts have t americanse covered, then the next dwhea a responsible elect -- then the next question that a responsible elected officials would have to ask is, how do we pay for it? but if someone is going to say, i'm not in favor of covering the 47 million americans, then let him answer to his constituents -- let him or her answer to their constituents. the senator opponent of president obama ought to note, as reported in the "post" this morning, that there are 700,000

of his state's residents who are uninsured. well, if he believes that we ought not to cover the 47 million americans, including the 700,000 in his state, let him respond. and say so. it may be that there's a political price to pay if you face up to that. but if you move -- if you move beyond the question of whether we need to have health care for all americans, then we need to move forward. when you talk about the waterloo of president obama, it sounds like we're fighting some foreign power as opposed to the collegiality which is supposed to be present in the united states senate, reputedly the world's greatest deliberative

body. i was pleased to see a number of -- the senator who is opposing president obama with his waterloo statement, delighted to see a number of his colleagues on that side of the aisle distance themselves. but as yet we have not had a proposal which comes from the republican side of the aisle, just as we do not have a proposal coming from the republican side of the aisle on the stimulus package. it was my view as i spoke on the floor on february 6 that the problems about sliding into a 1929 depression were present. we faced that risk. complaints have been made about the stimulus package, that it does not work. but there have only been five months. and yesterday i was in

pennsylvania at a major interchange, i-95 and route 39 announcing $12,000 for road repair, earlier at the philadelphia airport announcing a substantial grant, in western pennsylvania and pittsburgh, millions of dollars for locks and dams. and it may be that a better proposal could have been crafted on the stimulus package, but there were negotiations. president obama was elected on january 20. in the week of february 2, within two weeks from the inauguration, taking the oath of office, we were already having obstructionism. so it is my hope that while we adjourn for the office recess, there is time to have a bipartisan plan, a plan which

will reject partisanship, a plan which might even bring a little statesmanship to this body. when the three of us on the stimulus issue joined with the democrats in providing the necessary votes, the indispensable 60 votes to invoke cloture and allow the stimulus package to move forward, the comment was made from the other side of the aisle, well, three senators don't make a bipartisan bill. so far only three republicans are negotiating on comprehensive health care reform. so let us see if we can't have in the intervening weeks between now and september concerted effort made to move forward, to answer some of these basic questions. and if someone is opposed to covering the 47 million americans, let's hear it. if someone is opposed to having

a public option as proposed by senator schumer, which maintains a level playing field, let us hear the specifics so that our constituents can judge us, so that the 700,000 people who are not covered by insurance in the home state of the republican senator who has spoken out to break the president to promote the president's waterloo will have a chance to evaluate that kind of an attitude. i thank the chair and note the expiration of my time, ten minutes, and yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. the clerk: i ask unanimous consent that my intern, david taupin be granted floor privileges for today. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. merkley: mr. president, we stand at a critical juncture today as we grapple with how to fix our broken health care system. rapidly escalating health care costs are compounding the current economic crisis in america. families and businesses across the country are struggling to afford increased premiums, copayments and deductibles. premium increases are taking an increasing portion of workers' wages and more firm are under pressure to reduce or possibly eliminate health care coverage for their workers.

helping middle-class families and small businesses afford health care coverage is a critical component of improving the nation's economy. mr. president, families and business owners in oregon have told me at length how concerned they are about the rising costs of health care. those families who have health care are concerned about losing it, and they're concerned about the rising cost of the premiums and the copays. and those citizens without health care, and nearly 47 million americans are unable to afford the cost of health care, those citizens are worried about getting sick, or they're sick and they're worried about how to pay for the drugs and treatments to get well. and under this system, our small businesses who are working hard to provide health care coverage for their employees are worried

that they won't be able to continue, that they'll have to raise the share of the cost that the workers carry, or maybe they'll have to eliminate the health care plan altogether. mr. president, i want to share with you the experience of one of my constituents, jeannete hall of milwaukee, oregon. she was employed could not afford employee insurance. jeannette had a hole on her arm. her friends and families urged her to have it looked at. finally she went to the emergency room to have it examined. the diagnosis was melanoma, but generalnette could not afford to have the surgery to add -- but jeannette could not afford to have the surgery to address it. sometimes one gets a turn in

life and she got such an example. she was interviewed by a local news station that was doing a story about the plight of the uninsured. jeannette says she is only alive today because of that moment when a news station covered her story because after that story aired, she received a call from a local hospital that offered to help. they basically said that in exchange for being the subject of an observational surgery for medical students, the hospital would cover the cost of the surgery. and so jeannette is now cancer-free, and she feels very blessed about that. what is more, she now has a job where she has health insurance, and that's certainly puts a brighter horizon in place for her. but while she's pleased about her personal health and her personal health insurance, she's worried about health insurance

for families and friends and health coverage system for all americans in this broken health care system. her brother is very ill. her brother does not have health insurance. her brother needs an operation to save his life, but he's not getting that operation. and she anticipates that his life expectancy is very short now as a result, so she sees it very personally, very directly. and just as she hopes for health care for her and her family and for american citizens, so do citizens across this nation. citizens like jeannette are not looking for a government handout. they don't expect something for free. but what they do want is access,

choice, quality health coverage, affordable health coverage for their families and their workers. we need to offer citizens like jeannette a lifeline in these hard economic times. as a member of the senate health, education, labor, and pensions committee, i am very proud of the bill that we passed out two weeks ago which puts us a significant stride closer to providing health care, affordable quality health care for every american. it's a plan that will lower costs, provide consumers with more choices, and increase competition. that act, the affordable health choices act, is a landmark bill. it gives every american a full range of health insurance options, including a community health plan. it ensures that those who like their current health care coverage can keep it, and it guarantees that no american will be denied coverage because of preexisting conditions.

that act makes sound investments in disease prevention, in health promotion, and it strengthens the health care workforce. affordable health choices act gives small businesses better choices for high-value health insurance by creating a new health insurance marketplace, or gateway as it's called, which will help lower costs and increase competition. in fact, let me explain this a little bit more. right now in america, if you are an individual trying to get health care, you have to pay an extraordinary premium because you don't bring any market share clout to the negotiating table. and right now in america, if you are a small business, you don't get a good deal because you don't bring any market clout to the negotiation. so, this health care bill at its

heart addresses this problem. it creates an exchange where you would go and purchase health care not as an individual, but as a group of hundreds of thousands of fellow citizens. and that health care plan would bring the combined negotiating clout of those hundreds of thousands or even millions of individuals so that you get a much better deal as an individual, and you get a much better deal as a small business. and i know that every individual and small business in america who has gone through this process of trying to get a fair, decent health care plan knows exactly what i'm talking about. and that's the heart of this reform. but even as we make historic progress on guaranteeing affordable, quality health care for all, there are powerful forces underway to halt this effort. there are those that favor the status quo, and they're working on their talking points. they're rallying their special

interests. they're doing polls to see what phrase will most scare americans from changing. they want to defeat this historic march towards quality, affordable health care for every single citizen. but, mr. president, one thing is clear, we cannot afford to fair. maintaining the status quo is not an option. the last time we attempted to tackle the problem, in 1992, health care spending watts $849 billion. -- was $849 billion. today health care spending in america is $2.2 trillion and growing by over 10% a year. so march it forward, next year it will be over $2.4 trillion. the year after that, $2.7 trillion. the year after that, $3 trillion, and so forth. we'll be spending nearly $40 trillion under the status quo over the next ten years. premiums in the early 1990s were

7% of a family income. today premiums eat up 17% of a family's budget. in 1996, imliers paid by $3,700 toward a family plan. now that is well over $10,000 and growing, and workers are picking up an increasing share of the cost. today under the status quo, 60% of personal bankruptcies are due to health care costs. more than half, more than half of personal bankruptcies are due to health care. and what's more, more than half of those personal bankruptcies due to health care are with folks who have health care insurance, but their health care insurance simply wasn't adequate to cover the extraordinary costs of a medical emergency. 75% indeed of those individuals who are going through bankruptcy due to health care costs had

health insurance. mr. president, if we look to the future, the consequences of inaction are even more dire. but despite all of that, every day we hear from special interests, we hear from their allies, we're standing up, using their poll-tested phrases like "government takeover" in order to scare the american people into rejecting health reform. so here are citizens who know firsthand, firsthand the challenge and the stress of health care, but they're being manipulated -- an effort to manipulate them by powerful special interests that want to scare them, to turn them against reform and change. now, the oafntses of reform, they have a health -- the opponents of reform, they have a health strategy. and their strategy is the status

quo. and why do they like the status quo so much? because the special interests are making so much money with the current health care system. huge profits for insurance companies, huge profits for other health care players. but here's the problem: soaring profits for health care companies equates to out-of-croacialtion unaffordable premiums for america's working families. now, let's examine the status quo program put forward by the opponents of reform. under the opponents' status quo strategy, the premiums that are paid by a family would go from about $13,000 a year now -- just eight years in a the future, $24,000, nearly double in a short period of time.

if you want out-of-control premiums, then support the opponents' status quo efforts. second, under the opponents' status quo plan, the cost of health care for a small business would more than double, and the cumulative costs are extraordinary. we see the costs here starting and then -- in billions of dollars in 2009, $156 billion, the cost imposed on small businesses, soaring to $2.4 trillion by 2018. the cumulative costs. so, over a ten-year period, small businesses carrying a multitrillion-dollar burden under the status quo. third, under the opponents' status quo plan, the number of

uninsured americans increases, and why is that? it's very simple. families can't afford these premiums. small businesses can't afford these premiums. even large businesses may not be able to afford this more than 10-percent-per-year increase. under the opponents' plan, it would reach 56 million americans over the next 10 years, a huge contrary, up from about 47 million right now. fourth, under the contes' status quo plan, our community hospitals would see uncompensated care go through the roof. why is that? because we have more uninsured. they have to go to the emergency room to get their care and so the hospitals end up carrying that burden. what does that do? that results in a cost shift from those who don't have insurance and go to the emergency room, those costs get shifted on to those with

insurance t continuation the death spiral in insurance premiums that we have right now in america. what is more, under the opponents' status quo approach, we get the same failure to invest in prevention and disease management. you know, insurance companies don't really have an incentive to invest in disease management because that might make you healthier 10 years from now, 20 years from now. but they assume that you probably won't be their customer 10 or 20 years from now. we get the same investment in a fee system, in a cost-plus system that is driving up the cost of health care. let me make this very clear. if you have any form of expense in which the compensation is cost-plus, the person providing those services is going to provide as many services as possible. if you're building a fighter and you say, we'll pay your costs plus 10%.

those costs -- they're going to make sure that fighter plane is as expensive as possible. yet, that model of compensation is the dominant model in the health care system today. we need to invest in an integrated approach, like the mayo clinic does, where the doctors are not motivated by profits but by providing health care to their patients. they have no incentive to run you through that m.r.i. machine four or five times. they are own incentive is to help you get well. that's a very different approach, an approach we need to expand on here in america. an approach that says, we need an integrated health care system, not a cost-plus fee system. so, when the opponents of reform try to scare you and say we don't need to change anything, just remember how scary their plan is. and i know that you understand what i'm talking about because you see it every day.

the opponents are saying, it's okay if insurance companies routinely deny necessary medical care and cancel policies in order to increase their profits. the opponents are saying, they prefer an america where parents will lie awake at night worried if they can afford health care their children need because they don't have health insurance for their children. the opponents want an america where a worker is just one pink slip away from losing their job and their health care. that's a double calamity that strikes millions of families in america every year. the opponents are arguing for an america where would-be entrepreneurs who has have worked hard and may want to open a business may not be able to do so because they cannot afford health insurance in a volatile, expensive small business market. the opponents want an america

where small businesses who do offer insurance are faced with double-digit, budget-straining premiums that strengthen the economic viability of that small business. i want to see our small businesses thrive. our small businesses are incredibly creative, far more patents per capita than large businesses. our small businesses expand and grow and absorb more workers. we want them to thrive, and a major challenge they have today in thriving is our broken health care system. mr. president, i do not accept that vision for america, the vision put forward by the opponents of health care reform. we need to create a simple health care exchange where individuals and small businesses can go and be part of a large pool so they can negotiator a fair deal. today we don't have that fair deal. tomorrow we will. we need a health care system

that invests in prevention and disease management. we need a health care system that works to expand the health care workforce because we have a big challenge. many of our health care workers in america r., ou, our doctors d nurses, they're rye tiring. they're baby boomers. so we're going to have increased demand for health care services and we're going to have fewer providers. the bill we put forward works to address that discrepancy. because that alone will drive the cost of health care up. and we need to create a system that eliminates an insurance that doesn't cover preconditio preconditions. what kind of health care do you have if you have a bad back or a bad back where your bad back isn't covered? what kind of health care system do you have if you have

melanoma, like janet did, and you can't get it covered because it is a preexisting condition? this bill changes that. i believe we need to create a health care system that expands citizens' choices instead of constraining them, as our current system does, where you have many markets in america that only have a single dominant provider. and we need to create a community health care plan to hold the feet of insurance companies to the fire. competition -- competition in the marketplace, a 100% apple pie american concept, is needed in health care to help control cost. madam president, americans across the country are counting on us to work together to find a solution, to help ease the burden of health care costs on family and business budgets and create more affordable health care oom options. i urge my colleagues to set

their partisanship aside, set aside the goal of trying to torpedo america's future because you want to torpedo the presidency of barack obama. think about the quality of health care for our working families and what we in this chamber could do to make that quality of life far better. the costs of in, a the costs of our broken status quo system are just too great to fall to petty bitter partisan bickering. let's come together. let's fight for a brighter future for america's families. thank you, madam president. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: madam president? are we in a quorum?

the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee, we are in a quorum call. mr. alexander: i ask unanimous consent to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. alexander: i ask unanimous consent to speak for up to ten minutes in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. alexander: will the chair let me know when we have a minute remaining? the presiding officer: i will. mr. alexander: i thank the chair. madam president, some friendly person is exercising his or her constitutional first amendment rights in memphis these days running television ads urging me to vote for the health care proposal that's currently pending before congress. that person may be wasting their money because we're getting a fair number of calls in my memphis office congratulating me for suggesting that we ought to slow it down and come up with a better plan. madam president, we should start over in terms of what we're doing to try to find the right way to provide health care for the american people at a cost they can afford and at the same time provide a government that they can afford.

we're going in the wrong direction. i know a lot of good effort has been put in to the plan that came out of the senate health committee and to the plans that have come out of two of the house committees and currently being discussed in the third. but the most terrible thing i can say about it is that very well-intentioned people are working hard to try to find the best way to go in the wrong direction. so when you're going in the wrong direction, isn't the best course to start over, especially when we're dealing with something as big and complex and as personal and important as the health care of every one of 300 million of us? and we all know that we'll only have one opportunity to get it right, and that opportunity is before us. and so if we're headed in the wrong direction, let's start over and let's get it right. now who says -- who says we're headed in the wrong direction besides one senator from tennessee or maybe several members of the republican caucus? well, the mayo clinic said that

in an opinion that it released about ten years ago. it's often cited as an example of what we ought to be doing more of -- the mayo clinic: good results, lower costs. but it said we're headed in the wrong direction. it did release an addenda after someone obviously called probably from the white house and said what's going on here? it said one thing the white house did did seem to be helpful. but fundamentally it said we're going in the wrong direction with the idea of a public option. i mean, a public option, as the president has said, to help keep the insurance companies honest. that's like the president saying he's going to buy the rest of general motors to keep ford motor company honest or to buy a drugstore to keep walgreen's honest or buy a government restaurants to keep old charlie's honest. who else says we're headed in the wrong directions? the democratic governors as well as republican governors. but i said here on the floor last week that governors of colorado, the governors of

montana, my home state government said this is the mother of all unfunded mandates. they're looking at the idea of dumping -- and i use that word carefully -- dumping another 20 million low-income americans into a failed program called medicaid which 40% of the doctors won't see, they call that health reform, and then they're going to shift the cost to the states after about five years. the governors are appalled by this plan. the congressional budget office says we're going in the wrong direction. and senator mcconnell, the republican leader, has said the only bipartisan thing about the health care debate is the opposition to it. so let me take each of those points one by one. there are seven big problems with the two health care plans, one in the senate, one in the house, that are before us. one, it flunks the first test, which is reducing costs. two, it cuts grandma's medicare and spends it on another

program. three, it would pass big, new medicaid costs on to the states, causing big increases in state taxes. four, despite what the president has said or because the president said it, this is another reason to step back and take a different direction, millions would lose their employer-provided insurance. number five, millions more americans would find themselves in government-run programs. number six, during a recession, we would impose new taxes and new fines on employers in order to encourage more health care. and, number seven, with these government programs, you're more likely to wait in line and you're more likely to have your health care rationed. let's take them one by one. flunking the first test, reducing costs. we should start with the 250 million americans who already have health care. we know there are 47 million americans who don't. but 5 million are college students, 10 million are noncitizens, 11 million are

people making $75,000 a year or more who can presumably afford it, 11 million are eligible for an existing program. those are important things to do. but the idea here is to try to reduce the growing costs of medicaid so you can afford your health care and so that you can afford your government. and the congressional budget office said on the 17th of this month that the legislation before us significantly expands federal responsibility for health care costs. and over the weekend, in looking at the next ten years, the congressional budget office -- that's our congressional budget office -- said the proposal would probably generate substantial increases in federal budget deficits during the decade beyond the current ten-year budget window. number two, cuts grandma's medicare. "the new york times" yesterday, in describing the proposal in an

editorial said "reformers are planning to finance universal coverage in large part are saving money in the traditional medicare program, raising the question of whether all beneficiaries will face a reduction in benefit." if we're going to cut grandma's medicare, we ought to spend it on grandma and grandpa. we haut not to take that money from that program which the congressional budget office told us may be broke by 2017 and spend it on a new program. then there's the third issue, new state taxes. i'm especially concerned congress hasn't gotten a real sense of this. just to put it in a nutshell, and this is the reason the democratic and the republican governors meeting in biloxi a couple weeks ago were up in arms about this. the plan is to expand one government program that is a failing and embarrassing program, called medicaid, into which we dump

millions of americans. after five years we're going to shift the cost that have to the states. madam president, to expand it that much to 1313% of the federl poverty level, would cost our state about $3 billion a year for the state share, and if we really want to give people a bus ticket to a bus line that thriewlly has buses, we are -- that actually has buses, we're going to have to pay doctors more because today, doctors 40% of the time don't see medicaid patients, and as a result of that, that adds another $600 million. so that equals a 10% new state income tax. it's inhumane to dump low-income americans into a failing government program. then there are the employer taxes and fines. i've talked to a number of business people. if given the choice between paying $750 per person, which the senate plan does, per

employee or providing every single full- and part-time employee health care, they're going it take the $750 a person, and where are the employees going to be? they're going to be without their employer health care. that's not what the president said he wanted. and where are they likely to be? a th lot of them are likely to e in these government programs, one of which is being expanded and one of which is being created. and then there's the problem of waiting in line and rationing. if we create government programs, with government people in between ourselves and our doctors, there's more of a chance that we'll be waiting in line, and that we'll have our health care rationed. mr. president, republicans have offered a number of plans that make more sense. a number of us have joined with senator wyden of oregon in a bipartisan plan that makes more commons commocommon sense.

that plan, to be specific, would take the subsidies which we now spend on health care -- thank you, madam president -- and spend them in a fairer way, giving low-income americans a chance to buy health care like the rest of us have. it wouldn't create any new government programs. and according to the congressional budget office, it wouldn't add to the debt. we're starting over; that framework would be a good place to start. so, madam president, people at home in tennessee, the mayo clinic, 1,000 local chambers of commerce who've made their announcement today, the congressional budget office, the democratic governors, they all say, "choom! let's get it right. this has too many problems. let's start over with something that americans can afford in terms of their own health care plan and a government that they can afford.

madam president, i ask unanimous consent to include in the record following remarks -- the article by martin feldstein, president reagan's former chairman of the council of economic advisors -- his article in "the washington post" today, "obama's plan isn't the answer." i thank the president and yield the floor. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of h.r. 3183, which the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 116, h.r. 3186, an act making appropriations for energy an water development and so forth and for other purposes. mr. dorgan: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. mr. dorgan: madam president, this legislation, as we described yesterday, comes from the energy and water appropriations subcommittee, and it is now through the full appropriations committee and reported to the floor of the senate. it is another one of our

appropriations bills that we very much hope we can get done, have a conference with the house of representatives, and send to the president for signature. that has not been done for a couple of years, which i think is a failure of the congress and the white house as well, i should say, because of the way things developed the last few years, and we need now to change that. and let me thank senator inouye and senator cochran, the chairman and vice-chairman of the full appropriations committee. they've made a decision they really want to drive these individual appropriations bills through the process, git them -t them done, send them to the white house, and sign them into law. that's the way they should be done. we've put together an appropriations tbhail we think is a good bill. it funds all of the energy functions across the country, including attached to the energy department the nuclear weapons issues. it funds all of the water policy issues across the country, all the projects that are ongoing, and it is a very important bill. if you think of the subject of

energy and water, there's not much more controversial or important at this point than those two subjects. the bill is 1.8% under the president's budget request, and it's just 1.4% over the amount that was spent in the previous year. so this is a fairly conservative, austere bill that we put together. we've tried to make the best case we can for the best investments for the future of this country. the other thing that is important to understand is that at a time when our country is in a very, very deep recession, funding water projects and funding these energy projects across the country is a way of putting people to work and creating jobs. and at the end of rather than just spending and having the money gone, you've invested, and you have returns on those investments in the form of water projects and energy projects that will benefit in country for many, many years. madam president, yesterday i talked just for a moment about

the science laboratories in this country. i want to just mention something. i was thinking last evening about it. we fund a lot of issues in this appropriations subcommittee, including all of our science laboratories and our weapons laboratories. and i am so proud of those laboratories. they are what is left of the old bell laboratories, where so much good research and scientific inquiry occurred. those are now largely gone. and so the laboratories that we have, the science labs and the weapons labs, are the repository, i think, of the most important research that goes on in this country. i wanted to mention, i believe it was in the last fiscal year that los alamos laboratory in new mexico, announced that they had completed work on what is called "the roadrunner," which is the most powerful computer in the world. that most powerful computer

doesn't exist somewhere else. it exists here, in this country, at los alamos lab trivment and it is a computer that has met the standard of what is called a petofile. let me talk about a tera if flop. a teraflop is a computer that can do one trillion discreet functions per second. in 1997 we reached that standard of a teraflop, one trillion functions per second. ten years later, the amount -- i should say, the amount of space for the hardware to do what was called a teraflop, one trillion functions per second, was a very large home essentially. that's the amount of space it took for the hardware. and the amount of energy it took to run all that computer power was the a energy it took to run -- was the amount of energy it took to run hundreds and

hundreds of homes. and ten 10 years later, a ter teraflop could be done with the energy equivalent of a 60-watt light bulb and on equipment the size after very small token. 10 years. so now we're not talking about 1 trillion functions per second, or a teraflop. now we are taking about a pedaflop, it is 1,000 trillion functions per second. it is just so powerful and unbelievable and it's almost hard to describe. and so i ask a scientist what does it mean so that you can do 1,000 trillion functions per second? he said, well, just as an example, they're using them on stockpile stewardship and weapons systems. as an example, there i there's g like -- i believe it was one or

two billion synapses of the brain that communicate with each other. this is the first computer that has the capability and the power to analyze what these billions synapses of the brain are doing in communicating in order to create something from your eye called vision. we need we can see. we just don't understand how it's all possible. and yet the development of very powerful computers -- the sprod runner as an arks the world's most powerful computer here in this country, at los alamos, allows us to do almost unbelievable things in science and research and inquiry. is that an investment in the country, in the future? you bet. it is a big investment, an investment that will pay dividends for many, many decades to come. i simply point that ute to say that we have -- i simply point that out to say that we have brought a bill to the floor that deals with so many issues, that attempts to accelerate the research and inquiry into

renewable energy. wind and solar and biomass, attempts to evaluate how, through science and research, we can understand our ability to continue to use our most abundant resource: coal. we need that we're going to have to have a lower carbon future and capture carbon and perhaps sequester it or do something in terms of beneficial use with carbon. the way we're going to do that is investing in the kind of research, scientific research and inquiry, that will unlock the mystery of doing that. and i'm convinced that we will. but this is the legislation which would make those investments. senator bennett has no doubt had the experience that i have had. because we chair the committee that funds all this i have had people from all around the country come into my office breathless about the silver bullet that they have now patented that's going to solve all of our problems in energy. either the newest form of energy or the newest approach to capture carbon -- you name it -- but they come in breathless and

by the time they're finished talking we're out of breath because they are so excited about what they're doing. and we have a guy that has a patent -- in fact he was a witness at a hearing i had on the beneficial use of carbon so that we can continue to use coal and not injure our environment. he's developed and patented an approach by which he takes all of the effluent coming out of the stack of a coal-firing generating plant and he doesn't separate the co2, the carbon. what he does, is he, through chemicals, he mineralizes it and creates a product that is equivalent and they say harder than and better than concrete. is that the silver bullet? i don't know. but he made an awfully strong and interesting case before our committee that this will dramatically advance our ability to use coal in our future, while at the same time protecting our environment. senator bennett and i, in this legislation, provide the investment funds that are necessary to begin to scale up

and demonstrate new approaches and new patents and new science in so many of these areas. why is all this important? well, two things. number one, we are unbelievably dependent on foreign oil. almost 70% of the oil that we use in this country comes from outside of our curntion and that makes us vul-- outside of our country, and that makes us vulnerable from an energy and security standpoint. we know and the country knows that we have to move off that dramatic dependency and find ways to produce more here. and that means more of all kinds of energy. that's what we support in this legislation. we produce, we conserve, we provide greater efficiency for virtually everything that we use every day, as we use energy in our daily lives. and then in addition to that large area of energy which we will describe in greater detail as we have amendments to this bill, all of the water projects

in this country, through the corps of engineers and the bureau of reclamation, are water projects that are making life better for people, providing access to good, clean water, storing water. i mean, we understand how controversial water is. but we also understand that water is essential to economic growth and human health and to monitor and to conserve our water resources and make best use of all of those resources is exactly what we're trying to do in this piece of legislation. so, i won't describe more except to say that this legislation includes the president's presi s recommendations of here are his wide range of earmarks on what the white house would like to be funded in water projects, for example, across the country. we accept that and has accepted most of what the president has recommended for specific projects. we've added some, while eliminating perhaps some of the president's, some that we believe have higher value for

the states, based on information that we have gleaned and gathered. soy we will have amendments, i suspect. i think -- so we will have amendments, i suspect. i think there are a couple dozen amendments filed. some say the congress should have any imprint on what should be funded here. let's just have the white house tell us what should be funded. that doesn't make a lot of sense because the folks in this chamber are elected and perhaps have the best sense of what kind of water projects will best meet the needs of their regions or their states. as i said, we respect the president's views, and we have funded most of the specific projects that he has asked us to fund and made some modifications where we think appropriate and where we think it will improve the legislation. now, i would say on behalf of myself and senator bennett, we were here yesterday, and we did not have amendments offered. we had some filed but not offered. it's 11:45 today, and we'll be here all day. we very much hope if people have amendments, they'll come to the floor of the senate, offer them

and debate them so that we can proceed. we would very much like to finish this bill by tomorrow evening. we're here. or perhaps this evening if people would be as optimistic as we are. but we'd like people to come and offer amendments as soon as possible. madam president, i don't know whether senator bennett wishes to -- i believe we do have someone who wishes to offer an amendment, and so we appreciate senator voinovich coming. the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. voinovich: thank you, madam president. i ask that the voinovich-carper amendment, amendment number 1841, be called up. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from ohio, mr. voinovich, for himself and mr. carper, proposes an amendment numbered 1841 to amendment number 1813. on page 63, after line 23, add the following -- mr. voinovich: i ask that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. voinovich: thank you, madam president. i want to thank chairman dorgan and ranking member bennett for allowing me to bring this amendment to the floor. madam president, this bipartisan amendment renews authorization granted to the nuclear regulatory commission and the general services administration in the fiscal year 2009 omnibus appropriations bill. that allows g.s.a. to acquire additional permanent office space near the nuclear regulatory commission headquarters location in rockville, maryland. we need to renew this authorization in fiscal year 2010 appropriation because the current lease negotiations will likely extend beyond september 30, the end of fiscal year 2009. now, madam president, this is a fairly straightforward and simple amendment, but i want to take this opportunity to underscore the importance of the original intent of the

authorizing language. having served as either the chair or ranking on the clean air and nuclear safety subcommittee for the past eight years side by side with my good friend, the senior senator from delaware, i take great pride in the fact that the n.r.c. has become one of the best regulatory agencies in the world. senator carper and i, together with other members on the environment and public works committee, worked hard to provide the n.r.c. with the necessary resources to do its job. that is ensuring safe operation of the 104 operating nuclear power plants, relicensing and conducting new licensing reviews of 17 applications for construction and operation of 26 new reactors. it may sound like some new information, and it is. we have 17 applications filed with the nuclear regulatory commission for construction and operation of 26 new reactors. with three pieces of legislation included in the energy policy

act of 2005, we were able to help n.r.c. to hire more than 1,000 new workers and rehire retirees in the last four years to meet the increasing demand, the rehiring of annuitants to train new people being brought on board. now we need to follow through and provide n.r.c. with adequate colocated headquarters office space to ensure maximum efficiency and effectiveness. and i must say that the committee, subcommittee has looked at this over and over again, and we have concluded that it's very, very necessary to have them have space in the same vicinity so they can more adequately and more efficiently run the operation. madam president, lately we have been hearing a lot about how we need to increase the use of nuclear energy if we are to achieve our energy independence, reduce greenhouse gases and create jobs. i would point out that the

n.r.c. is at the center of all of this. in the midst of reviewing those 17 applications for 26 new reactors. providing n.r.c. with the tools necessary to achieve regulatory stability, efficiency and effectiveness not only makes sense. it is the job of congress. and i urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment. madam president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. mr. dorgan: -- for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. i ask consent these requests be agreed to and the requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. bennett: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. bennett: i ask unanimous consent that t.j. kim of senator

voinovich's staff, be granted floor privileges for the duration of the senate's consideration of h.r. 3183. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. bennett: madam president, i am in favor of the voinovich amendment to use the language of the cloakroom, it has not yet been hotlined. i do not know of any objection to it. at least on this side, we will do what we can to get it hotlined, get it cleared so that it can be passed, i would hope by voice vote, as quickly as possible. but because it has not been hotlined on our side, i would suspect that the vote will probably take place this afternoon, if that's acceptable to the chairman. there has, as senator voinovich has pointed out, been a significant increase in the n.r.c. workload, and g.s.a. has been in negotiations with n.r.c.

to construct additional building next to the existing n.r.c. headquarters. and the negotiations may extend beyond the end of this fiscal year, and the lease award occurring in 2010. so in order to anticipate that, the n.r.c. and g.s.a. agree that the language should be continued in the fiscal year 2010 appropriation for the n.r.c. that will facilitate the procurement process and protect the government from any protests after a contract is awarded. and this would mean that the n.r.c. could continue the current procurement without interruption. and for those reasons, i think we should facilitate this and go ahead. with that, madam president, i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. mr. dorgan: madam president, if the senator would who he

would? mr. bennett: -- if the senator would withhold? i -- mr. dorgan: i too rise in support of the amendment. i think it's a good amendment. it would extend authority we have previously carried in this legislation in fiscal year 2008 and 2009. so, i believe that we would be able to clear this by voice vote, but it has to be hotlined, i think. my expectation is we would be able to clear this at some point after lunch today. madam president, i make a point of order that a quorum is not present. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. a senator: madam president? i ask -- madam president, i ask

-- the presiding officer: the senator from new mexico. a senator: that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. udall: madam president, i ask consent to speak as if in morning business for ten minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. udall: the bill before congress, and i heard the senator mention los alamos national library. i want to thank him for mention for the two national laboratories in my state, both los alamos and sandia. the road runner computer is a very important computer for dealing with issues like climate change, national security, other scientific research. and i applaud his efforts in moving us forward and also ranking member bennett. i applaud them both for their leadership. if you follow the debate in washington about health reform, it's easy to get the wrong idea.

the press like to cover what we're doing out here as if it's a game of chess. one side wins by passing health care reform. the other side wins by blocking it. i understand that somebody will disagree with whatever plan we produce to reform health care. that's democracy. some members of this body might decide that they have to vote "no" on health reform. but let's be clear on one thing. if we fail to pass health reform plan, nobody wins. if we keep the status quo, all of our constituents wille worse off. the health care debate can get complicated. both sides have a list of numbers a mile long that are supposed to explain the problem and the possible solutions. but these numbers don't tell the whole story. for example, we know that 22,000 americans die each year because they don't have health insurance. but that is only part of the

story because every one of those 22,000 is a unique and irreplaceable individual. somebody's mother, somebody's son. numbers cannot convey the injustice of it all, the needless pain for families and friend. every year this country produces 22,000 unnecessary stories of loss and suffering. 22,000 stories that could go unwritten if we act now. these stories are everywhere we look, if we look. last week i got a short note from a man in pina blanca, new mexico. the man wrote -- and i quote -- "we never made enough money. my wife and i have been self-employed craftsmen for 25 years. we never made enough money for health insurance. my wife now has terminal colon cancer. if she could have had a colonoscopy at 50 years old, she would not be dying at 54. my heart is broken."

all this woman needed was the simple preventive care that should be available to every american, care that costs little and saves lives. but our system didn't provide that, and now she is dying. if we don't get health care legislation passed, thousands of women like my constituent in pina blanca won't get their colonoscopies and thousands more hearts will be broken like her husband's. i don't care where you stand in this body, that's not a victory for anybody. another thing we talk about in washington is preexisting conditions reform. it sounds like it should be something complicated, something most americans don't quite understand. but my constituents know exactly what a preexisting condition is. it's the haert attack from ten years -- it's the heart attack from ten years ago that prevents dad from getting insurance through his job. it's mom age.

it's the fact that sarah from down the street might get pregnant, a fact that forces her to pay more for insurance than her male coworkers. i've held a number of town halls on health care reform in new mexico, and everywhere i go, i hear stories. a couple of weeks ago i heard a story about a constituent who had come to my office for some casework a few years ago. this is one of those people who you would expect to do great things. he works an incredibly technical job at los alamos national laboratory, and until recently he thought his knowledge and his hard work would get him through any crisis. then john began suffering from a host of unexplained neurological problems. the problems got so bad that he was actually relieved when a doctor told him about a tumor in his brain. he chuck also when -- he chuckles when he remembers that day. he was so relieved to know what was wrong with him, and his doctor said that something could be done. but john's insurance company had

other ideas. months went by, and john was not approved for the operation his doctor recommended. only just recently was he approved for the procedure he needs, but now he has other problems. his medical leave is about to run out, and he doesn't know what to do. if he loses his job, he loses his insurance. and if he loses that, he could lose everything. he will become just another american whose preexisting condition prevents him from getting health care. john was supposed to be one of the lucky ones before -- before he began having problems, he assumed he was one of the 55% of new mexicans who have adequate health insurance. but john was just one illness away from the edge, and he is not alone. if we do not act, millions of americans will fall off the edge in the coming years. i don't care how you feel about the president's health care