in the ballgame, and he gets a ground ball easy tapper. and that was the whole complex of the game turning around right there. you lose where you are if you are not thinking ahead and will just lost where he was. that glove right down to the plate and let him slide into it. throw that knee down here so he can't get to the plate. >> if you make that play you still have got a tie ballgame. >> with runners on first and second. >> hernandez didn't turn. >> that's correct. how about morgan today?

he guess a base hit first time at bat. comes back another base hit. goes three for four in this ballgame. nobody seems like they can get this kid out. >> well he's got a good swing, john, a quick bat. he don't have a very big swing. he hits the ball flat. he doesn't have tremendous power. but he hits the ball hard enough that they have to play deep enough that those balls fall in for him. he is very aware. he is baseball oriented. he is not a guy, what i mean by that, that may sound like a

stupid statement. but everything he does is a baseball player like what we always call is a ball player. he is always ahead of the curve and thinking and he knows what is going on he makes few decisions, they are always aggressive decisions that he does make. but that quickness of his stroke there, that was his third base hit. you can't go inside on this guy. his stroke is that quick. it is right on top of the baseball and most guys that are small like that are punch and judy type hitters. this guy is not. he's got the three home runs, but he's not a guy that you can just go in there and expect him to hit ers and balls in the infield. he hits the ball hard. >> don't you see he has great vision on the base he knows when to take it to second gear to take it to second base. if an outfielder is going after a ball, nyjer's going to take another base or maybe two. >> i don't know how anybody is going to loaf with one of this guy running. usually they charge the ball ask

overcharge it and make errors out of their eagerness to keep him from advancing to the next base. but he is really something and i don't think this is just a fluke. he has carried this long enough and the thing that is most impressive is i see everything that he does makes me think that he is extremely smart. baseball iq it tends to be on the base path when he is trying to be a little aggressive. that will come with time. >> remember what he told me you can't wait to sit down and talk baseball with the fox. >> i can't wait to sit down and talk to him. >> we are going to take a break and come back and continue with more. john lannon tomorrow night against the pirates in pittsburgh. a pittsburgh team you won't even recognize. we'll talk about the left hander when ray and i return. i operate my entire business from my phone. i need a network with great coverage,

because for every pair of shoes that we sell, we give a pair away to a child in need. it would be impossible for me to do this without a network that works around the world. (announcer) more bars in more places. at&t. the best coverage worldwide. i want you to look at number 13 here. see number 71 there? that is me, skating against nyjer some years ago. nyjer on the ice. watch this flip shot with the left hand and he scores. how about that? this is what he was playing junior hockey and he was quite a hockey player. that is why he is a low ball hitter. >> absolutely. and i asked him i said how tough are you on the ice? he said i was very aggressive. okay?

and he still is aggressive today. >> he is aggressive in everything he does. each if this conversation. but this is kind of the nyjer morgan show tonight. the kid is playing great. right on cue. john lannon goes out there tomorrow night and takes on the pirates. >> i look at these stats and they are mind boggling. .242 earned run average over his last ten starts, johnny and only one of those he has given up more than three runs and that was five starts ago. he is on course to be 200 innings pitcher. in the bullpen. in the low tation here. he is 8-8 with a 4.51. a lot of synckers a slider done

walk a whole lot of people. but again our run average is pretty high. so this pittsburgh ball club we ought to wear them out. >> seven or eight guys are gone out of their starting lineup. >> this club was beaten back in may. remember that 12-7 game we saw? >> i don't remember that one. five runs in six innings. atlanta should get lannon should get a win tomorrow night. pittsburgh tomorrow night. pittsburgh saturday night. again sunday afternoon and again on monday. all pittsburgh all the time on masn 2 and our good friends at dc 50 join us for sunday afternoon. johnny holliday ray knight. nats extra post game continues, after this. um... which gives you more bandwidth than cable. so you can upload faster. so it's like comparing a horse and buggy to a sports car.

am i the, uh, horse? (announcer) it's a whole new internet. makes uploading as easy as downloading. because your internet's not fast unless it's two-way fast.

nats to post game show on masn. brought to you by verizon.

they have the fastest internet. this is big. a beginning for the pirates today as they come from behind to beat the nationals. the final was 7-3. jim riggleman back in the third inning contesting a call jim west made walks away. and then the next thing you see is west saying that is it. you are out of here and why would jim riggleman get tossed? >> you know, i thought i heard the ball hit the bat. you know, when the ball's going through the zone there like that, it is low and in the dirt, you really can't see much. i thought i heard the ball and bat make contact so you know, it would be a foul ball. but you know, i'm not positive. but i thought we you know, it warranted joe checking with third base umpire. and you know, he was sure of what he saw. and just decided there was no need for that. >> j.d.

martin today? did you see some improvement for him? and what did you think of him overall? >> i thought he did a great job. you know, he really, he minimized his pitches. he had a lot of quick innings. you know they hit a couple balls out. you know, they got a slugging ball club. they are going to do that with prince and the others. he really made some good pitches. an outstanding pitch to kendall first and third gets the ground ball. we get to play at home if that is an out. maybe they don't even score that inning. so you know, he did a great job for us. he gave us a chance. but their guy was up to the task with runners in scoring position. he got a couple big strikeouts. >> when he gets that ground ball how much does it hurt not to

put the guy away at home? >> you know, i tell you i'm not going to be making excuses for anybody. but when will new year's eve caught the ball, where the runner's coming in and where the ball came in. he wasn't even sure he had the ball. he really was trying to catch the ball which took him away from getting his body in front of the plate and left cameron a place to slide under his legs. they got the call right. the throw beat him but because will nieves got extended a little bit to catch it, now his legs opened up and the guy slides under him. it was a great play by zimmerman, again a great pitch by j.d. if we get an out there the inning could be a whole lot

different. >> in terms of lock in place it seems like runners scoring and. >> i think each play is an individual play. it was addressed early in the season. i think in april or may there was a play or two that we thought we should have blocked the plate better. and it was addressed. since that time, i haven't really sent it. today i'm sure it appeared that way, but it was, there was a reason for it. >> how disappointing is it to not? >> they are a good ball club. they are in the thick of things there, in the central division. just the statement you made. you know, we had a chance to win all four ballgames has got to be a step in the right direction for our club to feel that we can play with these guys. you know, we can play with the top teams in various divisions.

you know, we can, early in the year, we had a couple of great series against the yankees, boston, toronto, you know, we just need to continue to play good baseball. we are playing good baseball, hitting is such that it's tough and it's you know, it's not always going to be timely. but we needed to be a little more tamely. but you know you are getting 100% effort from these guys. and the disappointment they feel after that ballgame i think is a great thing. you know? they are not just saying oh, it's another loss. there is a lot of disappointment in there we didn't win three out of four there. >> you know ray, jim had a good point. the brewers began the day four and a half games behind the cardinals in the central, very much in the pennant race and

you split a series with a pretty good ball club out of milwaukee, nothing to come home and shake your head about. >> if you can hit .500 on the road it is a very positive thing. we are just trying to win a series and 2-2 on a road trip is a good start. >> j.d. martin gave up seven hits five runs. as you look back his thoughts on that? >> i felt good out there. i think it went all right. for the most part i had all my pitches and the i made two costly mistakes the homeruns of counsell and fielder but besides that i fell everything was good. >> overall did you feel your command was better today? >> definitely. >> what was the biggest difference there with your

command being better? >> i think just a comfort level. i felt so much more comfortable there i was hitting my spots and keeping the ball down. >> j.d., how shocked were you mike cameron was safe at the plate? jew know, i was pretty shocked. i didn't get to see it. but i know the ball beat him there so i figured he was out. but you know, i didn't have a good view. >> is it tough that you guys played so well these four games and only got a split out of it? >> unfortunately. i went in today with that in my mind, knowing if we wouldn't we would have won the series. but that's just how it goes. >> do you think that kind of the comfort that you were talking about today just comes from having a little bit of that experience already under your

belt? >> definitely. definitely. the my first outing it was a little rout a bill hit and every start since then it's getting a little bit better. >> a good young guy who has paid his dues. seven hits five runs didn't walk anybody. struck out four. pay back time i think for the nationals to go to pittsburgh in the steel z because remember back in may when the bucs came in they took the three out of four from us at nationals park. >> i don't think it's going to happen. we are a much better ball club than they are. they made all those trade. i think maybe millage is getting called up. someone mentioned that. to show you he has been in aaa now for almost three months.

he probably will hit third this their lineup. >> i have to congratulate dave johnson's son, steve johnson of the dodger organization dealt today with another minor leaguer in exchange to the orioles. >> how proud dave must be. >> to come home and be a part of the family it is a dream. >> how about making your plans to join us? starting at 6:30 tomorrow night, the first of four against the pirates in pittsburgh. right here on masn 2. for ray i'm johnny holliday. 7-3 the brewers win it today over washington. but now that i'm making more, it's time to be a little smarter about how i manage it.. with the calendar, i can schedule all my payments. and when funds are low, danger days help me stay out of the red. i can also transfer money with just a click and a drag. so maybe i'm better with money than i thought.

introducing the virtual wallet from pnc, a high-definition, online view of your money. pnc. leading the way. it's like chinese water torture. >> what would be the benefit for baseball to just get all names out in one fell swoop? >> i asked that question today. shouldn't bud selig get together with the union and the agents and say, okay, let's get the ot r 98 names. we throw 98 names against the wall one day next week. it won't have shock value. people will thumb through it. >> the biggest name. >> 3 weeks later we have david ortiz and manny ramirez. it's the union's choice and they would be against it.

it's the union that mishandled the situation in the first place. these names never should have come out. they should have been destroyed. this was already will 5% of the players test positive? it says something about the culture and the arrogance. they knew when the tests were coming and 7% tested positive. one of the dumbest things in the history of sports. >> who is to plame for the steroids era? >> well, i don't think it's the commissioner's office. maybe the owners looked the other way because they wanted the home runs. mark mcgwire built a ballpark and barry bonds did in san francisco. but i think everybody looked the other way. the players were not tested. it was part of a baseball culture that was away from the field. canseco exaggerated.

he was right about a lot of stuff. he exaggerated about what went on in the lockers rooms. but at the same time, everyone looked the other way. one of the most touching things was kevin cow hers a phenomenal person said this breaking news my heart. we should have attended to this. he got reprimanded by bud selig. that wasn't fair. he was saying we didn't know, but he had some clue and we should have done something about it. i think more people should have acted that way. commissioner bud selig in 1995 did broach the subject and it was taken out of his hands by the union. they said there won't be any testing. it steam rolled then. the question of cheating is an interesting issue. now today fet amphetamines are

performance enhancing drugs. but amphetamines were common in the 60s and 70s and 80s. common with some players in the hall-of-fame. i can't say who did and didn't. i would bet my life that henry aaron and joe morgan did not. >> people would argue that amphetamamam different from performance enhancing drugs which affect how far a ball my travel. >> that's true. it probably helped players play 162 games. it's a hard thing. the idea of cheating. what is cheat something the performance enhancing drugs, i almost at the point now where i think bud selig should just give a blanket okay. anyone before we instituted drug testing policy, i will say, all right, you are off. i will just say we forgive and we will move forward.

i think it's unfortunate. if every time this comes up, it goes on to bud selig's neck. he tried so hard. we can be critical about certain things, but he worked hard to try to clean up the game. baseball is a double standard. people will say now, some of the yankees teams were tainted because some of the names. now the red sox 2004. it's fortunate for the red sox they won in 2007. i would say starting from 1989 to 2005, i think every world champion team could be tainted if we had full disclosure. but we won't ever have that. >> what is the ultimate fallout of that now? >> i think players are more and more scared. i think the commissioner's office will have stricter

testing. they stest strictly now. to fail a drug test under this drug testing policy when it is illegal may disqualify somebody from the hall-of-fame which means palmeiro and manny ramirez. maybe they don't get in. it's the question what have we do going backwards is tough. i know one player, a testament to how strictly the commissioner's office does test. there was one player who came up to me during the playoffs last year and said, i hit one homer all year. i have been tested 5 times in 7 weeks. they have the wrong guy. that speaks to how seriously the commissioner's office is taking this. >> another black eye for baseball on a day when there are great highlights. the big story is steroids. peter gammons, we appreciate you joining us on espnews. >> hopefully no more tonight.

>> don't hold your breath. >> when we return, tigers woods returning to a course he hasn't played in 3 years.

>> steve bunin back on espnews. the buick open in michigan. tigers woods playing for the first time since 2006. he is well back. with 1 hole to play of the

leader board. not too many big names. other than tiger and furyk. the scores are usually low here. >> back to baseball. more afternoon action today. san diego visiting cincinnati. the padres shopping 2 of the best players. gonzales and bell. top of the 5th venable. 2nd homer of his young season. padres win it 7-4. nats and brewers. joe west umpire honored for his 4,000th game. an easy call. a home run. prince fielder home run derby champ. ties the game at 3. 7-3 milwaukee. back to .500. >> top stories coming up. you just saw the interview on peter gammons with david ortiz. tom brady in the news as well. tom brady in the news as well. next on espnews. ( percussion music playing )

♪ lock it up... ( crowd chanting ) ♪ lock it up, lock it up. ♪ announcer: gatorade. that's "g."

right now on espnews. our top story. david ortiz and manny ramirez seeing their legacies soiled. the latest super stars outed from the list of players who tested positive for performance enhancing drugs. baseball trade deadline less than 24 hours away. how the ortiz news affects boston and everybody else's wish list. and southern cal football may be in trouble again. the latest from los angeles.

♪ ♪ >> i am steve bunin. welcome to espnews. our big story tonight: david ortiz and manny ramirez the 2 faces of the boston red sox when they won 2 world series outed by the "new york times" as 2 of the 104 players who tested positive for performance enhancing drugs in 2003. that was the supposedly sealed test that baseball instituted to see how prevalent steroid use was. they join alex rodriguez and sammy sosa as players whose positive tests from 2003 became public. the reporter who broke the story for the "new york times" was asked if he thinks the whole list of 104 will eventually

become public? >> i think that this is under a court seal. the players association would not to it. i don't think the commissioner's office want thes names out there either. it will stay the way it is. it raises questions about the red sox who have been unscathed by the steroids stuff. the yankees have been bathered and had their championships called into questions. >> david ortiz and manny ramirez store up the majors in 2003 when they post tested positive for performance enhancing drugs: >> we are asking you the fan to go on to espn.com right now and vote. peter gammons gets the impression the fans are over the steroids era.

should the list from 2003 be released? you vote. yes or no on espn.com right now. we will reveal the results later in the show. >> you could not have scripted it like this. hollywood would not believe it. david ortiz first at-bats in an afternoon game. the news broke about 12:15 eastern. the game started at 1:30. it's possible a lot of fans didn't know about the news. ortiz doubles off the green monster and the fans applauding. the 2nd at-bats, a weak grounder to 1st base. red sox get down early in the game. they are down 4-1 in the bottom of the 6th. ortiz is 2nd base. mike lowell to right field. ortiz scores making it 4-2 oakland on top. bottom of the 7th, here's the part you won't believe. ortiz with a 3 run homer in the bottom of the 7th and the fans game him a standing ovation.

not a single boo to be heard as the red sox beat the a's 8-5 at fenway park. we will have tons of reaction from boston. jason varitek first 3 hit game since the april 2007. david ortiz the real story. a home run, he is outed as a performance enhancing drugs user from 2003. >> more afternoon action. baltimore ravens and kansas city. bergenson takes a shot off butler off the knee. he got up. he limped off the field. got to the dugout and collapsed. he is listed as day-to-day. 7-3 the final score and he got the win. the orioles knock off kansas city. adam jones homered in each of

the first 3 games. series. and baltimore sent one of its best players away. mlb.com reporting that the o's sent sherrill to the dodgers for 2 prospects. sherrill was 8th in the american league with 20 saves. the l.a. closer with 23 saves. >> roy halladay according to blue jays gm are rashardi all talks are dead. he said the blue jays will still listen to offers according to "espn the magazine"'s buster olney. >> it was a big story: omar minaya apologizing to mets owners and fans and to add. the local beat writer who omar minaya made the focal point of monday's new conference when he had to fire his friend tony bernazard. >> i admit to making a mistake

in bringing up the things that i did. i should have talked to adam separately. i didn't. i take full responsibility for that. i want to apologize to the ownership group. i want to apologize to the new york mets fans. because the fact of the matter is this has been a distraction. >> on the feel, the mets had a 5 game winning streak. johan santana never faced the rockies until today. plenty of seats available there. troy tulowitzki and atkins, they all went down. mets win 7-0. striking out 8 in 7 innings. mets get 1 more victory. 5 in a row. the season high is 7.

tonight the mets against delarosa looking to win his 70 start for colorado. >> astros and cubs. both chasing the cardinals. chicago a half game behind st. louis to go into the game. the cubs won 12-0 on wednesday. here on thursday more of the same. 13 hits. 2 astros errors don't help the cause. chicago tied with st. louis on top of the national league central. houston allowed 9 runs losing 3 out of 4 of the series. ortiz still hasn't won since june 2nd. cubs 11 and 3 since the all-star break. >> lamar odom is returning to the los angeles lakers. according to marc stein it will be a 4 year and $3 million deal

in the lakers exercise the 4th year of the contract. >> new york giants linebacker antonio pierce testified before the manhattan grand jury trying to decide whether or not to indict plaxico burress on a weapons charge. pierce will testify again tomorrow. police say pierce took the gun from the night club where burress shot himself last november to burress's new jersey home. pierce drove burress to the hospital after the shooting. burress testified yesterday in a controversial move legally. pierce, arriving today, he led the giants in tackles in each of his 3 seasons coming out of the university of arizona. >> tom brady and patriots camp with the rest of the team. the first practice since shredding his knee in last year's season opener. coach bill belichick always up for a good sound bite. he had one today about old number 12. >> any quarterback, skilled

position players, the start of training camp is the start of the season. as much preparation as there in the off-season and passing camp, the lag time before training camp, just all of the individual work that goes on in the off-season compared to the team work of the regular season, it takes everybody a while to get to where they want to be. the players are at their peak performance. none of us are there yet. no player. no coach. been out there one day. how each player progresses on an individual basis that's something we monitor as we go along. i don't know how that will turnout for anybody. >> the news conferences are in

regular season form in new england. michael vick says he is getting close to signing with an nfl team. but he won't say which team or any details about the purported deal. the ncaa is investigating usc football for payments to to reggie bush's family. now another issue for the trojans family. according to the "l.a. times", carroll had a former nfl assistant help with special teamses. the ncaa doesn't allow consultants to coach. that line was crossed from advice to coaching it could spell trouble for southern cal. joe schad was at pac-10 media day today. >> talking about a report in this morning's "l.a. times". carroll said that it's his belief that violations were not

occurring. this is a legal situation where the consultant from the nfl had a lot of contacts provided him advice but did not provide hands on violation. at worst it would be a secondary violation certainly. nothing near the sphere of the on-going investigation involving reggie bush and the improper benefits. >> pete rodriguez on staff with the new york team of the ufl: police in brazil are ruling boxer's death arturo gatti a suicide. they released his wife. he was 37 and he retired from

the ring in 2007. >> when we return, back to our major story of the day. we will take you to the red sox clubhouse and see what they said about david ortiz in the news for performance enhancing drugs. >> this is jeff norman. he doesn't get health insurance from an employer, so he's been buying it himself for years. he's healthy, so he wonders why his rates keep going up. liz sloan wants health insurance but doesn't think she can afford it. we're assurant health, and we've been customizing plans to meet the needs of individuals for over 110 years. for instance, with our two-year rate guarantee and healthy discount, jeff will get 15% off his rate and lock in that rate for two years. for liz, we offer plans that

allow people like her to pay for only the benefits they need, saving them money. in fact, liz could get up to $2 million of coverage for less than $100 per month. unlike other health insurance companies that focus on corporations and treat everyone the same, assurant health is there for the individual. so if you need health insurance, call the number on your screen, visit our website or contact your local agent.

steve bunin back on espnews. some of the players on the 2003 list that have been accused of using performance enhancing drugs: david ortiz and manny ramirez coming out today. in the mitchell report some other players. ortiz spoke just a few minutes ago after doubling and homering in boston's win today over oakland. here's what ortiz said.

>> well, what i have to say right now, i just find out like an hour before the game. about the situation. i never turn my back on you guys. i always been through that with you guys. honestly right now i don't have no information about it. i am going to get more input about the situation. and i am going to honestly tell you guys what is up. right now i don't have no answer. i got no information. i will get some information about it. >> what could it have possibly been or when it happened? >> like i said i have no answer right now. i will go and find out. >> what did the fans say?

>> like i said my whole life, my whole career, i have been what i am. and like i said, honestly, i will get to the bottom and you will hear from me in the next few days. >> do you think it would be a benefit to release the entire list? >> that was david ortiz minutes ago after hiting a homer and a double in the win over oakland just hours after it came out that he and manny ramirez are on the list of more than 100 players who tested positive for performance enhancing drugs in 2003. in that season, he and ramirez globbered the ball. the red sox 1 every 15. we are joined by espn investigative report t.j. quinn.

who has access to this list of 104 names? >> it's hard to know. major league baseball has it and the players association and the u.s. attorney's office and the 2 labs that did the testing, they have it. there are outside counsel brought in by both major league baseball and the players association who have access. you have people in offices. clerks and secretaries. any number of people who could have seen the list. whoever is supplying the information. what trouble does that person face? >> they face jail time which we saw in the balco case. the attorney who leaked barry bonds grand jury testimony to our colleague was sent to prison for breaking his oath as an officer of the court. the union sent a statement out

earlier saying they would like to pursue whatever they can. presumably that would be mean asking the judge in this case to start an investigation and asking the u.s. attorneys office to look into who provides this information. >> who benefits by the names trickling out 1 by one? >> hard to say. i don't want to speculate on the motive of somebody who shared that information. it's impossible to know. the public benefits from it, but you have a clearer view of what the sport has gone through. what players are clean and what aren't. the one problem with this list and the note of caution people need to take, because somebody was on that list of 104, it's not the same as failing a test under the current system. that was a survey test. they didn't have all of the methods of due process in place for somebody to challenge the results against them. it means that somebody looked at the results and said, we think

that's a positive. the uniat the time contested a number of those results. we don't think that's positive. any of those tests that fell into the gray area would be subject to grievance. they would have a sample to be retested. players could have challenged it. that's not the case with any of these 104 players. plus we don't know what the drug is. if it was banned by baseball or allowed this baseball, it could have triggered a positive test. >> what responsibility does the unihead bear for this list not being destroyed? >> well, nay could have had the list destroyed in 2003. major league's baseball position has been look, it's not our job to protect the players. it's the union's job. there are a number of players that are upset the list got out. they did not file the paperwork in order to have that list

destroyed. it was also the issue that the government originally subpoened the results of all of these guys, the union said you don't need all of them. let's get the balco players. that's who you are interested in. they filed a motion to quash that subpoena the day before the deadline. the government's response was we won't bother with the subpoena. they got a sever warrant and got that information and the union has been fighting it in court ever since. >> what do you think happens now? >> hard to say. nothing with david ortiz or manny ramirez because there was nothing in place to punish players. they will go through the public scrutiny. it's up to them whether or not they will say what they took. david ortiz issued a statement where he said he was told that the report is true. he also said that he is going to

look into it. he was not aware specifically of what he took. our understanding, it's been reported that the union did call players and tell them after the government seized the list whether or not they were on it. he should have gotten a phone call saying you were on the list. he will have to explain why he tested positive and not known about it. >> he promised to talk within the next couple of days. we will wait to hear more from him. t.j. quinn, thanks for joining us on espnews. >> when we return, tigers returns to the michigan course he hasn't played in 3 years but one twice. see how he cc ♪ it basically took me the whole summer.

♪ and i don't know how many times i needed to go to autozone. but... at least now when i go... it's not on my bike. ♪

>> steve bunin back on espnews. pga tour at the buick open. tigers woods played here 8 but hasn't played since 2006. he is 8 strokes back of the lead after round 1. the score is very low here. winning score 21 under par in this decade. >> women's british open. wei still trying to win her first. nice chip. she made par. at plus 1. 4 strokes back.

stanford with the birdie on 13. one stroke off the lead. the leaders, sandra gow. ochoa is plus 3. finished outside of the top 10 in all 3 majors. 10 of the last 11 major winners. gal moves on. >> the u.s. senior open in indiana. a 4 way tie on top of the leader board with guys still on the course finishing up. some of the biggest names made the turn. including saldler and watson at 1 under par. greg norman among the biggest names on top of the leader board. >> padres and reds. top of the 5th. cueto struggled today. venable choping it opposite field. 2nd homer of his young season. san diego wins 7-4.

the clubhouse says they are trying to ship adrian gonzales and bell as well. they get the win. the padres pick up a 3rd conservative win since back in may. the reds 11 games below .500. >> mets and brewers. the umpire honored for doing his 4,000th game. prince fielder tied the game at 3. the brewers go on to meet the mets 7-3. zimmerman goes yard. hitting .357 over the last 7 games. milwaukee winning back-to-back games for the first time in yell. in july. >> pedro martinez scheduled to start tomorrow at triple a. his final minor league showing.

where he will pitch with the phillies? cliff lee on board. med rowill-- pedro will most likely find himself in the bullpen. staying current: >> for the latest go to espn.com. . >> top stories coming up. the shocker this afternoon. when it broke. david ortiz and manny ramirez both on the list. the latest next. n

>> right now on espnews, our top story, david ortiz and manny ramirez seeing their legacies soiled. the latest from boston, including ortiz speaking after today's game. the baseball trade deadline now less than 22 hours away. we'll have the latest on roy halladay. and the southern cal football program potentially in more trouble. captioning by captionmax

>> i know that if i test positive for using any kind of substance, i know that i'm going to misrespect my family, the game, the fans and everybody. and i don't want to be facing that situation, so what i will do, i won't use it. >> that was a defiant david ortiz in spring training, demanding, among other things, a year-long suspension for any player testing positive for performance-enhancing drugs since baseball began testing in 2004. what will he demand now? i'm steve bunin. i thank you for watching espnews. our big story this evening, ortiz and manny ramirez, the two faces of the red sox this decade both outed by "the new york times" as two of the 104 players who tested positive for

performance-enhancing drugs in 2003. that was supposedly a sealed test that baseball instituted to see how prevalent steroid use had become. ortiz and ramirez now join alex rodriguez and sammy sosa as players whose positive tests have become public. the reporter who broke the story today was asked to come on espn. he did. david ortiz spoke today, as well. >> well, all i have to say right now, i found out like an hour before the game about the situation. you guys know that i'm a guy that i never turn my back on you guys, you know, i've always been a true guy with you guys. and honestly, right now i don't have no information about it. i'm going to get more info about the situation, and i'm going to honestly tell you guys what's up, but right now i don't have no answer. you know, i got no information.

i'm going to get some information about it. >> can you tell us when it possibly could have happened? >> like i said, i have no answer right now. i'm going to go and get information and find out. >> what do you say to the fan, david? >> thanks for everything, and like i said, my whole life, my whole career that i've been around here, i've been what i am, you know, and like i say, honestly, i'm going to go to the bottom of this, and you guys are going to hear from me in the next few days. >> do you think they should just release the entire list and get it over with? >> i don't know. i don't really have control over that. i don't really want to get too deep on this. i have a statement out there. like i say, you're going to hear from me in the next few days. >> 2003, the year that ortiz and

ramirez both tested positive for performance-enhancing drugs, and they both clobbered the ball that season. both had a slugging percentage near 600. in six years with the twins, ortiz averaged one homer every 25 at-bats. in seven seasons with the red sox, including this season, he has averaged one every 14 at-bats. we're asking you to go online right now and tell us on espn.com, should the entire list of 104 players be released? an overwhelming, nearly 90% of you say yes. that's about as overwhelming a response as we've had for any poll that we've run at least since i've been here. 87% of you saying, yes, the whole list should come out. as for today's game, it started about an hour and a half after the news broke. we don know whether a lot of the fans there knew about it. david ortiz in his first at-bat doubles off the green monster. boston would eventually take a 1-0 lead on a jason varitek single. varitek had a good day, but the story was david ortiz. the second at-bat in the third with man on first, he grounds to

first base, but there was more dramatics to come. bottom of the sixth, ortiz is now on second base. mike lowell squirts it into right field. ortiz probably wouldn't have scored, but the ball bounces into the stands. so he does score there. 4-2 the game. 5-3 in the seventh, and this is the thing hollywood couldn't have scripted. david ortiz on the day he gets outed by "the new york times" as a performance-enhancing drug user goes deep for the 14th time this season, 12 of those at home. the red sox win the game 8-5, and all the discussion certainly about david ortiz. we have a lot of comments that we're going to play for you from terry francona to nomar garciaparra, who is back in boston. we've got all that coming up. you've already heard from david ortiz this half hour. tim kurkjian is coming by, as well, in moments. more baseball afternoon action. the o's looking for a split of

their four-game set with kansas city. scary moment in the seventh. billy butler comebacker catches burgeson in the knee it looked like. he got up pretty quickly. limped off the field and then sort of collapsed in the dugout. he is listed as day-to-day. he got the win, struck out six in seven innings. 13 strikeouts against texas on saturday and now allows seven earned runs in six today against a baltimore squad that doesn't scare that many people offensively. the big news for the orioles, you just lost your best pitcher arguably. the orioles have sent george sherrill to the dodgers for two prospects. sherrill eighth in the a.l. jonathan broxton, now they have great lefty to set him up. roy halladay, according to buster olney, trade talks about him are dead. that from an e-mail from j.p.

ricciardi. for the very latest go to espn.com. this was the big story until ortiz and manny blew up. mets' g.m. omar minaya publicly apologizing today after a fiasco of news conferences this week. >> you make a mistake, and i admit to making a mistake, in bringing up the things that i did in that if i... i should have... really if i... i should have talked to adam separately. i did not do that. i take full responsibility for that. i also want to apologize to the ownership group. i want to apologize to the new york mets' fans because the fact of the matter is this has been a distraction. >> it actually hasn't been acreb distraction for the guys on the field. the mets' bringing a win streak into today's doubleheader against colorado. g johan santana with plenty of good seats still available and

will be for the rest of the year. he was on his game. dexter fowler, troy tulowitzki, garret atkins. mets with a touchdown and the rockies had none. 7-0. santana striking out eight in seven after he allowed 12 hits against houston on friday. new york now five straight wins. the season high is seven. that was back in early may. mets just two games under .500. tonight it's the 22-year-old wonder kind lefty jonathan northeast against jorge dell rosa, very quietly looking to win his seventh straight start. the cubs and houston. kosuke fukudome off chris sampson in the bottom of the seventh. it was already 10-3. fukudome with the triple. cubs for the second straight day blast the astros. 12-0 on wednesday. today on thursday it's 12-3. holy cow, batman, 13 for

chicago. alfonso soriano with a couple. russell ortiz continues the winning streak. his last winning start april 26th. nba news, lamar odom is returning to the lakers. all that talk about the miami heat. instead he'll go back to l.a. espn.com's mark stieb reports it's a four-year, $33 million deal if the lakers exercise the final year of the contract. new york giants' linebacker antonio pierce testified today before the manhattan grand jury trying to decide whether or not to indict plaxico burress on a weapons' charge. pierce will testify again tomorrow. police say he took the gun from the new york city nightclub where burress shot himself last november and took it to burress' new jersey home. pierce drove burress to the hospital that night after the shooting. burress himself testified yesterday. the giants released him in april. pierce again will testify one more time tomorrow. he led the giants in tackles each of his three seasons out of the university of arizona.

tom brady in patriots' camp today with the rest of the team. this his first official practice since his knee was shredded in the season opener. coach baseball today proving he is already in regular season form at the podium. >> any quarterbacks, skill position players, the start of training camp is the start of the season. as much preparation as there is in the off season and even the passing camp, the lag time between passing camp and training camp and just all the individual work that goes on in the off season compared to all the team work that goes on in the regular season, you know, it takes everybody a while to get to where they want to be, and i think that's part of the development of every player as the season goes along. you know, there's kind of a cliche of mid-season form, but i think there's a lot of truth to that. i think players in this league in the middle of the season are, you know, at their peak performance, and none of us are there yet, no player, no coach.

we've only been out there one day, so how all this comes together and how each player progresses on an individual basis, that's something we'll monitor as we go along. and i don't know how that's going to turn out for anybody. >> michael vick might fit with the patriots. vick says he's getting close the signing with an nfl team but didn't say which team, didn't give any details about the deal and only made the comment to report, as he quickly walked out of a courtroom in his bankruptcy case. the ncaa is already investigating u.s.c. football for reported payments to reggie bush's family. now another issue for pete carroll and the trojan family. according to the "los angeles times," carroll had a former nfl assistant help with special teams last season. the ncaa does not allow consultants to coach. if it finds the line was crossed, it could spell more trouble for southern cal. if he was just giving advice or really coaching kids. the new issue pete rodriguez, on

staff with the new york teem of the u.f., has worked with the redskins. he said he attended practices and games and offered carroll behind-the-scenes advice. police in brazil are ruling former boxer arturo gatti's death a suicide and a judge is releasing his widow from custody. amanda rodrigues was arrested and accused of strangling her husband on july 11th in northeastern brazil. gatti was a two-time world titleholder who retired from the ring in 2007. up next, tim kurkjian here to talk about the biggest story of talk ab(announcer)gest story of what does greatness taste like?

miller lite.

(announcer on call) off the glass, centered in front... oh what a great move, another great move... he skates in on goal... he scores! unbelievable! it's all over! oh my... (announcer) that's what greatness tastes like. triple hops brewed. great pilsner taste. miller lite. taste greatness.

>> steve bunin back on espnews. the big story tonight, david ortiz and manny ramirez, the two faces of the red sox this decade, both outed by "the new york times" as two of the 104 players who tested positive for performance-enhancing drugs in 200 3. jason varitek talked about the team's clubhouse approach. >> i think that this has been a... not just, you know, an issue that this team will have to deal with. it's just been an issue that baseball's had to deal with. that's why the testing was put into place. >> [inaudible] >> i'm not... first and foremost, i'm not going to speak for david, and david, you know, david will speak and say what david needs to say. >> [inaudible]

>> we're now joined by espn baseball insider tim kurkjian. tim, this is not our first rodeo, a big-name player being directly linked to prurks but it is david ortiz and manny ramirez. what was your initial reaction? >> well, unfortunately, i'm way beyond the point of ever being surprised anymore, which doesn't mean that everyone during this era is dirty or anything like that. there are a lot of innocent guys who have played during this era, but when a big name comes up like david ortiz now, i can't be shocked anymore because so many big names have come up. now, with him it's a little different because he is so revered in boston. he is so beloved in boston. and this is going to be a tricky situation there. and partly because he has spoken out so vociferously to this point about, well, here's what i would do if you test positive. if you notice with all the comments he's made, he's basically said, and that means anyone who tested positive after 2004 when we had a testing

program. so he kind of couched the whole thing, but at the same time, this opens up a lot more questions, which all of these things do. >> here's a question: who is most to blame for the steroid era in baseball? >> most to blame, i'm not even sure anymore, steve. first off, we're all to blame in this -- the managers, the general managers, the owners, the media, the commissioner. we all missed the stories. to blame one side more than the other i think is even unfair on a certain level. it's just really shame, and it really amuses me that people think, well, this story is coming to an end. it's not coming to an end. until all these names are out on this list, we're going to have every couple months we're going to talk about this, and a lot of these guys on this list were such good players, we're going to be talking about them at hall of fame time maybe for the next 20 years. so the thought that this story is just going to go away, i don't think so. >> we had t.j. quinn on. there are a lot of eyeballs that

have seen this list from the union to the firms that did the testing to the firms themselves whom benefits from the names leaking out one by one? >> that's a good question. part of me says let's get this thing over with. the thought that all 104 names would come out and then the story will suddenly go away, that's not the case. we're going to get a lot more stories over the years, a lot of enterprising reporters out there who are going the find out that somebody not on the list in 2003 tested positive in 1999 for something or whatever. then we're going to go over that again. so i'm not sure it benefits to do it all at once. plus if i'm on that list and i was told this would be anonymous, i would not want my name released because i was told at the time, you're safe on this list, and clearly you are not. >> any player would earn so much goodwill whether he's retired or active by coming out and getting out ahead of the curve and saying i was thereonist and here's what i did and here's why. what would you react to if you saw player do that in

>> i would react favorably if somebody did that. i would react favorably if someone came out and said, here's exactly what i did, and then told the absolute truth. >> the whole truth. >> which gone we haven't had anybody do that. a-rod went a long way. i mean, clearly he didn't go all the way. a lot of other guys haven't gone even one step, such as roger clemens, so that's the tricky part about this. if you say everything, it might get you into even more trouble, but you would win some points with the fans. >> well, terry francona now has to deal with this in the clubhouse and in the dugout for the rest of the season, and especially today. the red sox got a win over the a's, but the boston skipper did speak at length afterwards. here's a portion of what he had to say. >> [inaudible]

>> it wasn't a dull day. as far as the game goes, lester's putting up zeros. i don't think he had the explosive stuff that he's had recently, and i think that shows by his strikeout-walk ratio. then we get into the inning where they scored the runs, and a couple real deep counts, three real deep counts, davis, nomar -- with nomar he worked himself back into the count -- base hit, cust, base hit. so they weren't hit hard, but they took a toll i think on his day's work because it was a long inning, 36 pitches. it was a long inning, and it led to the runs.

and again, we're not where we want to get to the bullpen real early because we don't have... you know, we talk acted having an end in sighted. whoever went out there needed to get some outs. the fact he was out there pitching may have stayed our game. then bard and pap came in and did great. >> [inaudible]. >> no, no. this blind sided everybody, including david. and i believe there's a... i believe david is putting out a statement, which i actually... that's why i wanted to read it before i came up here. he's going to deal with this head on. i do think that today is probably going to be a very difficult day to get answers you're looking for because there

aren't any yet. he needs to find out. he's already made calls to try to find out some things today, and until he does, he won't have the answers to questions, but he will certainly deal with it as david always does head on and be open and be honest. >> [inaudible] >> david knows that... i think david felt all day a lot of caring from his teammates and hopefully us. he knows that we care about him. he has earned as a person that from us, and we will be very supportive, as i hope we are with all our players, and we'll get to the bottom of whatever needs to be got to the bottom of.

and like i said, david will deal with this openly, but he's going to... again, it's not going to happen the next ten minutes. >> is there anything special... >> no. this happened very... pretty quickly. sorry. i'm losing my train of thought. not a whole lot of time before the game. i was actually dealing with the daisuke stuff, so i probably heard about it later than most people. >> [inaudible] >> he's got questions. there's a lot of things that he's not aware of, and like i said, he will deal with it as he knows. but he needs to get some information, too.

>> [inaudible]. >> i don't think you do. this is a... i said "blind sided." i'm telling you as much as i know. this is a half hour before the game, and it's a long game. there needs to obviously be some pursuit of the truth. >> [inaudible] >> my concern today is david. i understand the question. you're entitled to questions. i gave you the answers i have today. we'll certainly hopefully have

more in the near future. but until we do, there's going to be a lot of speculation. i don't want to add to that, and i just... it's all i would be doing is adding to it. >> [inaudible] d >> i think in this job capacity, you get concerned about everything. but i think, again, i believe david is okay. i think david, again, i just spoke to him for a minute. it wasn't a long conversation. the day is going fast.!d he is determined to address this

head on, but as of right now, that's where we're at. so again, there will certainly be more to come. >> give us some sense, angry, defiant? >> he's okay. he's very... he's okay. he wants to be... he wants to get to the bottom of this and move forward and be honest, as he always is. i think i certainly agree with that. >> [inaudible] >> i don't think david had to do that at-bat in the seventh. but we believe in david. he was 0-4 today, we wouldn't have stopped believing in david. >> [inaudible] >> you have to ask david. that game was on pass for me. there was a lot of stuff there, but i don't have time in the seventh inning to think of

somebody's mental capability. >> [inaudible] >> i think pam told me. i believe i was on the phone or doing something with daisuke, so it was i believe. to be honest, i'm not sure. i heard it on tv literally right after that. i didn't have... again, i said "blind sided." i was being honest. >> how do you deal with something like this in >> i didn't think about it. nick. again, this was half an hour before the game. we'll deal with it. that's the best i can do. >> [inaudible] >> well, when we do talk to our teammates, it's that personal. we'll deal with it as a team. that's one of the things we do here i think better than any place i've ever been. take care of our teammates and our own, and that will never

stop. >> [inaudible] >> it's not been golf. again, we'll get through whatever we're supposed to get through. if i sit up here and complained about being tired or stressed, d that would be an excuse that i d don't think is tolerateed. you know, as team we always talk about working through frustrations and how our season will be defined by that.!d that's because we believe in that. >> [inaudible] >> would you have all the names

come out or... >> you know, gordon, i understand the question. i'm not in a position ten minutes after a game to give that answer. nobody condones the use of performance-enhancing drugs. that's a given. d saying that, what happened or what the testing procedure was confidential. i don't know how you can go back on that now. there's some... you can argue the point that there's somebody or some people out there that need their integrity checked. i'm not saying that what has happened in the game, i'm in the making an excuse for people in the game, i'm just saying that's how i feel about that. okay. >> that was terry francona speaking after the red sox beat the oakland a's today at fenway park. i'm steve bunin. we welcome you back to espnews.

it's 6:30 eastern, 3:30 pacific. the major store, david ortiz ad manny ramirez both outed by "the new york times" for testing positive for performance-enhancing drugs in 2003. there is that infamous list of 103 players and now four colossal names -- alex rodriguez, sammy sosa, david ortiz and manny ramirez have been outed from that list. ortiz and manny the two faces of the boston red sox this decade as they won not one but two world series and ortiz blossomed into an elite-level power hitter in boston in this decade. after today's game against oakland in which he did hit a home run, ortiz spoke to the media. >> well, i don't have to say right now. i found out like an hour

before the game about the situation. you guys know that i'm a guy that i never turn my back on you guys, you know, i've always been a true guy with you guys. and honestly, right now i don't have no information about it. i'm going to get more info about the situation, and i'm going to honestly tell you guys what's up, but right now i don't have no answer. you know, i got no information. in the next few days i'm going to get some information about it. >> can you tell us when it possibly could have been, when it possibly could have happened? >> like i said, i have no answer right now. i'm going to go and get information and find out. >> what do you say to the fans, david? >> thanks for everything, and like i said, my whole life, my whole career that i've been around here, i've been what i am, you know, and like i say, honestly, i'm going to go to the bottom of this, and you guys are going to hear from me in the next few days.

>> do you think it would be beneficial just to release the entire list and get it over with? >> i don't know. i don't really have control over that. i don't really want to get too deep on this. i have a statement out there. like i say, you're going to hear from me in the next few days. david ortiz hitting a home run today ins be's win over oakland. 2003, the year that ortiz and ramirez both tested positive for performance-enhancing drugs, and they both mashed the ball that season. ortiz and ramirez both being publicized today in a "new york times" report, they're both on that list of 104 players who tested positive for performance-enhancing drugs in 2003. here's what some of ortiz's teammates said immediately after today's game against oakland.

>> just like a lot of things, we still have to go out and focus and play a game, regardless of what goes on. you can't really change history and change what has happened or hasn't happened. we don know. we have to go out there and focus on playing games. >> yeah, my frustration personally is the fact that it seems like it's very odd how these names are coming out and always coming from certain reporters. how are these reporters getting it, and it just seems odd to me how this is all going about? it seems like the reports are... i don't know if it's money based. i don't know how it works. but it just seems veried to me that these names are getting released in a weird fashion. two here, one here, and they're all big-name players. so it's very interesting how it's working. >> i think first thing is we

support david. we've known him for a long time, and we really respect him as a person. we care about him. he's meant a lot to us personally and as an organization, and we fully support him. second thing, as i think he just told you guys, he's going to be reading a statement. we admire his approach to this, which is he's not going to run from it. he's not going to hide from it. he needs to find out... first thing he needs to find out whether he indeed tested positive or not. he confirmed that this afternoon. now he needs to find out what he tested positive for. he needs some time to get some answers. and then he's going to stand up and answer every question. >> we've been asking you to go on the espn.com tonight. nearly 90,000 of you have, and it is overwhelming in terms of espn polls, basically near

unanimous. 87% of you believe the entire list of 104 players who tested positive for p.e.d.s should be released. joe torre, skipper for the new york yankees for a long time against manny ramirez, ortiz and the boston red sox, now of course with the l.a. dodgers, they have game against st. louis tonight. torre spoke about the whole incident moments ago. >> you're suspended for 50 games. he became accountable and he was suspended 50 games. and i certainly... it's his choice on what he wants to do, but we can't do... we can't do anything about what's past. we can only deal with what's happening today, and from here on out. and i think that's probably where he system i didn't hear his comments obviously. i don't know what his stance was today, but i've heard him in the past, and he would prefer to move on and really be a teammate for his friends instead of talking about stuff that he's already paid a price for.

>> are fans owed some sort of explanation you think? >> well, i think the explanation comes in the fact that he didn't deny that he, you know, did something wrong. i mean, i don't know what more you want. do you want to go in somebody's living room and undress somebody? is that what you want to do? i don't know. he basically didn't deny what he did wrong. he took his medicine and here he is. >> in your mind do you feel like he's a guy that's made one mistake? >> well, i don't think any of us have made just one mistake, aside from you. >> well... in regards to performance-enhancing drugs. >> i don't know. i don't research that stuff to be honest with you. you know, you're going to know about it whether you want to or not, and unfortunately it's something that is a part of... it's going to be part of the

rest of my career in the game. you know, i still think the game will rise above it and i will do whatever i can to have that happen. but i don't know. i mean, i can't answer that question because i don't know the answer. >> [inaudible] >> no, i said eventually all the names will be coming out. >> wouldn't it be better if they all came out? >> i don't know. i guess if they're coming out a little at a time. it may be better if they all came out. it would keep you from, you know, from holding your breath every time somebody says we have a news flash, you know. >> are you scared to see the names on that list? >> am i afraid? >> yeah, for what it potentially could do... the names that have come out already have been big enough and damaging enough. >> i mean, fearing something like that really doesn't do me any good. i got a lot more important things to deal with in my life than that. you know, whatever it is, you can't change it.

so whatever the hell it, is it is. as i say, i don't think any of us are squeaky clean, and i think in a lot of instances, you notice i put myself in that, and , you know, i think in a lot of areas when you're competitive, you know, who knows what provoked it. it may have been someone saying, he's using, i want to use it. it becomes a competitive thing, not that makes it right. i'm certainly not condoning it. but the motivation and to have that many names on the surprised me when i heard that. i really did. i guess i'm happy i'm surprised. i'd rather be naive. but it is what it is. there's not much you can do about it other than hopefully we can get it behind us. it's going to take some time because of what's important.

you talk about the fans. what's important is to get the trust back from the fans. i don't think fans need to get chapter and verse on each individual and why and how much and when. i think we need to get their trust. and i don't think they need that information. i think they just need to know that we're doing everything we can to get this game back to where we want to have it. >> from a player and manager perspective, do you also want to know what you saw was real in an era? >> you know, we're only familiar with what's happening now. we don't know what went back on then. >> i'd like to know what part of that was... >> first off, whatever it is, the thing that scares me about steroids issue is that it's like some players playing with aluminum bats and some players playing with wood bats. it makes it stronger, literally stronger. that's the frightening part

health-wise. the players still have the play. the players still have the make contact if you're talking about a hitter. so you still have to do all the mechanics of playing the game. so it's not like somebody took this stuff and they woke up one day and that were playing the piano and they decided to play baseball, you know what i mean? i mean, it is something that you still have to be able to go out and apply your trade. now, will it make you stronger, obviously it makes you stronger. is it fair? no, i think it's unfair if some guys do and some guys don't. i think it's unfair really in a lot of areas to characterize this as the steroid era because there are a lot of guys that didn't do any, and we only... we're only zeroing in on the guys who did, and these guys who didn't are just sort of being painted with the same brush. and that's unfair. that's unfair. and now the guys who happen to hit a lot of home runs who haven't done anything, they're

still going to get scrutiny, but maybe not here at home if you're a cardinal guy, but if you're on the road, they'll say, i wonder what he's doing. it's something we have to live with for a while, and hopefully a short while. >> [inaudible] >> you know what... >> that's the price baseball is paying. david ortiz today being outed by "the new york times" as one of the 104 players on the list of performance-enhancing drug users from 2003. today an afternoon game against oakland a's. in his first at-bat, ortiz doubles. now, the news broke about noon eastern. this game started about 1:30 eastern. no idea how many of the fans knew about the news, but they certainly applauded after the first at-bat. ortiz couldn't make it all the way to first base. in his second at-bat grounded out. in the bottom of the sixth he scores on a little flare from mike lowell. in the bottom of the seventh with boston down 5-3, two men

on, ortiz steps up and the ball is out. his 12th homer of the season at fenway, 14th overall. his power numbers way down this year, his productivity way down this year, but he homers today of all days after the news breaks. 8-5 the final score, boston with the victory, but the story of the day, ortiz and manny ramirez both named in that list of players in '03 who tested positive for performance-enhancing drugs. up next, we check in with beat writers from around major league baseball to see the reaction from the dodgers, phillies, as well.

>> steve bunin back on espnews. o's and royals, seventh inning, scary moment for pitcher brad burgeson of baltimore. billy butler with a liner right off his leg. he got up, sprinted and started limiting off the field. he's now listed as day-to-day. he actually got the win. that's good news. two bits of good news for burgeson. >> roy halladay still a jay and might be after tomorrow's deadline, as well. blue jays' general manager j.p. ricciardi telling our buster olney that talks with halladay are "dead."ird he l tommy johners, angels and red sox reportedly were interested. mets brought a five-game wined streak into today's matineefar. against colorado.abt

dexter fowler, leadoff batter,rs plenty of good seats still rht. available to miss that play, and they missed troy tulowitzki and jared atkins, as well. they all missed the ball. santana was on his game. mets win it 7-0. cubs half game behind st. louis going into today. and the national league central, afternoon game against the houston astros, and kosuke fukudome, a triple in the seventh for the second straight day. the cubs annihilate the astros, 12-0 wednesday, 12-3 this afternoon moving enter a temporary tie with st. louis atop the division. big news in l.a. the dodgers acquired george sherrill from baltimore for just two prospects. sherrill is eighth in the league for a terrible baltimore team with 20 saves. he joins jonathan broxton in the bullpen. it's time now for the "baseball tonight" daily beat here on espnews where we check in with beat reporters from around the big league. the biggest news today, david ortiz and manny ramirez reportedly on the list of 104 players who tested positive for

performance-enhancing drugs in 2003. we're now joined by kevin baxter who covers baseball for the "los angeles times." kevin, what was the reaction in the dodgers' club how's. >> the dodgers are still in shock over the first suspension, not that we haven't seen suspensions before. manny was one guy that surprised everybody. i don't know what the reaction will be this time. the first time they closed ranks and they were very supportive of manny, iing suspect they will be again, but maybe not with the same fervor as they were last time now that he's a two-time defender. >> what about fans in los angeles who have embraced manny maybe even more than before he did test positive. >> i think that's going to be something we'll have to wait and see. i think if you're manny fan, it's kind of fortunate that he is on the road. it's going to give people time to let this sink in.als. the way that manny presented it is i made a mistake. i'm sorry. it was a one-time thing. his i didn't know what i was doing. please forgive me. tht i'm going to try to be a betterf person. then we find out that actually all this was i guess a line

because he had to know he tested positive in 2003. so i think the fans are sort of going to have to do a little bit of soul-searching. i think it's fair to support a guy if he makes a mistake and it's one time, but when you find out it's a habitual offender, i think that will change people's viewpoint a bit. >> the team picks up george sherrill, how will he fit into that bullpen? >> great. they have a situational lefty, but he's got so many arm problems, he's not a dependable guy. i think the dodgers said we don't want to be into the playoffs and have to have a guy come out of the bullpen to face chase utley, ryan howard and ray all ibanez, a guy who is not a quality reliever and who is not left-handed. they've addressed all those things, in addition, jonathan broxton is having an all-star season, he has had some problems with his toe, and if he were to get hurt down the stretch, they have a guy that can step in and be the closer. the fact they have a left-hander back there and a guy who can step in if needed fills two huge needs in the dodger bullpen.

the kevin baxter, we appreciate you joining us on espnews. we now turn our attention to the other coach, pete abraham who covers the yankees for the journal news. or her husband faced a catastrophic health issue they would be this dire straights. the "help" committee bill creates a patient safety research center which will support research, technical assistance and process implementation grants to local providers to teach and implement best practices. no one should go through what judith's brother-in-law did. no one should contract a hospital-acquired infection that leads to not one, not two, not three, but four rehospitalizations. we know how to prevent hospital-acquired preventions. we have seen tremendous results in places like michigan and rhode island for years. the "help" committee bill finally creates a national infer

strurinfrastructure to support e proven practices to improve the quality of care and in doing so, lower the cost. finally, i recently met david. he's a self-employed resident from central falls, rhode island, who described the astronomical wise of health insurance for him and his wife. years ago he remembers paying $85 a month for his plan. today he pays approximately $19,000 a year. despite the dramatic jump in price his family's health insurance plan doesn't cover as much as it used to. to keep their premiums and overall costs down david has been forced to drop dental coverage and increase the out-of-pocket expenses that he and his wife pay on their plan. he noted "i'm almost afraid to get sick because today's health plans have so many holes in them

they can nickel and dime you to death." the "help" committee's affordable health choices act would do two important things to help david: one, it would require that the plan's sold in the gateway offer a truly comprehensive set of benefits so that affordable does not mean skimpy. "affordable" means inclusive, available, and accessible. two, the bill would not allow insurance companies to nickel and dime you to death as david fears now. insurance companies would be prohibited from imposing lifetime or annual limits on the dollar value of benefits for any relief so david is not forced to pay out-of-pocket when he exceeds a certain level of benefits as he does now. mr. president, there is some uncertainty in this building and around the country about the future of health care reform. i want to remind much, my colleagues on boat sides of the aisle, my colleagues in the

house, rhode islanders back home, and americans across the country, the senate has already put forth a health reform plan that will work for you circumstances it will work for small businesses; it will work for americans with preexisting conditions, for americans constituting eling to pay health care premiums; it will work for americans who are one illness away from a bankruptcy; it will work for americans who are uninsured; it will work for american whz have been the victims of hospital errors; it will work for americans who nodd services they cannot afford; most importantly it will work for donna, for shirley, and for judith and for david. it will work for their fellow americans all over this country whose stories are all too similar. we have all heard them. heartache. frustration. exhaustion. and ultimately, really, disgust

with the health care system which has at best disappointed them and at worst turned its become on them in their hour of need. the affordable house choices acts offers these americans a handup when they need it most and i am proud to support it. mr. president, i yield the floor. i want to take one moment to thank the distinguished senior senator from iowa for his courtesy in allowing me to proceed. i know he has substantial remarks he wishes to deliver and i hope i was not too much of an incon voainconvenience and i yie floor. mr. grassley: i thank the senator from rhode island for his kind remarks. before i speak on a very important issue i would ask unanimous consent that gregg dashlori of my finance committee staff be given privileges of the floor during the remainder of july, 2009. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered.

mr. grassley: we're only nine months into fiscal year 2009. and for the first time in american history, the federal deficit has reached and exceeded $1 trillion. this is not one of those "firsts" that calls for celebration. and there won't be any sel cele. unfortunately the bad fiscal news is in the yet over for the year. we're still on track for a year-end deficit of over $1.8 trillion for fiscal year 2009. and that's not according to this senator, that's according to our official scorer, the congressional budget office, the nonpartisan organization. this 2009 deficit as a percentage of gross domestic product will be a staggering 13%, the highest rate since the end of world war ii. i have a chart here that shows this, a chart that puts the

deficit in context. and here's also a chart that puts the debt in the context and i want do remind the senate i agree with president obama that he did, in fact, inherit part of these deficits and debt. what isn't often pointed out is this: the deficits and debt were bequeathed, back then, on a bipartisan basis because the democrats comed th controlled tt congress starting in 2007 and that congress wrote the budgets, it would the responding billions, thatdall that democray controlled congress wrote the bailout bill and george w. bush signed the responding bills and he signed the financial bail intermediate bill. the chart shows that the

bipartisan deficit that president obama inherited -- and that would be the gray part of the deficit chart -- the chart shows the bee bipartisan debt president obama inherited. that would be on the chart, as well. now, today, we've seen more revisionist fiscal history from many of my friendships o friendr side. it boils down to two basic propositions. first proposition, all good economic policy and beneficial fiscal effects are due to the partner dan tatopartisan tax hid the second is that all bad economic policy and detrimental fiscal effects of this decade are due to the bipartisan tax

relief plans of 2001 and 2003. how convenient for my friends on the other side of the aisle. if you take this fiscal revisionism to its logical extreme, their answer of some on the other side must be, to tax every dollar of income earned by the american taxpayer. there seems to be an attitude that any policy that allows americans to keep more of their own money is just automatically bad. while any policy that takes more of their money and spends it, is just automatically good. i think it is fairly clear that the fiscal revisionists on the other side do not have a problem with huge deficits whether they are threatened by the prospects of americans deciding what they want to do with their senio vern

money. in fact, the deficit effects of the stimulus bill passed within the short time after democrats assumed full control of the federal government xoade impedee impact of the tax relief. again, this is comparing the tax relief with the stimulus as you see e the chart. since the stimulus package spilled a lot of red ink, let's take a look at how the economy has done. unemployment currently stands at 10.5%, the highest rate in the last 26 years; the economy has shed 6.4 million jobs since the recession began while -- and that also includes, though, 2.6 million jobs lost since president obama took office.

even with the passage of the massive $787 billion stimulus bill in february, the promise of jobs jobs, jobs that want with that $787 billion stimulus bill, there is still no end in sight to the rise of unemployment and job losses. the president himself recently said, "my expectation" -- and i am quoting -- "that we will probably see unemployment tick up for several months." while the short-term news is bad, i've got bad news for you -- the long-term news is much worse. if the obama budget is adopted by 2019 we will have added over

$9 trillion to the national debt held by the public and our debt as a percentage of the economy will grow in excess of 80%, in excess of 80%, a level also that has not been seen since this country was in world war ii. let me say the 50-year average of that national debt, according to the economy, has been about 40% so we're talking about more than doubling what it has been over the last 50 years. the huge spike in spending that we've seen over the course of the past nine months has been advertised as temporary. but even so, the deficit as a percentage of g.d.p. in 2019 is

projected to be 5.5%, a level that everybody, including the president, is agrees is unsustainable. and you can see that on our charts as well. looking beyond the ten-year window paints an even bleaker picture. i have a chart here from the congressional budget office that projects a terrifying rise in debt held by the public as a percentage of g.d.p. over the next 40 years. that's this chart right here. as you can see from the dotted line, the highest level of debt held by the public as a percentage of g.d.p., 107%, occurred in 1945 as a result and at the end of world war ii. in either of the two scenarios outlined in the congressional budget office's long-term budget outlook, shown by the red and

green lines on the chart respectively, we are on a course to break this record sometime in the next 15 to 35 years and reach ratios of debt to g.d.p. of up to 18% or, at the extreme, 321% by 2050. the congressional budget office's own words are these -- i quote -- "the systemic widening of budget shortfalls projected under c.b.o.'s long-term scenarios has never been observed in u.s. history." now, some may ask, why is this a big deal? why does debt held by the public have to do -- what does that have to do with my everyday life? the congressional budget office makes three points answering

this question. and i want to make clear that you understand, this is the congressional budget office, a nonpartisan group of experts that their sole job is to project at least ten years ahead of time what the situation is with every spending bill and the impact of a deficit. and so this is what they say. if the ratio of debt to g.d.p. continues to rise, lenders may become concerned about the financial solvency of the government and demand higher interest rates to pay for the increasing riskiness of holding government debt. if the debt to g.d.p. -- then the second point. if the debt to g.d.p. ratio keeps increasing and the budget outlook does not improve, both foreign and domestic lenders may not provide enough funds for the government -- meaning our government -- to meet its

obligations. and thirdly, the c.b.o. says, "and if the first two points happen, no matter whether the government resolves the fiscal crisis by printing money, raising taxes, cutting spending, or going into default, it is certain that economic growth will be seriously disrupted. and whenever economic growth is seriously disrupted, job growth is seriously disrupted. as well. clearly a debt to g.d.p. ratio approaching 100% would have a disastrous impact on everybody's everyday life. so where do we go from here? clearly, we're on -- well on our way to fiscal catastrophe unless we change our course. what is the best way to break

out of this recession? to start creating jobs, to reverse the mountainous growth of deficit and debt and get the economy moving again? that's a very important and a very long question, so let me see if i can answer. in general, democrats and republicans seem to have opposing viewpoints when it comes to the solution of this problem. with republicans favoring lower taxes and lower spending while democrats favor higher taxes and higher spending. however, both republicans and democrats agree that health care reform is a crucial ingredient to solving long-term budget crisis. both republicans and democrats agree that health care reform needs to be paid for as well. the congressional budget office is also on the same page, asserting that, in their words -- quote -- "in the

absence of significant changes in policy, rising costs of health care will cause federal spending to grow much faster than the economy, putting the federal budget on an unsustainable path." end of c.b.o. quote. over the past few months, the rising cost of health care has been characterized by a few creative illustrations. first, we've heard the chairman of the budget committee refer to the rising costs of health care as an 800-pound gorilla. second, we've heard the president describe the rising cost of health care as a ticking time bomb. today i want to add a third illustration. the rising cost of health care as a massive, fire-breathing debt and committe deficit drago.

now, you know in the king arthur ledge end, the greatest knight among the knights of the round-table was sir lancelot. sirs lancelosir lancelot was aln slayer. now, in order for sir lancelot to strike down the dragon, he had to be equipped with suitable weapon. the same is true today with the rising cost of health care. as congress contemplates ways to cut down on the massive fire-breathing debt and deficit dragon, it must wield the proper weapons -- and weapon. as you can see here, you know, we have the debt and deficit dragon. a few weeks ago, house democrats proposed a graduated surtax of up to 5.4% on taxpayers making over $280,000 to partially

offset their health care reform bill. this small business surtax would push the top marginal tax rates up to between 43% and 46.4%, a rate that would jump to over 50% in 39 states with medicare and state and local taxes added i in -- and this is according to the tax foundation. so is this small business surtax the proper weapon to strike down the debt and deficit dragon, i ask? i have a chart here that shows not sir lancelot, but sir taxalot on his way to slay the debt and deficit dragon with his mighty surtax. this is "sur taxalot," as you

can see here. as you can see from the chart, the surtax is a large, heavy, painful weapon and leathal to america's job engine. the goose that lays the golden egg: small business america. so take a good look at "sur taxalot." however, it is not effective against debt and deficit dragon because it does nothing to slow the dragon's exponential growth. the cost of health care that the dragon feasts upon will continue to increase much faster than the revenues that "sur taxalot" can collect with his surtax. c.b.o. director doug elmendorf testified in front of the budget committee two weeks ago.

dr. elmendorf stated, "none of the legislative changes looked at by c.b.o. so far, including house democrats' small business surtax" -- quote -- "represents the sort of fundamental change of the order of magnitude that would be necessary to offset the direct increase in federal health costs from the insurance coverage proposals." end of quote of dr. elmendorf. clearly, unless sir lancelot -- unlike sir lancelot, "sur taxalot" is no dragon slayer. now let's look at how the house democrats' small business surtax works. in 2011 and 2012, singles making between $280,000 and $400,000 and families making between $350,000 and $500,000 will pay

an extra 1% surtax. singles making between $400,000 and $800,000 and families making between $500,000 and $1 million will pay an extra 1.5%. and, finally, singles making more than $800,000 and families making more than $1 million will pay an extra 5.4%. then in 2013 and after, these surtax rates go up to 2%, 3%, and 5.4% respectively. the only way that these rates won't go up in 2013 is if the president's advisors -- the director of o.m.b. -- determines in 2012 that there will be more than $675 billion realized and

estimated health care savings by the year -- in estimated health care savings by the year 2019. so, mr. president, let me say that that's right, the trigger mechanism is back. the house democrats have made the surtax rate increase subject to a trigger, and they have left the judgment on whether or not to pull the trigger in the hands of a partisan presidential advisor, not the nonpartisan organization like the congressional budget office. as members of congress, we should jealously guard our constitutional prerogatives to be the one branch of government tasked with deciding whether revenue is raised through increased taxes or revenue is reduced through decreased taxes. as the great chief justice john marshall said almost 200 years ago, "the power to tax is the

power to destroy." so why would we hand such an enormous power over to the executive branch? i recall that over the last eight years hearing from the other side of the aisle that the executive branch was attempting to usurp congressional authori authority. so where is that jealous guarding of congressional authority now? it seems to be very absent. we've seen this trigger mechanism from the democrats before, and while it's been a couple of years, i've spoken at length upon this trigger right here on the floor of the united states senate. so, mr. president, i would ask unanimous consent that a copy of my speech of may the 9th, 2007, entitled "a trigger and a tax hike on american people," be

included in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: and i've got a chart here from the 2007 speech that deals with perhaps the most famous trigger. of course, i'm referring to trigger, the horse belonging to the cowboy actor roy rogers. and as i mentioned in the past, "trigger" is no longer with us. today he is stuffed and on display in the roy rogers-dale evans museum in branson, museum. and even so, "trigger" even in his stuffed state is still more imposing than the house democrats' trigger advice. while past democratic trigger proposals were bad, the current house democrat trigger proposal is even worse because it is under the control of a partisan o.m.b. director and it is based upon an o.m.b. director's estimate -- i repeat, an estimate -- of health care savings for the years way out

there, 2013-2019. i don't think anyone really expects this trigger to be pulled. even the nonpartisan joint committee on taxation, in its 544 -- in its $544 billion revenue estimate of the house democratic small business surtax proposal, assumes that the estimate savings targets will not be reached and the rates will go up for sure in 2013. clearly on the question of how to pay for health care reform, republicans and democrats appear to be drifting in different directions. republicans want to pay for health care reform through changes in health care system. mostly on the spending side, but also on the revenue side, to make health care more accessible and more affordable. in contrast, house democrats'

most recent proposal to pay for health care reform, the small business surtax, goes far outside the universe of health care by abandoning the universe of health care in their financing scheme, house democrats are clearly indicating that the goal of their health care reform proposal is increase coverage at any cost. even "the new york times" -- now believe this, even "the new york times," hardly a striking critic of the democrats in congress or the white house, cautions against this coverage at any cost approached -- quote -- "if the government simply extends subsidized insurance to millions of uninsured people but fails to force fundamental changes in the delivering and financing of health care, then federal health care costs will keep escalating at excessive rates.

that will drive up deficits in subsequent decades unless new taxes are imposed or new savings found." ending quote of "new york times". we need to reform our health care system, but we need to do it right. that is why i'm working with senator baucus, chairman of the senate finance committee, along with senator snowe, enzi, conrad and bingaman, to reach a bipartisan solution. my finance committee colleague and our staffs have been working hours and hours each day and night and weekends to navigate through the numerous complex issues of health care reform. has it been easy? obviously not. however, i'm very hopeful that we can reach a bipartisan agreement that makes health care in america more accessible and more affordable while at the same time protecting taxpayers or preventing the federal government from taking over health care reform.

president obama in his prime time press conference last week expressed his agreement with these principles. while stating generally the reform he's proposing will keep government out of health care decisions, president obama specifically made the following promises -- quote -- "i'm not going to sign a bill that, for example, adds to our deficit. i won't sign a bill that doesn't reduce health care inflation so that families as well as government are saving money. i'm not going to sign a bill that i don't think will work." end of quote. i'll take the president at his words on these promises. but i'm going to hold him to them. the president is sending a clear signal that he could not sign the pelosi bill, the health education labor pension bill or similar pieces of legislation. why? because each of those would drastically expand the federal government's control of health care system, increase the

deficit, and fail to reduce long-term health care inflation. here's the bottom line: when the long-term budget outlook warns that the rising health care costs will cause federal spending to grow so fast as to put the federal budget on an unsustainable path, congress needs to take action. but at the same time when our goal is to reform 17% of the economy while facing a nearl nearly $2 trillion annual deficit, more than $9 trillion in new doafort the next decade and a -- new debt over the next decade and a new -- by 2050, we have to make sure that we're doing this job right. that's what we're trying to do in the senate finance committee. and when we get finished, however long it takes, i hope that we can send a deficit

neutral health care reform bill to president obama that increases access, cuts costs, and puts us on a fiscally sustainable path for years to come. thank you. mr. chambliss: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. mr. chambliss: mr. president, i rise this evening to speak on the nomination of judge sonia sotomayor to be the next associate justice of the united states supreme court. mr. president, we all know that elections have consequences, and because of this, i have tried to give deference to the various nominees submitted by president obama. i have not voted for all of his nominees, but i have voted for some even though i didn't necessarily believe that they were the best people that he might have nominated. the case of supreme court is unique. this is not a cabinet member who

will rotate out or leave at the end of the president's term. supreme court justices are there for life and decide case that will affect present and future generations of americans. with this in mind, i reviewed opinions written or concurred in by judge sotomayor. reviewed speeches and writings of judge sotomayor. talked with lawyers who practiced in new york, lawyers who have tried or argued cases before judge sotomayor and others who know her by reputation and also listened to and reviewed testimony before the judiciary committee in her confirmation proceeding. in addition i spent the better part of an hour in a one-on-one conversation with the judge. certainly she has all the education an judicial background to be confirmed as a supreme court justice. her judicial temperment is not in question. some lawyers felt she was not qualified for the supreme court. others felt that she is. judge sotomayor has a very

compelling personal story in being hispanic and being female and being nominated to the u.s. supreme court adds more credibility to that saga of living the american dream. as americans we should be proud that she has been nominated. but the role of the senate is to give the president advice and consent and we are required to go beyond the personal side of the nominee. mr. president, after reviewing the information i've collected over and over again, i have concluded that i cannot support judge sotomayor's nomination. my reasoning is as follows: first, lawyers nominated to the supreme court should be in a class by themselves. my only experience as a members of -- member of the senate with this process is the confirmation of chief justice roberts and justice alito. clearly, they are lawyers who are in a premier class. lawyers with whom i spoke who know judge sotomayor do not put

her in that category. even those who say she should be confirmed do so in a less than enthusiastic way. second, i'm a strong supporter of the second amendment. and i am concerned about the reasoning of judge sotomayor in cases where she has considered this issue. in d.c.v heller there was at issue the application of the -- it is likely to be decided by the supreme court in the next year or so. as a member of the second circuit, judge sotomayor ruled in the negative on this issue in the maloney case without an explanation, simply citing an old supreme court case that is not really directly on point and is certainly outdated. this is too important an issue to give it no more than a cursory review. thirdly, aim concerned about the apparent -- i am concerned about 8 parent leaning of judge sotomayor to use foreign law to

interpret u.s. laws in our constitution. in her april 28, 2009, speech to the puerto rican aclu, judge sotomayor said while foreign law should not be used as a precedent she stated it should be considered. my question is: why? judge sotomayor's answer in that same speech to that question was to align herself with justice ginsburg, who supports the use of foreign law and recently stated that foreign opinions can add to the story of knowledge relevant to the solution of a question. judge sotomayor went on to say that unless american courts are more open to ideas and foreign cases, we are going to lose influence in the world. from -- from an american juice prudence -- jur is prudence standpoint that line of thinking is skewed to me. lastly the highly pub sized

ricci case is puzzling. this opinion is unusual for such a precedent setting case. no analysis for the decision is very troubling to the lawyer in me. in my conversation with judge sotomayor, she stated that the second circuit panel was simply following precedent. and if the supreme court reversed the second circuit opinion, it would be establishing a new precedent. the supreme court, of course, did reverse the second circuit and clearly stated that no precedent was being followed by the lower court. judge sotomayor did not adequate i will explain what precedent she was talking about and, in fact, did not answer this question when directly asked the question by senator kyl at her confirmation hearing. being less than forthcoming in every respect is very disturbing. mr. president, for all of the above reasons i will cast a no vote on the confirmation of judge sotomayor next week.

with that, i would yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. dodd: mr. president, i ask -- may i inquire we're in morning business? am i correct? the presiding officer: the senator's correct, but we have 10 minute grants. mr. dodd: i appreciate. i ask unanimous consent that andrea harris an andrew garrett, the staff of senator kennedy's office be granted floor privileges for today's session of the senate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. dodd: i thank -- thank you. i have taken the floor to talk about health care and i do so this evening with a note of some sadness, i have been told that there will be no markup of the finance committee bill next week on health care. and i know senator baucus has worked hard at that and i know other members of that committee

have been working to try and reach some understanding in all of that. and i regret that we'll now leave here, i gather, next week after the conclusion of the nomination process for judge sotomayor for a month-long recess to our respective states or whatever other obligations our colleagues may have. so i am saddened by that. i believe there's a good possibility, and let me try to find a good note in all of this, there are five congressional committees between the house of representatives, the other body and ourselves, that have some jurisdiction over the health care debate. three of those committees reside in the other body. the house of representatives, that is, the commerce committee, labor and education committee and the ways and means committee. i'm told by tomorrow those three committees will have completed their jobs. they will have reported on a bill. there are two committees in the united states senate with

jurisdiction. the bulk of jurisdiction over health care resides in committee chaired by our colleague from massachusetts, senator kennedy, who is not with us, as most americans know because of his battle that he's ongoing today with cancer, with brain cancer. in his absence i've been asked to act as the -- act as the acting chair in that committee. we completed our work in that committee. the only committee remaining to do some work is obviously the finance committee. the five committees by the end of business tomorrow will have completed their jobs. now that doesn't mean the work is completed. -off obviously a -- obviously a lot of work remains in melding these bills together to come up with the thorny questions that remain on how do we structure the health care system in our nation to go from a sick care system, which it is today, to truly a health care system to deal with the issues of costs and to try and manage these issues so we bend that cost in the coming decades and beyond in

a different direction than we're headed today, and i'll talk about that in a minute, obviously to improve the quality of health care which all of us care about. while we have great quality of health care in many areas of our country, there are numerous areas where the outcome, the overall health condition, the life expectancy of americans is far less than it ought to be. the access to health care, the affordability are still the primary goals. we're working hard to try and reach that point. so four out of five committees will have acted. the fifth, we hope, will achieve that result at some point here or some manner in which we can move forward with this critical debate in our nation. so this evening, mr. president, i want to spend a few minutes talking about where we are on a couple of these issues. i've discussed on previous gatherings my thoughts on aspects of the legislation. and let me share where this

debate is. there's a strong case to be made. we know the economic argument, i'm going to get to that in a minute, but there's a moral case to be made as well for health care reform. and it's a very strong one. maybe it doesn't impress economists or actuaries, but there is a moral obligation and the nation as blessed as ours is with great resources and great wealth and abundance of resources natural and otherwise, we live in the wealthiest nation in the history of mankind, inheriters of the incredible work of those who came before us who sacrificed greatly, including their very lives to produce the kind of nation we live in today but it has been a remarkable story for little more than two centuries that has resulted in one of the great miracles in world history. to produce a nation with a vast majority of the population can live with financial security,

good job opportunities, the ability to raise families with security, despite what we've gone through in recent years. nonetheless, there's a sense of stability and security about being an american. in many ways, we're the envy of a good part of the world. so it's important as we think of this debate about health care to remind ourselves what others have given to produce the kind of results that leave us with a level of lifestyle unmatched anywhere else around the globe. but yet in spite of all of that great news we should also note that 45 million of our fellow citizens, many children, by the way, go to bed every night without health care coverage and the wealthiest nation in the history of mankind no one should be denied, in my view coverage of health care because of a preexisting condition. what is a preexisting condition? a determination that you had a problem health-wise before and

therefore, the insurance company will deny you coverage because of the preexisting condition especially when that excuse is used by so many insurance companies to avoid covering victims of domestic violence, friends. or those suffering from the most painful of long-term illnesses -- those proceed existing conditions. the wealthiest of nations in the history of mankind, no one should have to choose between paying their electric bill or taking a sick child to the doctor. and i wish that were just minor cases, small antidotes. it's not. regardless of which state you represent, every one of the represented families who every single day make those kind of choices on paying that electrical bill, cutting back on that diet for the family because they have to make a choice about whether or not they can care for that sick family member. no one should have to lose a home or go into bankruptcy

because their medical bills are too high. i know the presiding officer has heard me on previous occasions in recent times talk about this statistics and let me just repeat them quickly: 62% of all bankruptcies in the last several years health care crisis related, 62% to 65% and of that 62%, 75% of the people had health insurance. when i first saw those numbers of 60% to 65% of the bankruptcies because of a health care crisis i assumed that the overwhelming majority of people who fell into that situation must be those without any kind of health care coverage at all. it pained me to learn that 75% of those people had health care coverage and despite that they ended up in financial ruin, having to go interest bankruptcy to survive economically. the wealthiest nation in the world, mr. president, one that spends far more on health care than anyone else, some $2.5

trillion a year, we now rank 37th in the world in medical outcomes. that is in terms of our overall condition, health wise as a people, like expectancy. we now have the first generation of children growing up in the united states that we're now told by studies done by major children's health facilities, health care facilities that we are about to encounter for the first time in 225 years a generation of children who will live less healthy lives than their pains. that's never happened before in the history of our country. each generation of americans has been able to improve the quality of health care of their children even in that 19th century and throughout the difficulties of the 20th century every generation did better on that score. we're about to be the first generation that will have their children less wealth off -- not financially although that may be

the case -- but in terms of health conditions. i don't know of anyone in this generation who wants to leave a legacy low-income that. because we couldn't figure out how to deal with health care we left our children in a condition where they will have less healthy lives than we have had. i don't think anyone, i don't care what your politics are or where you're from want to be referred to in history because we couldn't take better care of our children. so mr. president, there is a moral case for health care that, i know, is dispensed with or dispelled by some because it's really not serious people don't talk about that, just talk about the economics. i think as a people we ought to talk about it because it motivates people, and all of us share that common concern that we believe in this great country of ours that we ought to be able to do a better job of taking care of our tell low citizenr -w

citizenry regarding a health care crisis. today i want to make the case that this reform in addition to being the right thing is also the smart thing, the very smart thing to do. it's smart, mr. president, it's a matter thing to do for our federal deficit, just listened to my colleague from iowa talk at bout the deficit. i think he is right, we need to confront that issue. six months ago an american president assumed office, how quickly we forget, having inherited the largest deficit accumulated not just by any president but by every previous president combined. that's a remarkable track record. it's one thing to have a larger deficit than your predecessor but over the previous eight years the administration that just left town and the congresses that experted them accumulated a deficit this eight years that exceeded the divests

accumulated by all previous 43 presidents in our american history. so all of a sudden, barack obama arrives in town six months ago, on january 20, and gets handed this gift from the previous administration: a mountain of debt accumulated. and all of a sudden, now, this is the big issue we hear about. where were those voices over the past eight years as that debt accumulated day after day and all of a sudden want to lay this as the doorstep of a new president arriving in town. but if you are concerned about it, and i believe my colleagues are, then one certain way to add to it is to do nothing about health care. that's -- just leave town for another month without having addressed this issue in any concrete and thoughtful manner. because clearly if you do that, the amount of deficit in this country will accumulate. we spend, mr. president, 16

cents of every $1 on health care today and i don't know of a single expert who would tell you that by the year 2040, as they do, we will be spending as much as 30 cent to 40 cents of every dollar on health care if we do nothing. and there is a danger of that. i know we are all painfully aware. the bill which passed our committee two weeks and two days ago -- by the way, a bill that took a long time; we spent five weeks on that bill. we had 23 sessions and went through some 60 hours, by the way, on that one month from start to finish, actually, four weeks. almost 60 hours, 23 sessions on 13 days. we actually considered 287 amendments over that month-long process day in and day out. we accepted 161 amendments

offered by friends on the republican side and many were technical and many were very substantive amendments. we went through a long processed considered at length, long debates, 23 of us, a quarter of the united states senate sitting on the committee chaired by senator kennedy to consider various ideas within our jurisdiction. under that bill we established a very large and row best and robt marketplace for small business owners can go to comparison shop for their employees or for themselves. our bill is a smart thing to do for business. too often today, you have to choose between reducing coverage for employees or laying off worries because they cannot afford to provide it. our bill, the one we passed, now, no longer if our bill were adopted as i believe it will be, would any small business in our

country be forced to act as health insurance experts. no longer will they be denied affordable health insurance opposites under our legislation and no longer would small businesses be discriminated against because they ploy someone with a preexisting condition or who suffers a sudden unexpected health crisis, thus driving up the premiums for everyone else, all their employees, making it too costly or making it impossible to provide that kind of coverage. not only does our bill which we passed two weeks and two days ago, do we give small business somewhere to turn to for insurance options but we give them the financial assistance to pay for it: $1,000 for individual employees and $2,000 for families that every small business would get to assist them in that very business of trying to provide for their families. we offer a credit to small businesses trying to do the right thing by providing insurance to their employees. that's been in our bill.

it's written. it's there. we can get that bill up and pass it here, i'm confident the body, the other body would adopt it and we give employers a healthier, more productive workforce. i point out, mr. president, that in many parts of our country, employers only have one choice or two choices to go to for health care coverage to their employees. that's all that existed for them when they want to shop to fine out what's available. under our marketplace idea incorporated in our bill, you would have a wide range of openings to choose from, a private carrier, offering different packages at different level of costs allowing that employer to shop on behalf of his or her employees and we give them the credit to make it available financially to do so. our bill does a lot, more than anyone else, certainly today when it cops to small are businesses in on country. for those employers who are happy, as many are with the ps thethe --with the insurance the,

maybe they have negotiated low prices and a wide network of providers as exists in some parts of the country, under our bill, nothing changes for you, under our bill. you keep the insurance as long as you choose to renew it. that's your business. we change none of that. you like what you have -- you keep that. and if you are a smaller employer and you want to change that and you want better plans, we provide the credits to do so and the options to have more choices. most of us, mr. president, we believe reform is a smart thing to do for the american consumer, those employers and those employees. some of our fellow citizens are getting a good deal when it comes to their insurance. they like the doctor they have, they like the hospital they go to when they need one, they like the insurance plan they have. and they don't want anything about their health care to change and they shouldn't have to worry about that. our bill protects that. if you like your doctor, you

like your hospital, you like your health care coverage, you keep that as the business who wants to plan ahead, you keep that under our bill that we wrote two weeks and two days ago. the 900 pages in the bill we worked on for almost five weeks and considered the 300 amendments before us. some of our colleagues have tried to scare our fellow americans into believing our bill will force a change upon them. mr. president, it is just not true. that's a falsehood and being dishonest to the american people. the bill this we crested in the health, education, labor and pensions committee won't make you change your doctor or your insurance plan. if you like what you have, you get to keep it. the only change you may see is there may be more money back in your pocket as a result of what we provide and the options available for people to make at lower costs. here is what our opponents won't trillion you: if we don't take

action, keep the status quo, go back to the respective states and never deal with this issue, you may very well lose the ability to see the doctor you like. that is at risk with inaction. if we don't take action, we may very well lose the good insurance plan you have. if you don't take action you may very well find yourself unable to get the kind of care you need, when you need it. if we don't take action in the united states congress, families with insurance will continue to pay that hidden tax of $1,100 that the average family does every single year to cover the costs of the uninsured who show up at hospitals. in our cup, you ge country you t the cost on average is $1,100 a family a year. that's a tax we pay today. because of the failure to provide the kind of plans we adopted in our bill and others are considering to see to it

that those costs would no longer have to fall on families. further, mr. president, if we don't take action, the premiums will continue to rise faster than your wages and if you don't believe me look what happened to my state of connecticut a few days ago with the insurance company raising rates 32%. i wish that were uncommon. the rates this my states the last six years have gone up 45%, 46% and since 1996 in the country, they have gone up 86% -- vastly out12reu7ing the ratout-- outstrippingthe rate oo send in sight. for those that say we ought to postpone this and it is not necessary, we ought to deal with the deficit on these matters, consider what's going do happen if we don't move and if we don't come together and get this job done. on every one of these issues if we don't take action, no matter how secure you may feel today, you may lose that insurance, you may lose that coverage, you may

find yourself unable to go to that doctor or that hospital you believe you'd like to and you ton pay a rising cost in premiums to cover the uninsured. mr. president, since i've -- two weeks and two days ago that our committee acted. 210,000 of our fellow citizens have lost health care coverage. these are people who had insurance two weeks ago. because every single day that we delay taking action on this, 14,000 of our fellow citizens lose health care coverage. every day. so since two weeks and two days ago, 210,000 of our fellow citizens lost their health care coverage. and we're about to leave for another month. you do the math, if you will, on a daily basis. so while we're here ourselves as members of this body, of course, as we go back to our respective states, we have our health care coverage. we have very good health care coverage as senators. very good. very good health care coverage. so none of us have to worry

about that as we go back and walk away, unfortunately, from a set of issues we ought to be grappling with. but we can do so with the assurance and the certainty and the stability as elected officials in this body that if something happens to any one of us, we're going to be fine -- we're going to be fine -- because we've got great health care coverage. but unfortunately for 210,000 of our fellow citizens the last two weeks, that's no longer the ca case. imagine tonight that you're one of those 210,000 and all of a sudden you wake up in the middle of the night because a child is very sick and rushing to that hospital, or a spouse or a loved one needs that kind of care because of an accident. and these things happen with the least predictability. every one of us knows what happens. we've all had it happen to us, where a child, a spouse all of a sudden there's a tragic, an accident, there's an injury, there's an illness and all of a

sudden we need that coverage to protect us. well, tonight there are 210,000 more people since two weeks ago that are in that free fall hoping that nothing happens until they get back to their feet again, maybe get that new job, find that insurance company who will core yo cover you and e those benefits. but imagine income that spot, think about it, that lack of stability, that lack of certainty, that lack of comfort, thank if something happens to my family, i can -- knowing that if something happens to my family, i can help them, we're going to be there. i hope they'll get back on their feet again, i hope they'll get to see a good doctor and they'll have the drugs they need or the care they need to restore their bodies. but you never get to that question if you can't even approach it because you don't have the coverage any longer to help you pay for it. so, mr. president, those 14,000 a day are going to i continue to mount up under these present circumstances. and so i'm disappointed, to put it mildly, that we find ourselves leading here without

continuing to work. not that we're going to solve all the problems in the week before we left. and no one, of course, argues that we shouldn't do this right and that we shouldn't be careful and make sure we're doing it right. that's kind of a silly argument, to suggest somehow there are people here who don't care about drafting a responsible piece of legislation that will move forward. but i don't accept the argument that it's too hard, that that's the reason we can't get it done. so that's why reforming our health care system is so important, for all of those reasons, mr. president. even if you're satisfied with your own personal health care situation, you ought to know that it ought not to be -- you ought not to have too much comfort in believing it's going to be there when you may need it the most. our bill that we passed provides stability so that care -- that care that's available to you today stays available to you day after day and it provides cost savings that you will see in your family budget. our bill eliminates entirely the lifetime caps on benefits.

so those caps that exist on how many hospital visits, how many doctors visits, those are eliminated in our bill we passed. even if you suddenly develop a serious illness or get into a bad accident, you'll be able to get the treatment you need. and it does put caps on how much money out of your income you can be forced to spend on insurance. today there's no limits at all. our bill provides those caps, which we drafted, so that your expenses will never be more than you can afford to pay. our bill that we passed prohibits insurance companies from discriminating against people with preexisting conditions. that's gone forever in our bill. that argument about preexisting conditions is absolutely gone. we do nothing, it's still there, so that certainty you may think you have is not certain at all with the preexisting provisions that exist today. our bill eliminates those. so that if you don't have to stay in a job just because you have an illness that would keep you from getting coverage elsewhere. i can't tell you how many

stories we've heard about that, where people have a miserable job at miserable pay, they don't day leave it because they know this if they shift and go to another place, they have a preexisting condition, they'll lack the kind of coverage that they need to have. our legislation, mr. president, also prohibits insurance companies from changing or dropping your coverage or refusing to renew it if you get sick. and it mandates that these companies cover the things that will help you stay well, like mammograms or annual checkups at no additional charge to you as a patient. so, mr. president, the truth is that too many americans are getting a bad deal, even those who are -- believe they're operating with a comfort that what they have will be there whenever they need it. and the ones who are getting a good deal might not be able to keep it unless we take action to provide the kind of assurances and stability that i think people are looking for. even those who are somehow able to ignore the urgent moral imperative of reform i think

should support the legislation we've crafted simply because it's a better deal for american consumers and it's the smart thing to do. it's now been, as i said, more than two weeks since our "help" committee passed its legislati legislation. it's a good bill, mr. president. it's not a perfect bill and more work needs to be done. all of us acknowledge that. but it's one that i think every member of this body can get behind. every single member of that committee, all 23 of us, every single member added contributions to the original draft. every democrat, every republican added amendments that were adopted to our bill. and by the end of this week, as i pointed out earlier, four out of the five committees with health reform bills have completed their work. and i know the finance committ committee, as i said earlier, is working hard to produce a bill as well. and when their work is deplete,, i look forward to sitting down with them to working with them

and merge our efforts. which is clearly going to happen. we're going to merge our efforts. we'll take what we've done here and we'll merge with it what the finance committee has done. the senate will have a bill deeght with health care issues. i know the leaders have guaranteed that. i know the president has spoken about it. i'm sure my colleagues will support that effort. i've heard some of my colleagues mention that now is not the time to plow ahead. well, mr. president, i disagree. i can't think of a more urgent issue for all the reasons i've mentioned this evening and how important it is. i said it may not be as much of an urgency for those of us with the stability and certainty of our own health care policies, but for so many of the people we represent, those when are insured or underinsured or those without insurance i think have a right to insist that we do the job, face the difficult questions and have the courage to lead on this issue. to be leaders. that's what we were asked to be when people chose to us represent them. i know that's the case in my hone state, as it is across the

country. and a lot of the choices we've got to make are tough ones. they're going to be hard to explain in some cases because they'll involve the shared responsibility that all americans must be involved in if this is going to work. but that's why we get sent here. occasionally there are matters that require us to stand up and make tough choices. we're at such a moment. and for to us do less, to walk away from this i think would be one of the great tragedies of our time. so i regret we won't be working on this in the coming weeks, although we will in our own way, i suppose, as staff and back in our respective states listening to our constituencies. but i hope on the return in september we'll come back here with a renewed sense of purpose and to get this job done and to move forward. we have a president who cares about this deeply. we have members of both bodies who were elected and ran on this issue of reforming our health care system. major industries, the insurance industry, the providers, doctors, nurses, the pharmaceutical industry, all are today on the side of getting something done.

there are disagreements about how to do this, but wonderful people, both in public and outside of public life, are committed to this. that's different than it was 14 years ago, and we ought to be able to take advantage of that -- that new alignment, if you will, and get this job done. and with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. i appreciate the opportunity to speak after chairman dodd, who is probably more than -- who has patrol more than anybody else this year led the health care effort. as he pointed out, that our committee, it was the longest -- the longest markup of any bill i've ever seen in my years in the house and senate. i spoke today to a "washington post" reporter who said she'd never seen a markup so thorough, 160 republican amendments we faced and we accepted -- either passed or we accepted, many of them substantive, some of them

not, but certainly major -- a major bipartisan effort. we saw in the "help" committee the -- we -- we went over section by section. this is a very good work product. we are joined by three committees in the house of representatives, the ways and means committee and the education and labor committee, which have already completed their work on a very similar bill, and another committee is working on it tonight, the energy and commerce committee, a committee on which i sat -- sat in my years in the house of representatives. all four of these bills are similar. they all -- they all fit -- they all protect what works in our health care system and they fix what's broken. they all understand that this bill is -- if you're happy with your insurance, you can keep what you have, but in addition, you'll have -- your premium is much more likely to stabilize, but as chairman dodd said, you're no longer subsidizing to the tune of $1,100, $1,200 a year uncompensated care for others. you're paying for your -- your

health insurance but others in society, everybody will be paying for their own health insurance rather than -- than what's called cross-subsidies. this legislation -- and this legislation obviously covers millions of americans who aren't insured. all that aside for a moment, mr. chairman -- mr. president, i'm coming to the floor to read letters from people which i've done every day for the last several days and will continue to. we talk about -- we use words like -- terms like market exclusivity and gateway and exchange and cross-subsidies and -- and all of these kinds of things. but when it gets right down to it, it's -- it's what -- how this affects people individually in our country and our state. and i know, you know, whether here in west haven or hartford or whether they're in ne new london -- new london, con corporation or new london -- new london, connecticut, or new london, ohio, these are letters from constituents that i've gotten. and i've just got five or six letters, share them with my colleagues and with the presiding officer.

diane that from seneca county in ohio writes, "i'm a middle-aged widow who returned to college. next month i'll graduate. i've been seeking employment for a year. i have no insurance. please help the good citizens of ohio get health care, many of whom have found themselves in a terrible predicament through no fault of their own. please help me help myself." this is an example of people who are working hard, doing the right thing. as chairman dodd said, 14,000 americans lose their health insurance every day now, and people like diana from the tiffan area in northwest ohio can't -- can't get ahead of the game, can't get ahead of the curve, she can't get insurance, she hasn't found a job in economic times like this, there are an awful lot of people like diana from seneca county. and that's why it's so important that we pass this legislation when we come back in september. ian from franklin county, that's central ohio, the columbus area, "i'm a 31-year-old without health insurance. i have a four-year degree but i'm only working part-time. i have no sick days, no vacation days, no personal days.

i'm sick and tired of being scared of getting sick. health care should be based on need rather than on ability to pay. enough." just think of how many people in this country, mr. president, live that way. they -- they think about being sick. they think, what happens if i'm sick? i'm barely making a living. i know that if i get sick, i'll have to choose between my medical bills and paying my rent or paying -- choosing between my medicine or -- or sufficiently heating my home in the winter. those kinds of choices are very real choices to hundreds of thousands -- more than that -- americans every single day. lee from can i oh ga county writes, "i've worked in health insurance in some form or another since 1973. i know medicare and medicaid as well as private health insurance. i've seen health insurance from just about all angles. i could write a book on it. many times i've told potential clients -- quote -- "shopping around for health insurance is like going to a casino and betting against the house, where the house is making the rules, where the house changes the