thing dies, just sort of doo doo in action. due to inertia. where it is right now is right there and not pass. both because i think transfix himself is less committed to the cause because of what might read of it is, not that they're saying they're not going to this. it could be exactly the timetable you say, but constructing this new timetable, they are not just doing health care reform until they get it done, makes it a whole lot easier to not get it done. >> jonathan, do you want to respond? >> . .

worry, you know, sending mixed messages doesn't help at a time when congress in itself do we stay, do we go, do we stay? the message from the white house i believe should have been from tuesday night -- i mean, i think the tuesday night to me -- i mean, if this all goes down i'll think of the tuesday night massacre. i'm still waiting the administration official get on msnbc news tight we lost the race and we're going forward anyway. i think it was criminal malpractice that they didn't have their talking points in order but my understanding was that was my -- there was a good deal of in decision there that they weren't sure how they wanted to proceed. i'll put myself in between you two a little bit i do think, number one, there's this process that will take time. i don't think i fully appreciated that myself until recently. the scoring, the parliamentarian -- i mean, i was

going to say we can't have a vote -- we could have a vote in house of representatives. 218 members in the house of representatives would be able to vote for the bill and nancy pelosi could schedule a vote and 24 hours we could vote and the bill could go to president. that we are 24 hours hour give or take from passing this giant healthcare bill, whatever you think the flaws are in it. if we're going to go through reconciliation, you have to go through the scoring and the senate parliamentarian and round up all these votes. i do think obviously insofar as the political push to get it through is dependent on the obama administration. generally the democrats in congress having some favoribility reasons like events in tampa. i like trains. building trains. good stuff. bring up -- that's fine. i don't think it's the end of the world to have a little bit of the spotlight on hanging on

evan bayh's words. and it becomes easier to become adjusted to the idea that maybe we won't do this. i think that's a real danger. and actually in some ways i was thinking about this yesterday when we were writing yesterday what rahm, what to say and what to think. and i was asking people who are in the middle of it what do you think he was saying? and i sort of realized in some ways -- i mean, i don't live in washington so i don't have the secret washington decoder ring that everybody gets here. [laughter] >> but my sense was maybe -- one of the things that's going on here we're seeing trial balloons. so what happens if we don't do this for a while. and, you know, see how people react. and damn it, react badly. say, no, that's not good. we want it now! we want it as soon as possible. if that push doesn't happen -- [applause]

>> it will fade away. >> well, the other thing we will say here is let's remember rahm is not the president. you know, what did the president say wednesday night? yeah. >> i want to actually move aside. i'm going to ask a question after -- about the post-enactment process. but those people after that -- after folks respond to that question, we're going to open this up. so we've got two microphones so why don't you start lining up and i'm going to ask the last question preceding that. but actually i want to actually respond to this dialog that just went forward 'cause i think there's several things here. for many weeks, this is well before massachusetts, the president and the for the

state of the union message, they had a very different assumption about what they would face at the state of the union. they were looking to come in to the -- the president come in triumphantly, you know, health reform would be passed. and the conversation would be moved to jobs. and, you know, the white house for months, not the last week, for months has been thinking about this major jobs initiative. they wanted to focus on jobs. they wanted to focus on the budget. and so it's not surprising that that's what the state of the union message was mostly about. that was not a change as a result of massachusetts. so number one those -- those folks who commented that, you know, health reform was not in the speech until half an hour -- that was not because of massachusetts. that was long determined way ahead of time.

and indeed, you know, the white house had not scheduled the state of the union message for quite some time. i remember asking jim messina, deputy chief of staff, you know, when are you going to schedule the state of the union message? and, you know, the answer was always, you know, tell me the schedule on healthcare reform. and as it became clear that that was not going to move quite as quickly, they had to move forward with the state of the union message. and that state of the union message -- the key elements of that had been crafted long ago, maybe the exact wording was changed. but it was crafted long ago. so i wouldn't make anything of that. jonathan, you wrote months ago about the internal machinations within the white house when a determination was ultimately made that health reform would be the top domestic priority. whether it would be included in the budget. and the white house was divided.

and i think the white house on tuesday night after the massachusetts election was divided. but i will tell you my view is there is no division in the white house at this moment about passing health reform. you know, things in the white house -- when the staff get together they may have one internal vote and there's only one vote that counts and that's the president. he's determined to get this done. whatever ambiguity tuesday night and wednesday and maybe running into thursday and rahm was looking at small ball options to be sure, i don't think there's any ambiguity in the white house today. so i'm going to ask one last question and keep on lining up. and then we'll open it up. so the health reform process in congress comes to an end. we pass the legislation. what is our major job looking forward. and i'm going to ask you that both from a political

perspective and from a substantive perspective. what is it all of us should be thinking about are the critical things that need to happen after the legislation gets enacted into law? so i don't know who wants to take the first crack at that? >> shoring up public support. explaining to people what's in this especially highlighting the things that happen fast. i mean, there are, you know, a fair number of things that are supposed to happen in the first year. and the more those things happen and get highlighted -- for example, preexisting condition restrictions not being held against kids. those kinds of things. that is going to be very important. so shoring up the public support. secondly, making sure they don't repeal the damn thing. and any of you in the audience who lived through catastrophic coverage in the '80s know that this is potentially a real threat. and again, you have a very similar dynamic at play.

you have a big bill that got passed. people didn't fully understand it. and then a bunch of people suddenly woke up to the fact that they were going to be taxed at a higher rate for the provision and the whole thing came apart. basically within the space of about six weeks. i mean, intensive -- there was a longer lag between the passage of the bill and the repeal. but the real opposition to it gelled of a period of six weeks and then it was gone. and that is a real possibility particularly -- we don't know what the outcome is of november. we presume the democrats will hold the house. but we don't know that. right? so making sure that it is not repealed would be step number two. number three is the implementation of all the rest of it. and this is going to be a long, hard slog particularly if the senate version ultimately

preveils and most of this is done around the states. and just sort of working at the state level to make sure that the pieces of this that will be in the hands of the states are implemented. i mean, i think there's going to be an extremely important role for advocates there, both in helping them to decide how this plays out but also to retain the sense of momentum at the state level to get this stretcher put in place. >> i think this is probably not the answer ron is looking for. but to seriously begin building long-term support and a long-term campaign to work on some of the rules in the senate and some of the procedural issues we've seen here. i think that even if this bill passes -- and i would have said the same thing two weeks ago when i thought it was going to pass fairly smoothly, that what we have seen is we have sort of a rusted political system that is not terribly well designed for the age of national media and the high level polarization. and i think if you ever want to

get the even harder things on healthcare reform done, the cost control, you know, all those other pieces but also all the other issues we need to deal with as a country, cap-and-trade and entitlements to all of it, that you're going to need to take very seriously the lessons -- and -- i mean, the lessons that apply to all the lessons that apply to legislation that we saw in this process. and i think people who want to see action on america's problem, problem number one, number one is the process now. it doesn't mean it's our worse problem obviously you don't look at global warming and look at the senate and say oh, the senate that's very dangerous. but i think larry lezig says if you look at an alcoholic he may have cirrhosis of the level and deeply in dead and losing his job and you say he has four drinks at night before bed is not his biggest problem but it's his first problem and it's a problem that you need to solve

before all the others. and in this point, you know, when the immediate short-term incentive to pass legislation eases a bit people will have to think very hard about that long-term project. >> you know, i would agree with everything that's been said here. implementation of a foreign policy standpoint, the implementation of this is huge. so much of this bill is written, you know, you get into the weeds and the language at the discretion of the secretary, you know, dah, dah. a lot of work to be done. and a difference of a well implemented bill and a poorly implemented bill is huge. and it's going to take time. it's a year's long process and so that's very important. in terms of politics and policy, i would put this in both categories, i'm a big believer in tangible things. i really like trains as a jobs program because everybody gets a train. you build the train. someone got to build the train and i get to go to disney world. that's good. there are things in this bill that are tangible and they're not going to make a huge difference in people's lives

but, god, i would rush on those things. universal labeling for insurance so everybody knows what their insurance policy actually covers. things like that. having a computer interface website where you can look up -- those types of things if they can be done quickly, that people can use in their everyday life so they can just see this. so that this isn't something abstract for years from now so they can feel it. closing the prescription drug doughnut hole. things like that. but the other -- and this is a nakedly political thing. but i think it's important and again this speaks to the sort of process problem where the opponents of a bill hate it and supporters get disillusioned. if this bill passes people who support this had better get out and start supporting the people who voted for it. you want congress to understand that when they vote for something important and they take what they believed to be a hard vote whether or not we all thinks it makes sense, they better feel rewarded for it it. you better have their backs because there's a fury coming down in november. you know, get out there and say,

you know, this congressman voted for this bill that's going to make everyone's life better. i mean, i think that's so important because we're in a danger where it's going to back and people on the left go, i'm not happy. there's not a public option. all which i agree which by the way. but at the end of the day, you know, these people are going to be getting, you know -- facing a fury from the right. and if the answer on the left is, yeah, you know, that bill could have been better, no one is going to vote for these things anymore and you won't be able to fix it. >> i want to add one thing to it and then i want to open it up to questions. in addition to the very important political work that needs to be done, there's one area of substantive work that i think all of us need to rise to the challenge. and that is under the house and senate bills there's 31 to 31 million people who will be eligible for new coverage or projected to get new coverage.

eligibility standards are going to change enormously with respect to medicaid in ways that are truly unprecedented. and you're going to have millions of people who are going to be eligible for subsidies. we have got to make sure that all the people eligible for the medicaid safety net and for these subsidies actually get enrolled and stay enrolled. we've got to make sure that the systems are put in place so these are enrollment-friendly systems. that is all of our challenge and i hope that's a top priority for all of us. tony, you are always the first one to get to ask a question. no, no, i want -- tony, i don't want to break precedent. we do these teleconferences roughly every two weeks and we get the questions on our computer screen and then people line up. and tony has always got the first question.

so, tony, i don't want to break precedent. you go first. >> thank you. thank you, ron. is this on? >> you're on. >> thank you. >> we have four blue dog democrats in tennessee. only one of those blue dog democrats voted for the house bill the first time. two of the other blue dog democrats are retiring. one of those blue dog democrats basically said when we asked him directly, you know, to support and pass the senate bill, the response was, i always like the senate bill better than the house bill. so this is a blue dog democrat who was not going to vote for the house bill but is very likely to vote for the senate bill. so maybe we picked up a vote, i think. the other blue dog democrat basically -- his response was, would you please tell people in my area who have insurance to call up and support the senate bill.

so they wanted to hear from people who have insurance and support the plan. and these were from two blue dog democrats and maybe you'll want to respond to that. >> anyone want to respond? >> well, i think that just underscores the point we've been making which is that people got to understand that there's something in this for them in november. which is going to be political support. so -- >> i'm going to keep on switching mics -- >> good morning, laurie from new hampshire. and i just want to just give some feedback from a session i attended yesterday when we were talking about when we all go home and what message to give. and somebody in the room said that we really should be focusing on the cost of not passing this legislation when we go home. and that really resonated with me because i think a lot of people -- because of the lack of transparency and because of the way the money changes hands with insurance companies, we don't

have a really good idea of what some of the serious issues are. so along with going home and saying, what's in these bills, what is the real cost of not passing this legislation? and i hope that those of you in the media will consider doing some writing or commenting on that. >> well, you can see it in the cbo scoring because the default is 60 million people without health insurance in a matter of years. not to mention everything else that we anticipate happening already with respect to the fiscal insustainable to the programs. do you want to live in a country where first of all fewer and fewer people have health insurance. secondly, it gets more and more and more expensive. and is difficult for people who have it even to afford it. where employers are going to continue to drop it. by major significant shares particularly in the small business community as far as the eye can see.

and then on top of that, it costs just, you know, a phenomenal amount of money. and we tie future generations to a level of having to sustain u.s. debt to the degree that no generation has ever been compelled to do that in america. now, that's the future. right? you frame that, it's pretty -- it's pretty clear. i know there's still lots of people in this room who hate the senate bill and hate many provisions of it. let's go with the famous crosby stills & nash refrain from the 60s "you can't be with the one you love, love the one you're with." [applause] >> and if that one is going to pull most on board, just think -- look at the arc of history on this. can anybody remember what the political dynamic was in the month leading up to the passage of medicaid? -- medicare? no. can anybody remember what was in medicare coverage in 1966 that

is different from what's in medicare coverage today? no. right? so you get something on the books and fix it over time and love the one you're with. that's going to be the senate bill as amended by the reconciliation bill. >> thank you. yes. i'm a primary care doctor at a community health center in south central los angeles. and i'm a proud member of the national physicians alliance. my question which i'll get to in a second i wanted to respond to two really important points that resonate a lot with me particularly in terms of my practice at my community health center. you mentioned how congressmen in general have to go through those changes of change from grief to denial to acceptance. i wonder to a certain extent how we have to model that and really force that change so that we need to move ourselves past that simple purity of indignation to really -- because that's not what my patients need.

what i have been doing and i think a lot of my colleagues providers in general have been doing, i think, effectively is to say there are some really concrete things to celebrate in this bill. this bill is going to change my patients' lives. and so it gets to the question is, what role do you see providers playing, have we played an effective role so far? and what can we do to make it even better so that we can help be part of believe call for really celebrating some of these really tangible, concrete things and move past the grief and talk about what really matters? what really we need to celebrate? >> you say you're from south central -- >> that's right. >> what clinic? >> st. john's. >> oh, yeah. i visited it. it's a great -- i mean, there's a lot of great clinics. l.a. has a ton of really great clinics. be good to them. i think providers are incredibly important.

and someone underappreciated by someone who's promoting these bills as voices. in part because i think the single biggest way is to dipuce. you're a provider and you talk -- probably your patients have a better understanding than patients in the suburban middle class office of what reform means for them but even so, talking up -- you know, telling people that you see everyday life, i think makes a difference. i mean, it's grassroots politics at its purest. but i also think that, you know, people trust doctors. they trust nurses. they trust healthcare professionals and they're going to be looking to providers for their cues. and whether that's individually or as a group. and you're involved, you know, locally. talking -- you know, talking to people about -- as an organization. calling members of congress. you know, again, the last person who was talking about the blue dogs, that was very interesting. they wanted to hear from people with insurance, okay? well, you know, you take care of mostly the uninsured maybe in their minds that makes you not

as good. but i mean, in general providers who work on this, you know, a physician -- that's going to resonate in a congressional office, maybe just as like okay, these are people who not to be too crass about it maybe have a little money to give me or have some clout in the community. i think that actually makes a difference. so -- i mean, it's sort of a simple answer but talking about what's good in this i think actually makes a difference. >> i'd be remiss just to -- there's one thing we are trying to do which i wanted to follow up is the role that providers can play not just for policymakers and not just in the grassroots level in terms of politics but, for instance, bringing voter registration services directly into healthcare settings and an unpartisan way. we registered 26,000 voters last year. we're talking about it doing it much more. there's creative ways in which healthcare needs to play a role -- [applause] >> but i think we have to think creatively and have providers come to the table healthcare in

general as advocates come to the table and say what do we need to do to get to the voting part. if we're going to hold the feet to the fire we need to figure out how to bring ourselves to the political sphere in a way that's smart and savvy. >> next question. >> hi, good morning. my name is mandy cohen. i'm also a primary care physician and the executive director of doctors for america. and the 17,000 physicians across the country also have been looking to the president for his leadership. and i just wanted to get your take on his address to the gop retreat yesterday and particularly his interaction with tom price also a physician. and some of the their -- that reparte and can you read some tea leaves there and what he said about healthcare reform. >> that was the most compelling political television i potentially watched ever. i said that completely seriously. i thought it was fascinating

because the one thing you don't see in the american political system virtually at any point is serious disagreement. what you would have expected for what happened is that obama would have gone down to the house gop retreat and people would have said, sir, you're a very good man. your bills are very bad but we would like to work together and obama would have said, well, i would like to work with you. and everybody would have gone home and clapped and gone back to what they were doing. it didn't happen. obama went down there and we had what the kids would call real talk. he walked in there and said, no, that's incorrect. your bill does not do what you say it does. your budget saves money because you privatize and voucherize medicare. your claims of tort reform to hold down spending lacks credibility. it was really fascinating. the big white house strategy there have been axlerod meeting with reporters and a big push

saying if they don't work with us we are going to highlight that we are reaching out and really, really attempt to shine a light on their obstruction. when i originally heard that, i thought well, fine. they've been doing that and their poll numbers are like this and yours are like this and those consequences seem pretty hard for them to bear to keep this up, they might win an election and that would be truly terrible for them i'm sure. it was the first time well, maybe they have a plan. they're clearly putting a president out there more in nontraditional settings. putting a camera with him in the house gop. and letting them sort of sell these bills. and i think what you really saw there -- and i think this is really powerful paw when people watched this. when price got up it got like this or jim henserling got up. when the two proponents are in a room together and people are at a microphone talking about them,

you can explain the differences why one is better than the other. and it was the first time i think that the american people -- if they were watching and i think that's going to have a shelf life on c-span and youtube saying no, it's not everybody saying the same thing. there are real differences here. and i thought that was incredibly powerful. i thought it was an incredibly powerful event. >> and there should be more of it. i thought what was incredible was after scott brown's election -- when he was being interviewed and said well, you know, the people of massachusetts really like the massachusetts health reforms. we just feel that we've already paid at the office for them and we don't have to pay anymore toward national reform, you know, where were the people standing up and saying, hello, the u.s. taxpayers invested more than $3 billion in that reform. [applause] >> through medicare. -- medicaid. we enabled massachusetts to do that. we're really happy that massachusetts is on its way to

universal coverage and now we want it for the rest of us. and sort of calling out people who say these incredibly inane things. and maybe some of them are innocent. maybe they really believe them and they just don't know the facts, okay? but let's not let them get away with it. correct the record at every step of the way. >> we've got time for two questions so i'm going to go one, two and then -- one of the folks who gets excluded is one of my board members. so if i need a job -- no, go ahead. go ahead. >> sure. ronnie has done such a great job bringing these folks here. i just wanted to get folks ease responses to kind of return to the diversity of opinions -- >> could you speak a little closer to the mic -- >> to return to some of the diversity of opinions on the stage about, you know, what did

rahm say and what that means and are we going to have couple of weeks where we talk about jobs and several months and then healthcare dies? you know, if there's been a fight in the white house about whether to move forward with healthcare, at this point and rahm is somehow leading it, at this point rahm is losing. second, while we might need to -- some of us might need to push back, if folks feel that way, internally and inside baseball this is exactly one of those process stories that has alienated a lot of the public from the broader health reform effort. and they just didn't get past process to look at what was in the bills. so i'd just challenge all the advocates and organizers including those who are journalists as well to talk about less and a little more what rahm emanuel said and more

on valerie jarrett said. in this particular community, you know? >> thank you. >> diane, st. louis, missouri. issued each of you sharing with us and your insights. my concern with healthcare reform and other progressive legislation addresses what mr. klein called a speedy process versus open and accountable transparent government and how you balance that to ensure a sense of trust that they're not all idiots on capitol hill. that we can get something done. and i'm afraid that speedy process kind of throws that out of balance. so could you address how that trust in government can be inlayed with our message for reform? >> of course.

and, you know, this is a very, very hard thing for people to plans, you know, and you saw it with obama, right? he made this pledge. everything is going to do be open to c-span but, of course, not everything can be open to c-span. there's a reason why your board meetings aren't open to c-span and there's reason why my fights with my girlfriend is not open to c-span. open it to c-span, you have a meeting and then a back room meeting where people make decisions. if we put the age ban two-one, young people will get screwed year. but if -- these are hard trade- offs. the way the media works -- obama challenges republicans to provide answers. the whole point is to get out of when the whole point was to get out of that type of, you know, one-line sound bite. i think it is very hard to say what i'm about to say and it is, for a politician,

you know, y'all can't do anything to me. but transparency is a way that people on the other side of political debates kill issues, and grover norquist always said this very, very clearly. so did the democratic side in the bush years. and there is something called transparency, right? where you could really help people's understanding of it. when the senate finance committee releases a bill, they release what is called the chairman's mark is written in strange language we call english, people with fairly, i'm not saying people who have a fifth grade reading comprehension, people who can read a fairly normal novel to read the bill and get idea what is going on. not saying everything, but much broader range of the american public and experts and everyone else and i'm sure all of your legislative people are ecstatic when there is chairman's mark to read as opposed to legislative language. legislative language makes you want to die. real transparency would be

saying, everybody, has to release a chairman's mark in plain english. that goes without saying just like the finance committee does. that would really change the way people can assess what is going on. you can hold them constant to that chairman's mark, on and on and on. there is where is this a type of transparency, is political ploy. you need cameras where you are. you need to spend eight months negotiating a bill which you knew its contours in month two. gang of six process you saw, thing about transparency, people seem to equate it with bipartisanship. bipartisan thing had to be done behind closed doors and also didn't work. it is a very complicated thing to measure but there are places we can make real gains helping people understand and follow the process. i think there are places people are scoring point or want good tv or want to run the thing aground. it is very, very hard to tell between the two, but, insofar ultimate goal is

public trust in the process, my opinion on this, and it's backed up by a fair amount of political science research, if anybody is interested in this, the book, stealth democracy is very good book on this point. the american people would be, much happier with a system in which things moved fairly quickly, and, in which it seemed like things were getting done than the system which is sort of, in terms of transparency, gives them a really good luck the saw sage factory they hate seeing. one way i put it, we're all trapped in the sausage factory now and nobody knows how to get out. we don't like that. nothing gets done and get more upset we say we want more transparency but sort of the opposite what we want in a way. >> i will reward your persistence. go ahead, and you got the last question. >> thank you. my name is trish people hour. i'm with center for medicare advocacy. i was chatting with a woman on the train platform telling her i going to this

health advocates conference and we were talking about health reform. we got on the train and parted ways. then she walked up and found me, gave me her card, tell me what the talking points are that you learned from this conference to tell my members of congress. so i am asking you what are the three bullet points that we tell everyone to say when we call our congressional delegations? >> who wants to take a first crack at that? >> this is the richest country in the world. and it is leading country that doesn't guaranty basic health coverage for its citizens. how can we leave this legacy to future generations. this country, notwithstanding the fact that it doesn't guaranty coverage, still covers a lot of people and spends a hell of a lot of money on health care and it is

unsustainable. if you look at the long-term picture, over the next 75 years, 119% of the entire increase in gross domestic product per capita could go into health care and we still wouldn't cover anybody unless we have this law, right? and, let's go back to some of the basic values of american life. and i mean, pre-colonialism. native americans and motion of doing something and always thinking through the ramifications for the 7th generation. right. let's think about the first generation and second all the way up to the 7th generation. do we want to leave them a society where we spend as much as we do on health care, it breaks the back of future generations in terms of taxation, and not everybody reaps the benefits of it, and in fact a increasingly

shrinking pool of people will reap the benefits of that? those to me are the talking points. get it done. >> i was at a bar mitzvah this weekend or last weekend, it was really, really loud. so you couldn't hear what anyone else was saying. i thought since then, how do you boil it down, people were asking me because they knew i write about it. what is this health care bill going to do? here is my three senses of health care reform. everybody can get insurance. the insurance is real. and over time, it is going to start to get less expensive. and that's, they're simplified. grossly simplified. but, three sentence, that's what this is going to do. i feel like anybody can grasp those and benefit from it. that is why i sort of, that's how i would do it. >> one of the earlier questions, third to last won't like my answer. i agree with both susan and john. if i were calling a congressional office, i would say pass the damn bill,

if not i'm going to vote for you. i'm dead serious. [applause] this giving democrats 60 votes in the senate, now 59. lek largest majority of 30 years. this amount is not central thing to do with you. i'm not mad at you but not liking yelling at you but i can't reward this. i can't vote for you. and tell my friends as well. for future congresses we need to punish this behavior. [applause] if these were moral people, they would have voted for this bill already. but they're scared people. and so they need to be more scared what happens if they don't vote for it, than if they do. >> i would just add to the comments, we have to make sure people understand what the cost of doing nothing is. and contrast that with what's in this legislation. what's going to happen to costs, what's going to happen to the additional people who are going to join the ranks of the uninsured?

what's going to happen to small businesses that increasingly can't afford coverage? what's going to happen to seniors as this doughnut hole gets larger and larger? as you tick those things off and you have to know who your audience is in terms of, do they care about small business, do they care about seniors or whatever, you can contrast with what's in the bill and i think you can make a very powerful statement. i want to close by thanking three remarkable people. [applause] >> we want to thank our remarkable moderator, ron. you did a fabulous job of leading us through this. >> thank you all. [applause] we got to our workshops next. then we have a wonderful closing lunch. thank you all.

thanks a lot. [inaudible conversations] >> the president this morning released his budget proposal for fiscal year 2011. it totals $3.83 trillion. few of the key elements include a three-year spending freeze on non-security discretionary spending. that is calculated to save $250 billion over 10 years. the proposal also allows the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts to

expire, for families making over $250,000. and that's estimated to raise $678 billion over 10 years. also, $100 billion for immediate job-creating measures. c-span covering a number of budget-related events today. at 1:00 p.m., on c-span we will have defense secretary robert gates and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, admiral mike mullen. they will talk abouted projected $700 billion budget for the defense department. expected there, other department officials for that briefing. also at 1:00 p.m. on c-span3, deputy secretary of state for management and resources jacob blue on the president's 2011 funding request for the state department.

a look inside the hallways of capitol hill this morning as copies of the budget requests make their way to the senate budget committee. [inaudible] >> good morning. >> good morning.

>> [inaudible]. >> go ahead.

>> [inaudible]. [background sounds]

[background sounds] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> if you all could back up to the sides, please. >> everybody back up. everybody back up, if you can. >> thank you. >> you're welcome. >> thank you. >> no problem.

>> thank you. >> for the >> and we are waiting for the scheduled white house press briefing today with press secretary robert gibbs. that is expected to start shortly. the scheduled for 12:45. we will bring it to you when it occurs. while we wait, here's an

event with mayor harvey johnson of jackson, mississippi. he was the keynote speaker at a conference on minorities and women in leadership positions. it is hosted by the national urban fellows and this is about 15 minutes. >> okay. please, if i could have your attention. and i'm going to invite -- up to the podium. to introduce mayor harvey johnson. class of 2010. [applause] >> good evening, everyone. good evening. >> good evening. >> it is my distinct honor

and privilege to introduce the honorable mayor harvey johnson, jr. of jackson, mississippi. a man who dedicated his life to public service and truly embodies 9 values and mission of national urban fellows. in 1997 johnson made history by being elected jackson's first african-american mayor. he served two terms, leading the charge for economic vitality and growth. answering the call to service again in the 2009, mayor johnson ran and was reelected for a third term with over 85% of the vote. prior to his life in public office, johnson dedicated much of his time and expertise to helping economically depressed small towns with minority leadership, umpteen access to essential services. he also served as founding executive director for the center for university-based development at jackson university. most importantly, mayor johnson is an esteemed member of the nuf class of 1976 and a long-standing

board member. ladies and gentlemen, please join me in welcoming mayor harvey johnson. [cheers and applause] >> thank you. thank you, for that kind introduction and thank you for that warm welcome. it is my pleasure to be here. i know it is end of the program, so i'm going to speak faster than most southerners, i hope you can understand time is of the essence. i'm really honored to be here and, we, it was mentioned that, i'm, in the class of 76, so i want to, acknowledge my, my classmates of some years ago. floyd johnson and fay edwards. can you stand and, floyd, you, can you stand please? [applause] that was many years ago. fay obviously was a babe when we were in that class. also want to recognize my

wife, kathy, who -- thank you. [applause] i'm honored to stand here today as we celebrate 40th anniversary of the national urban fellows program. make that the national urban fellow he is leadership development movement because that is what it actually has been over the last 40 years. more like a movement than a program. this is true, truly a milestone because for 40 years, this organization has successfully provided people of color, color, with the education, and with the experience needed to manage, and make change, in the name of social justice, and equity. in addition, the national urban fellows, nuf, has been instrumental in addressing critical challenges faced by america, particularly, as they relate to people of color, and women, serving in leadership positions in the public sector and in the

non-profit sector. i like to congratulate the members of that first class of 40 years ago. do we have any of those members here? stand, stand, wave your hands. [applause] i want to congratulate them paving the way for people like me who are, in the position that we're in today. although not in the first class, i would also like to give special recognition to louise alvarez. [applause] i'm not sure if she's here but, his 35 years, affiliation with the nuf was invaluable in the organizations ability to survive and to thrive.

and in absentia i'd like to give special recognition to frank lobe. [applause] although many of you may not know him personally, or have known him personally, frank was the founding president of this organization who first breathed life into the nuf baby some 40 we're ago. you know many servant leaders across the country owe a debt of gratitude to these brave individuals who came through during a time of terrible unrest and social injustice in the country. communities across the country were reeling from the effects of discrimination, segregation, poverty, unemployment, poor housing, police brutality, and many, many other challenges. and i was here today, and

ben jealous who worked for some time in jackson, posed a question. his question was, how many of you were born after 1954? and a lot of people's hands went up. i would like to pose a question, how many of you were born before 1954? and still, willing to raise your hand. [laughter] because it was a different time. and, those of you who are children during that time or grew up during that time can remember back with me, perhaps what it was like, me as an african-american growing up in vicksburg, mississippi. during that time i had to ride in the back of the because, colored people didn't ride in the front of the bus. when i went downtown and i got thirsty i had to drink out of the colored water found taken. if i didn't go to the colored movie theater and went to the other movie theater i had to sit up in the balcony, the buzzard's

roost although i paid my quarter like everybody else. and we didn't have the hamburger, joints we had weren't franchises and fast-food joints. we had the deluxe cafe. even going to the deluxe cafe for a 12-cent hamburger i had to go to the colored side. so, these times, though yielded people who wanted to make a change, who wanted to make a difference in the way things were. some of you who can remember back will remember the summer of 1963. special summer in the south and the movement are that was taking place across the country. it started with assassination of medgar evans, then secretary of the mississippi. naacp. shot in the back as he entered his home in june 1963. it was summer clubbing of a worker in greenwood. saw the fire bombing of the home of the first black voter applicant in holmes

county. it was a summer of, in august where 250,000 people gathered in washington, d.c., 60,000 of whom were white, to protest the injustices that were being heaped upon black people at the time. it was a summer that ended on september 15th, 1963 when four little black girls were getting ready to go to sunday school. denise mcnair, carol robinson, attie may collins, cynthia wesley. they were killed by a bomber thrown into the 16th street baptist church in birmingham, alabama. you know, many brave individuals lay foundation which we now stand. they percent veered. they helped to bring about positive changes in our community. and i'm very proud to say that nuf over the years has done its share.

you know, since that first group of nuf class members who i'm sure can remember with me these times, more than 1,000 others have followed in their footsteps. 1,000 committed, over 1,000 committed to diversity, committed to social justice, committed to equality. these individuals of the past have created a legacy, and it is up to us, the nuf family, to continue that legacy. those pioneers who came through during the early years had a commitment. they had a determination to help create a, till efforts can pay off in a big way. their hard work helped shape political and cultural fabric of our nation. but i'm here to tell you that there's still much work to be done. we've experienced tremendous change in this country, but some of the same old

challenges exist. this is evidenced by the disparity in the percentage of people of color occupying leadership positions in government, in business and in the non-profit sector. it is also obvious when you consider the disproportionate number of people of color trapped in poverty, who are suffering from social and medical maladis. who are not being educated by the public education system and who are in jail. no one has to tell you that injustice still exists. today, more than ever, this country needs leaders who represent a diverse population, and who are committed to making sure citizens receive quality service, and are able to have a better quality of life. that's why i uan fellows, for continuing the mission that was started so many years ago. i'm thankful that this organization is still committed to a developing

leaders, who change america. many have come before us and have left their mark on society, but it is up to the leaders of today and, as well as the leaders of tomorrow, to pick up the torch and follow their footsteps. that's why i urge the class of 2010, to continue to continue the tradition of making meaningful leadership contributions. our previous graduates have laid a foundation on which you can stand and it's up to you to build upon that foundation, to reach new heights in our efforts to bring about positive change. again, i congratulate each of the graduates, past, present, and future and i commend the national urban fellows movement for affording individuals who had traditionally been underrepresented in the government and non-profit

sectors, the opportunity, the visibility, and the recognition necessary to manage programs intended to improve living conditions in their communities. i also commend paula gavit and the current nuf staff. i commend the nuf board of directors under the leader, able leadership of ben reyes. i commend our mentors throughout the united states. and our academic partners at faruk college, for all the good work you do to keep the nuf movement moving ahead. i'm proud of this great organization, and i'm proud of the many graduates who are now making a difference in our society. but it about a movement. it is about not necessarily working hard to make sure you get there. but making, working hard to make sure that those who follow behind you get there.

because, as i get older, i recognize that these legs are, not as strong as they used to be. i'm a little stooped when i walk. i don't need glasses but my eyesight is not as well as it used to be. i recognize this mood. as well as any movement is not about me but people who follow behind me. so in closing i want to leave you with a poem i think is very important. it is important in my life and i think it is important in the life of the people who come through this program. this is all about building bridges. it is all about making sure that the people hot are behind you, are able to travel the path a little more better than you were traveling. and this portfolio manager goes like this and by miss will allen. and it is simply called the bridge builder. a old man going along the highway came at evening cold and gray to a chasm that was deep and wide through which was flowing a sullen tide.

the old man crossed in twilight dim, that sullen stream had no fears for him but he turned when he reached the other side to build a bridge to span the tide. old man said of fellow pilgrim, you're wasting strength with building here. your journey will end with a ending day, you will never again pass this way. you crossed the chasm deep and wide why build you at evening tide? the builder lifted his old gray head, good friend, and the path i've come he said, they're followed after me today a youth whose feet must pass this way. this chasm that has been dealt to me, to that fair headed youth may a pitfall be. he too must cross in the twilight dim, but friend, i'mld bridge for him. god bless you, and god keep you. thank you for your indulgence. [applause]

>> and now, we will take you to today's white house press briefing just beginning with spokesman robert gibbs. live coverage here on c-span2. >> good afternoon. before we get started with your questions let me make a brief announcement. the president and the first lady will be traveling to indonesia and australia in the second half of march. this trip is an important part of the president's continued effort to broaden and strengthen the partnerships that are necessary to advance our security and prosperity. indonesia is the world's fourth most populace country and world's largest democracy. home to largest muslim population in the world and an important partner in the g-20. during his visit the president will formally

launch the u.s.-indonesia comprehensive partnership, an initiative through which the united states will broaden and strengthen relations with indonesia to tackle important regional and global issues. in addition this year also marks the 70th anniversary of u.s.-australia relations. the president looks forward to commemorating that milestone and consulting with prime minister rudd on ways we build the strong relationship between our two countries and discuss issues as global economic recovery, clean energy and climate change, non-proliferation and afghanistan. in route to asia the president will visit guam where we will speak with u.s. servicemembers on the island. we'll have more specific dates for you shortly after they are completely done with the pre-advance. >> ncaa brackets? >> i know that is weighing heavily on many traveling members minds, and we will seek to plan accordingly. >> childhood -- >> i anticipate, that that will likely be one of the

stops. >> family coming? >> yes. >> -- [inaudible] >> like i, yes. >> any plan for india? >> not on this trip. >> speaking of numbers, budget, try to avoid a headline out of this budget that the budget's going to, deficit is going to hit another record this year. next year, if congress aproves and projections that are in the budget come through, budget deficit will be back to basically what it was when the president took office. >> right. >> has he chosen the need to fight the recession, to create jobs, as a higher priority than fighting deficit? >> in the short term, absolutely. we have to get our economy moving again because, one of the reasons that we've seen the budget deficit grow is that the economy has slowed down. we all know of the extraordinary measures that had to be put in place in order to jump-start the economy and we've seen some of the impacts of that as recently as friday with increased numbers in

economic growth. the president, as you heard in the state of the union, throughout the first year, discussed the need and the necessity to get that economy moving again. and then, to transition to address, our, mid and, mid and long-term fiscal challenges. i think, many of the proposals that the president outlines in here we have discussed. non-security discretionary spending freeze. the president has supported and congress thankfully passed last week reinstitution of, i think very simple common sense rules that are pay as you go. if we're going to spend money we'll have to pay for it. rules that were absent for a decent part of the last decade in which we saw deficits, and debt skyrocket. >> his rhetoric, the words he chose today, talking about how we got to stop spending money like monopoly

money and deficits matter and all that but saying that but we've got to wait on that part of it. in other words talking at cross-purposes to the budget he actually submitted? >> no, no, look. we all understand we had to take extraordinary measures, again to get this economy going. are we spending more money on unemployment insurance than the president would like? yes on two accounts. one it is money we're having to spend and, having to spend that money means more and more people are unemployed. are we having to spend money on a recovery act that all things being equal the president would not like to have to do? absolutely. we have to get our economy moving again. we have to create jobs. that will, that will improve our medium and long-term deficit picture. understanding too, that, the president has, has also taken some extraordinary steps, mark in terms of pay as you go. the, we spend a lot of time in the past year talking

about, health care, propoefl that the president laid out a specific path for paying for. we are where we are today, partly because of this economic downturn, but partly because, for a long time, we had two wars that we weren't paying for. we had tax cuts that we weren't paying for. and we had a prescription drug benefit that although very worthy, we never paid for. we have to return to some very common sense principles that every day americans, live by, every time. want to go to the movies, or cash their paycheck, and that is, you can't spend more than you have. >> one more question. stemming from the briefing that we had, leader hoyer talking about the jobless rate at 9.8% as we get to

the end of the year. with all the additional money that is going to be spent on job creation, incentives for companies to hire, is a $3.8 trillion budget getting money's worth if that is the best we can do? >> understand, mark, we, and i think we've seen this over the last couple of months. we have to create 100 to 150,000 jobs a month just to keep that unemployment rate at, roughly keep that unemployment rate steady. as the economy begins to pick up, that will also put increased pressure as we do begin, to add jobs, because more and more people, in addition to that, just, sheer population growth, but more and more people that stopped looking for work will enter into the process of looking for work. so, it is going to take quite some time to bring down the unemployment rate and to, particularly to add number of jobs that we've lost. again, i don't think anybody is, i don't think anybody looks at this, in any way

other than in a realistic way. we've, we have seven, more than 7 million fewer jobs now than we did when the recession began in december of 2007. it will take quite a long time to fill that hole. yes, sir? >> robert, two questions. first on china and then on the budget. what, white house reaction to china's reaction to decision to sell arms to iowan. are which concerned how or whether this will hurt the u.s. chooin relationship? >> we discussed, many of the things that, woe discussed each and every aspect of our relationship with china when we met in china november, including arms sales to taiwan. president was asked this in a town hall meeting also in front of the chinese people. we have also said that, we want the type of relationship where we're working together on important issues of mutual

concern, the global economic recovery. our concerns are about proliferation, but when we have disagreements we'll do so, we'll voice those disagreements out in the open in public. i think that's the type of relationship we've had with china during this administration and one we'll continue to have. >> they certainly voiced their disagreements. they threatened to impose sanctions on u.s. companies s that something that the white house is concerned about? >> again, i think our, reaction to that, that would not be warranted. again, this was something that was discussed with them when we met in november. i will say this, you know, again we want to work on issues of, of mutual concern. i don't think that, either country can afford to simply walk away from the other. that's not what we would do. i don't think that's what anybody expects them to do either.

>> what do you mean, reaction would not be warranted? >> their reaction in terms of sanctions. >> is overblown? >> i'm saying, my reaction to that i don't think those would be warranted given what we've done. >> my question on the budget is a political one. where do you think your chances of getting this budget passed by congress? >> look. i think the president had a productive session with house republicans on friday. i think, i think the american people expect both political parties to work together to get things moved forward. so, we're obviously optimistic we can get a budget passed. it is an election year and we all understand the games that washington plays in an election year, but i hope that, this will be a budget that will be taken up and passed. if people have disagreements about the priority that is the president has laid out, i think this is a perfect time for them to roll out and talk about what their proposals are.

i think the times are too important to simply lob a statement or a, e-mail out a statement what you think is wrong. get into the arena and propose a series of idea which you think are better in terms of funding the investments that we need to make to move our economy, forward, to build that new foundation. to take care of the future. jake? >> the president's executive order creating a bipartisan commission to look at that reduction, why is it needed? considering the fact that democrats control the house, senate and white house? >> well it is needed i think if you look at, the budget documents we're going to get, similar, slightly above, 3% of our gdp taken up in our budget deficit and i think most people would say 3% is about where you need to be and it will take some tough decisions to close those

gaps. >> why are the president and substantial majorities of democrats in the house and senate not capable of those tough decisions? >> because we understand, jake, unless you get 60 votes in this environment you can't make those, you can't make those determinations. let's use in one particular instance the debt commission itself. this was, a legislative proposal, and i'm sure many of you heard me do this, introduced in december, bipartisan proposal by senator judd gregg, senator conrad. one republican, one a democrat, that enjoyed pretty broad broad bipartisan support. normally 50 votes would carry the day. this got 53 votes when it needed 60. seven cosponsors of the legislation ultimately voted against the legislation. so you need 60 votes in this environment to get something done. >> democrats have 60 votes. >> no. i think very soon

we're not going to have 60 votes. >> when you had that vote on the debt commission you did have 60 votes. >> we did have 60 votes but we didn't get the 60 votes we needed. we lost seven republicans that supported the bill. some democrats don't support it. i get that. if we simply gotten all the people that voted for it or said they supported it, we would have gotten far more than 60 votes. mitch mcconnell, who i had the pleasure of sharing a sunday show with, had supported this two months ago, except, when it came time to vote on it. >> my larger question is, aren't these the tough decisions that the president and members of congress were elected to make? >> absolutely. but jake, one party is not going to solve these, not going to solve all these problems. . .

the american people want -- today is election day. go back to what the president said. if everyday is election day, then i can assure you will never solve any of the big rawboned. let me just finish since chuck interrupted your time. every day is not an election, chuck. sometimes with special elections but we have elections every two

years for congress. if everyday is election day were never going to solve our problems because i was going to be too busy not trying to save somebody else's job are trying to save theirs. the american people want democrats and republicans in government that represent them to work together to solve their problems. >> the point is the democrats control the house, senate and the white house. why are you guys not capable of making -- it seems to me you're making it essentially underneath it all is democrats require very tough decisions in the democratic party is not going to do it by itself because we're not going to go down and lose our jobs without republicans holding our hand. >> there is not uniform consensus of one party about how to do it. i think that's been pretty clear about health care. lord knows we've talked a lot about internal -- let me finish the question. we are going to have to make

tough decisions. but in order to get this passed him over going to need both parties to work together. if you think one party can do it all, you know, i think are examples not just in the past year but over the past many years that altogether that's not going to work. just because you're not in the majority doesn't mean you don't have an obligation to help solve the problems of this country. that's the message that the president had on friday to the house of republicans. that's the message the president ran on. even though the president both as a democrat that doesn't mean were not going to work with republicans to solve problems. if i were the case, chuck, we'd have problems. the other party when you have to show up to work until it's time to have the next election. >> and meantime you're making the argument for legislative, not a commission that allows people to say in the compound.

>> i don't think the commission of the compound. >> the legislature as a compound. and you haven't had mcconnel sign off on the couch. >> of a such a good idea that they supported it a few weeks ago. you can ask mitch mcconnell while sitting on the very same show he was on yesterday when he supported the conrad great commission. i don't know the answer to that. if they fascinatingly good question. but we are going to have to work to get it to solve these problems. it's not going to be one person or one party that follows them. i don't think it's a copout because what the president will or posed as the democrats and republicans should work together to agree on proposals that he believes should be voted on. understand the legislation that failed would have required that the recommendations that that's commission came up with be voted

on by the house and the senate. >> the executive order will not do that because they cannot do that. >> the executive order will ask that based on the number of people chosen to serve on the commission, some by democrats, some by republicans, that a certain number of people agree in order for the recommendation to be voted on by congress. but the power -- it is interesting i think we've heard from some quarters that republicans just may not appoint anybody. tell me how you're going to solve the big outcomes of this country is in a very polarized from country one political party isn't going to join them working on that. it's not cannot happen. >> last question i have and i'm sorry. i'm not going to challenge the notion that maybe the other party does anything with the

road are talking about. isn't the whole point of being president and controlling the house and senate to man up and make these decisions, whether or not it costs you at the ballot box in november. or not going to do it unless we sign off from the republicans. >> for not going to make progress unless we assign a from democrats and republicans. there's not unanimity on one party from either way forward. this president has instituted spending cuts foster that everybody thought they were going to get, including killian asked 22 program at the pentagon. we've outlined a series of cuts this year. we've taken on the cost of health care and how it affects the federal budgets. we've got some skin in the game, jake. >> the president in his remarks this morning talked about how some of the cut were painful. what was the most difficult thing for the economic thing the

president to leap out of the project? >> i would've to talk to those guys in terms of -- i was not in every one of those. >> expressed there was something they would've really rather have that in the end -- the >> i've heard them talk in particular. obviously there are budgets have to be a list of your priorities. in tough economic times, you can't afford everything. look, one of the easier things to do, let go back to what had happened for a while. one thing would be to propose a series of new spending and not have to pay for any other. that sort sort of what got us into this mess. >> can you talk about the process is there sort of one team trying to make a case to keep something in the project? what is going on behind the scenes to subtleties issues?

>> obviously, when the president and peter and the economic team decided on freezing nonsecurity discretionary spending, there's no doubt that there were cabinet officials had wanted to preserve certain things that mathematica just couldn't be preserved or to take things out but they felt like one something that they would have laughed in. so there was obviously some give-and-take on that. but the larger numbers have been locked for quite some time in the president obviously was in meetings on some of this back and forth. >> when the president goes to new hampshire tomorrow, what's the real goal there? there's still a lot of frustration about the pace of job creation. what does the president hope to accomplish? >> the presidential have a town hall meeting, but outlined a

proposal that he talked about in the state of the union to increase small business lending through community banks. that will be specifically what he talks about. look, i think in many ways, the president get letters from, we've heard from small businesses across the country that want to expand, that need a loan to make payroll. we want to ensure that for those that want to add jobs, for those that want to start a small business, that they have the capital to do so. >> following up on the question, can you understand the skepticism of people who look at this budget and say, there really isn't a lot of specific cutting going on here. we're going to rely on this blue-ribbon panel down the road, don't you think the average american thinks are kicking the can down the road?

>> i think if you look at what the budget does over the next several years, and going back down 2% of gdp, you'll understand these are not decisions being made. secondly, -- >> we're relying very heavily on what this panel will do. >> i don't think we are relying very heavily, but is there any doubt that we're going to need consensus to make some important changes like the answer to that right clearly is yes. >> and following up on jake's question, the idea that you were certainly willing to have democrats alone pick off a republican if you needed one. especially on something as important as health care reform. why isn't your domination of the elected government get a push through? >> i think i answered this. again, we took on the cost of health care, which is a big driver in art budget health care

deficit and health care reform. we've taken on some of those fights. there's no doubt that we're not going to get all the way we need to unless we get two parties working together as the american people and the shamir government working. i don't think it's, right now there seems to be some way back on whether one side believes them the point number two a commission. i think if you're serious about talking to deficit reduction, appointing members quite frankly is the least you can do. >> why would they appoint if they voted in congress fear by which you think they even played a vote? >> why wouldn't they? fifty-three people voted for it. >> you know the key republicans are not for it. >> well, then i guess the guy to explain to the american people what they're going to do. >> you're saying we know we're not going to get it.

>> let's take a walk for a second i'm playing politics. there is a proposal, won by republican and a democrat to set up a commission. they needed 60 votes. they got 53. seven people that said they support in december voted against it. now let your definition of whether or not that's playing politics. we'll just leave that aside. you can set this up legislatively, the president will do it with executive order. and he'll appoint members on his side on this commission. now if he won't appoint members, i'll leave that aside to whether you think that's playing politics as an issue. at some point, chip, you have to get into the game. at some point you have to have a series of ideas on how to do this. regardless of who wins elections, everybody that's warning to congress and everybody that there is an executive branch branch has an obligation to solve problems and make it work for the american

people. not supporting something that you did two months ago or a month ago, not appointing members simply out of oxygen. if that's not playing political games, then i don't know what the definition chip would look like you >> i think you're right if it is. aren't you doing the same thing that i'm harping on it rather than moving on to something you could actually try to do exploit the blade. >> we try to pass it. >> the cuts, not the commission. >> with some specific cuts and i can give you look out over the course of the next several years, we didn't get in this budget problem and deficits overnight. if you look at the graph of where budget deficits go over the next three or four years, and you'll see that on a decidedly downward to get yuri, to get the rest of the way, the president that first asked congress to pass a legislative commission despite getting 53

votes and having seven people that supported its a month ago walkaway, the president is going to do this through executive hopes and hope they will take part in the exercise of government. >> you rolled out a dual motel up being treated as an enemy. >> what, i'll say this. having been any serious about this over the past many days, decisions that are being reported as having been made have not been made. there is no doubt that a city like new york has serious security and logistical concerns about a child and does should and can be taken into account. the president, chuck, believes that before and that the attorney general decided that these trials be held in, are the best way to deal with set to

another's. >> my question was about the christmas bomber. have you rolled a modest treating him as an enemy combatant? >> that certainly was done with josé padilla they were indicted, transferred and indicted. i think that very experienced interrogators that the fbi made decisions about interrogation in the department justice may determination to seek an indictment and the president believes that's the appropriate place. >> the administration says there's no more intelligence to be gained. >> the white house has satisfied that the process of gaining that intelligence is working. >> and was the cai and members reporting this morning, with the

cia asked for their input on the decision before he was indicted -- >> i want to be clear on this. i forget the exact day but i can look it up. when the president held his situation room meeting, to go over the failures of the christmas day bombing. i believe this was on a tuesday. >> when he came back. the big meeting when you came back. >> i think the meeting was on a tuesday. in that meeting with the president, the vice president, the attorney general, the secretary of the fed, the director of the national terrorism counterterrorism center. track drug national intelligence, director of the cia, i don't know who else i forgot. whoever that roster west, the director of the federal bureau of investigation. all of those people were present in that meeting with the attorney general said, in the next day mr. sent to would be

indicted. mr. said to would be indicted for his crimes. i will say that anybody that wanted or needed to register their concerns come the notion that somehow a forum was incredibly available to register anybody's concern doesn't certainly comport with the way i understand events having been in the room, watching those president having an opportunity to ask questions about the procedure. >> to the president and the first lady vote for him? >> they both voted i believe by absentee ballot. >> just to go back to your initial response to jack's question. you talked new york. there's been no formal decision to take it out of new york? >> iem. >> now on this new hampshire trip tomorrow along with the

community bank seem, to what extent does it say take the budget on the road event? >> well, i think there'll be certain questions and have an opportunity to talk about it. our focus tomorrow is the proposal the president will talk specifically about at the town hall is the effort for increased funding to community banks, directly to small businesses. >> and going back to the friday event with the republicans, is there any follow-up to that? teeth until talk to senate republicans at some point? >> i believe we have been invited to speak to the senate republicans and we will do so. look, i think the president enjoyed the give and take on these issues of importance. you guys seem to think it was a worthwhile endeavor.

and i think opportunities like this, for both sides are important to talk through our ideas about. i honestly believe, and i know the president believes this, and said the smudge on friday that it may be very rare that everybody in congress, 535 members and the president, agree on every single word in a bill. but there are to be enough that we can agree on any piece of legislation that can garner strong bipartisan support to solve the problems that the american people have. >> if you do if the republicans in the senate, then it also would be available for live coverage. >> we ask that it be open on friday and i wouldn't have been a problem it being open if we spoke to the senate republicans, too.

but look, i think the two biggest things that are on people's minds in this country are creating jobs and two parties working together. and i think there's no better opportunity to say to the american people were serious about their priorities than to work together and getting a jobs bill passed, when the cuts taxes on small businesses. one that increases our investment in infrastructure to create jobs. i think we can show the american people that we hear their anger and frustration and demonstrated in a way that moves the process forward by working together. >> on the nonsecurity discretionary spending on one of the calls last night i think bars i attended on a veto. i just want to get your take on what you think the appropriations bill in congress and if they don't adhere to that freak >> let me go back and see what peter said. i know the president spoke proudly about ensuring that we have through the course of this nonsecurity discretionary

freezing. >> peter was answering a question about whether that would be here. that ferber won't go to them and then went back and forth to my not be dealt with. >> you know, again i think congressman picked a lot of veto that we would be interested to look at. >> your choice to rule a veto threat on nonsecurity -- >> i wouldn't rule that out. yes, sir? >> peter orzag and dr. roman were very cautious to how the president thinks economic assumptions in the middle of what private economists predict it, get your briefing about $10 billion a year your projected savings on passage of a health reform bill that is at least in question right now. i'm what do you base your

optimism? >> where one vote away from getting health care reform. we think it's good policy. and wendell, i hazard to guess what your question would be if we didn't take into account any of that in what our budget was. the president has said, we should be realistic about what our assumptions are, but also a cinema for going to propose something i don't think it makes much sense to not assume it should he in the budget. again, some of that got us into this mess. we had troops in iraq. we had troops in afghanistan, but we weren't paying for that on budget. you know, i mean that's certainly one way to look at how you do a budget is to have our brave men and women fighting half a world away, but pretend that we're not paying for it by not putting it into the budget. the president made certain policy assumptions and added those into the budget.

>> on another budget matter, republicans have criticized the stimulus bill that there's too much government spending and not enough tax cuts and specifically tax cuts for small businesses, which seem to be erased now in the second john's proposal. were they right all along? >> no, i can get a list of the specific taxes that we cuts. understand this, when we cut taxes for 95% of working americans in this country, a whole host of -- >> will it create more jobs faster enough which are proposing now. >> how about we do this. how about i agree that cutting taxes on small business has the opportunity to create an environment to create jobs. if they agree with me, i've got an idea. let's have those two ideas meet in the house and senate, the president has put forward a plan to cut taxes on small business for a tax credit.

what better message to send the american people and both parties getting back to the president's desk so that small business in this country can start hirttin end of the president do tomorrow take $30 billion that the big things that paid back through t.a.r.p. and give that money to community banks to lend to small business. that would be another great idea. let's reward small business by increasing our infrastructure spending, laying a new foundation for an economy for the future, building the highways and bridges and railways that tomorrow era to touch it bipartisan support. all three of those things, whether we ought to be able to do pretty quickly with bipartisan support because we're on the same budget. we just lost half our problems. >> tomorrow secretary gates are talking about but does the president comes out of the hearing and what would be

hearing from the president on the subject between now and then? >> look, if the president gets asked a question, i don't anticipate a statement other than what he said in the state of the union. scott, will have more on this later in the day i'm what we anticipate will be in their testimony. i think you'll hear a frank discussion about the president's proposal to overturn this and the support that it has to do so. i do want to get ahead of where their testimony is on the different aspects. >> as you know, on sunday as the super bowl. a year ago on sunday the president had a bipartisan super bowl party here to sort of kick off the air. didn't it go so well. but as we learned some things that he can do now? >> that the super bowl question. that's unfair. >> he thinks he can do differently to engage with the

republicans this year? >> he's not a steelers fan. look, i think that the president certainly was under the ablution that have been members of both parties hereto watch a football game was somehow going to wipe away years of rhetoric and mistrust. i think instead as an ensure there will be republicans and democrats that will come to the white house this year to watch the super bowl. but i think activities like the president did on friday, exchanging ideas, you heard him talk about the desire to sit down and work together on these issues. i just mentioned a series of issues around the economy.

our problems are big. and only by addressing them together are we going to be able to move forward. i think the president wants to hear republican ideas on how to get the economy moving and how to stimulate job creation. i think there is -- i think there would have to be a serious of give and take, there has to be a series of meetings but also think we have to understand as i said earlier, if one side is the democratic or republican is looking for 100% of all of its ideas to carry the days on either side, that's not necessarily ever going to work. again, to take wendell's tax example, the recovery plan had about $300 billion in tax relief.

$70 billion for wiping out the alternative minimum tax, which if somebody would have posed two years ago that i can envision the future, republicans opposing why doing away with the alternative bill in the attacks, i think people would've thought you were crazy. or we may not 100% agreement on every idea, but we certainly ought to be able to agree on most of what needs to be done and at least look for ideas and legislation that could move the process forward. again, even if you don't get all of what she wants, you can get enough of what you want in enough of what your constituents being on something like jobs to make a big difference. >> will republicans have to vote for at lease some of his proposals? >> well, look, i don't think they're going to be his proposals. they're going to be our proposals. look, jeff, if people have a

concept for a tax credit for creating jobs, we are certainly as he read the presidency on friday, he's ready, willing and able to look at it. but i don't think the president is ready though, jeff, if you don't agree with everything that he does then you have to agree with everything that they do in order for that to garner some series of bipartisanship. if that's the test, i think that's not a healthy standard to try and beat. >> the one thing on friday he was really struck by what he said he would embrace -- >> i think specifically went congressman ryan mentioned -- i haven't met many presidents but i daresay there are many that would miss the opportunity to use that. >> robert, just two questions.

>> just two questions. >> there has been news reports about the presidents nominating ford doc commissioner and the aclu support the acceptance of polygamy. does the president think we should start accepting polygamists? >> i'm happy to look at the information in the news reports, but i don't have anything on that. >> newsweek's editor, evan thomas, on msnbc said the president is, sword of god. that streak on msnbc, chris matthews said the president is quote, post-racial. i forgot to his black tonight for an hour. and what is the president's reaction to these two msnbc revelations? >> smartly, the president do not

occupy his time watching cable television. >> thank you very much. >> a third trial in the somebody made yesterday that he would be quite off? >> i daresay, we wouldn't go to trial and indicted if we didn't feel like we have a case that would lead to a conviction. and i think i don't have any problem saying i think that conviction would lead to death sentence. >> he would be in a civilian trial, to the same kind of protection and other defendants would be including, innocent until proven guilty. >> absolutely. >> to you still think the president is insisting on civilian trials even though the number growing on capitol hill say they would stop money for those civilians? >> look, i think the president believes, particularly with a few look at the southern district of new york. you've got experienced

prosecutors that bring these cases experience, judges hearing these cases. we've all seen cases that have gone through that system and ended in a conviction of those that committed terrorism. and i go back to, you know, two of the bigger examples over the past many years. richard reid who tried to blow up a plane over the atlantic in an operation masterminded and financed by colleagues chic mohammed was brought to justice in a courtroom in boston. the 20th hijacker was brought to justice in a court room about ten miles from where i stand and use it. heralded by the former mayor of new york's reverend for a justice system ever having testified in that trial.

they do see now that you have some members of congress rethinking what appears to be more than eight years support of that type of justice. in the short term, and what i think is a continuation of the type of games that people in this country are tired of. yes, sir? >> thank you, robert. two brief questions. first, the president was widely praised for the tone that he had with the republican of conciliation and congeniality. on the other hand, one of his major -- [laughter] and easter of the sci du has used some very strong language about republicans of who pose health care reform at one point said likely there is a terrorist. is that the kind of behavior that president associate with or repudiates?

>> i've said this many times about different policy debates. nobody should be compared to people that it sought to do the world harm through terrorism. nobody should be compared to. i think in the heat of these debates, people tend to get over excited on both sides of the political spec term, in both parties. i think that those types of comments on either side makes no sense. >> thank you, robert. >> let me take a couple more. >> the president and immigration and how it's been going into detail that obviously he is disappointed to make abrogates by moving behind and a bill that would include utilization. my question is, if this is such a priority for him, why not go steak at a specific position? >> i think the president

position on immigration reform and what he supports is enormously clear. he campaigned on it and worked on legislation that i think is quite similar to what would come up this year and the house of the senate, with people like john mccain and lindsey graham in 2005 and 2006 in the senate. like climate change, there are bipartisan efforts that are ongoing to bring legislation like this to the floor and to create bipartisan majorities to get him past the president. he had a meeting not too long ago to keep that process going and we look forward to taking part in it. >> i understand you don't want to get ahead of the testimony of secretary gates and admiral mullen, but does the president's decision have a dual tract

repeal for some alteration of the regulation system that was in the pentagon going on at the same time that they are pushing for congressional repeal? >> give me a few hours. [laughter] and i think that -- i will. i think you'll see efforts on a number of friends over the course of the next many months that will be outlined by secretary gates, outlined by admiral mullen, the chair of the joint chiefs, to address what the president promised again dating back to the city campaign in 2003 in 2004 to seek the overturning of don't ask don't tell, a number different ways. thanks, guys. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations]

>> you can see officials of the defense department. that's life now. and state department budget team discussed on c-span three. here on c-span 2, the senate about to convene at the top of the hour about seven minutes away. they will consider at least one nomination, a labor department nomination with a procedural vote also expected today. while a way for the senate to command will show you some this morning's "washington journal" now. >> host: he is the congressional reporter for politico. john cormack e. is a professor of political manager at george washington university. joining us this segment to talk about the role of independent voters. i wanted to start the conversation by showing the swing and independent voters and where they are, particularly

here are the numbers for the gallup numbers or this gallup number on the percentage of independents, republicans, independents, 36% independent or this number here, which way these independents are leaning. this is 2010, just as of last week or so. 43% leaning republican. 48% leaning democrats. take you back to the middle of the bush administration in 2004 or towards the end of the first turn. this is 2004, january deigning republican 48% leaning democrat 46%. the recent election in virginia, new jersey, two republican governors went back and then scott brown and massachusetts. we seek to think that more republicans are leaning republican. just go with the interesting thing about this poll is about

the entire united states. i think if he went by state, that would be a little bit different and i think it would've been a lot different and massachusetts. in virginia, clearly a larger group of republican leaning independents would very tonight they lean towards the government that tom all and it seems to have taken place in massachusetts. both go to the independents come out of the woodwork in massachusetts? >> guest: i think if you look in massachusetts 51% of the voters their count themselves on the independent side than the craft, not republicans. i think particularly massachusetts issa voters who are very economically hard-hit from very economically hard-hit suburbs, some north of boston, some in the county. those voters really decide that look we've had enough and were going to take out her anger and were going to take out our anger at the ballot box. i think to a certain extent, scott brown, the republican in this week spoke that.

post a linda feldman wrote in christian science monitor wrote about the role of independents going forward in 2010. and she quotes darrell west that it's the most important thing about mcentee to win back independence and improve the economy. people are very worried about their jobs here prosperity would do a lot to reduce the populist anger we sit around the country. would you agree with that? >> guest: i agree with you completely. one thing that animates the independents most clearly is economic aspects. this is happening across the world. it used to be just older workers, middle aged beyond the thing to be looking at the prospects rather than negatively. i think the polls are showing younger people that actually feel the same way. and by the way, looking at independence in general is tough because they are a very diverse group of people. the gallup shows that the leaning democrat who considers soft democrats. they sometimes go there and they sometimes bring in between. a lot of them went for obama in

2008. as a group that lean republican. these people every animated tiered they make up the tea party movement. they make up a lot of libertarians. this group in particular has been coming out in droves in helping the eternity with elections. >> host: they make up of the tea parties and other groups, but they have no representation on capitol hill. >> host: >> guest: you see there's a trickling off of people who identify themselves as republicans over the past ten or so years. they drifted off into the independent movement. they're hardly going to become democrats. they're coming back, not back as republicans but back is very strong economic conservatives. this is the heart and soul in the tea party movement in this group has been particularly important in the past several elections. >> host: alex, do you have the possible making of a candidate in the most prominent group in the republican party is the tea party movement or even a

democrat that would answer more directly or perhaps be more prone to answer to independent voices, rather than their own party. >> guest: here is what i would say is that democrats want to position themselves right now so they can answer to some of those angry younger, those independent voters who are out there right now. i mean, i think the best indication we saw that with the state of the union address last week. i mean, look at what president obama dead. he talks about the economy him a job, jobs, jobs. he didn't get to health care until much later on in the speech and i think that's because democrats and president obama realized that they want to repeal some of these voters were very concerned about the economy right now. post out why hasn't the president been able to harness more of that support now that he's president they voted him into office? just go talk to pollsters and they'll tell you that the party

air to a certain degree in focusing so much on health care as opposed to jobs in the economy. into a certain extent, democrats will tell you he failed to connect health care and the debate over to health care that the same capitol hill and they failed to connect that to the issue of job loss, which have been hitting states so hard right now. >> host: we've been talking this morning about this supposed domestic spending freeze. >> the words may but the actions are to be determined. the spending freeze really doesn't take place until the next year, which means there's all kind of spending that takes place this year and the headlines as he pointed out in your segment, $1.2 trillion is a lot of money and people are very much concerned. i went to ghost back to something you said before and that is, what happened between the election and now. one of the things that happen is the president went on a platform of the new politics he called it, a new way of getting people to work together to get things

achieved. in the past and from the old politics that is rude things. a majority driven health care bill that was largely written by one party and one party only. if the president changed his mind on it, with republicans last weekend. at least the past records show that when he ran on is not what he governed on. >> host: were going to take a look at the president's comments in just a bit. >> we believe this portion of washington's journal to take you live to the u.s. capitol as the senate convenes with plans to consider the nomination of patricia smith as labor department solicitor. that's the third ranking post in the labor department. and at 530 eastern we expect a procedural vote on the nomination. another nominee, martha johnson, is expected to receive senate consideration this week to fill the general services administration top position. this week on how schedule, cyber

security research and development and increase in the debt limit. now to the floor of the senate for live coverage here on c-span 2, the chaplain just guide, lead our senators with your wisdom. keep them from being embittered by ingratitude or pettiness, as they refuse to be satisfied with any effort less than their best. may the voice of history warn them of the paths that lead to national disaster. lord, give them the wisdom to follow your precepts, trusting you to direct their steps. help them to be as eager to

forgive others as they are to seek forgiveness. by your grace empower them to be better than they are, wiser than they know, and stronger than they dream. we pray in your powerful name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c,

february 1, 2010. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable mark r. warner, a senator from the commonwealth of virginia, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: robert c. byrd, president pro tempore. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: following leader remarks, the senate will be in a period of morning business until 3:00 p.m. today with senators permitted to peek for up to 10 minutes each. at 3:00 perform, the senate will proceed to executive session to debate the nomination of patricia smith, to be the salter of the department of labor. the vote on the nomineeation to invoke cloture on thew nominationominee-- on that nomir at 5:30 p.m. today. nursing our economy back to health is about setting a new foundation for our future security and stability. it is about recognizing that what got us into this mess will not get us out of this mess. it is about making sure that

kind of crisis can never again threaten american families. there are three things above all else that i want to see in president obama's budget. number one, a plan to put americans back to work. number two, a plan to ease our deep deficit and bring fiscal discipline back to government and leave our children a stronger economy. and finally, number three, a plan that would strengthen nevada's economy and make nevadans safer. as far as i am concerned, the president has gone throug -- hae three for three. regarding jobs, ensuring every american who wants to work can find a job is the top priority of the american peep and the top priority in president obama's budget. his proposed tax cuts will increase small businesses will keep workers on the job, hire new ones and give those employees bigger paychecks. it will encourage entrepreneurs to start new companies. this budget is also about smart

investing. it creates clean energy jobs that can never be outsourced and jobs in infrastructure, science, technology, and research. and that extends middle-class tax cuts so hard 4 hard-working families can invest more in the economy rather than sending it become to the government. as far as physicallal responsibility this budget does some good things. it continues democrats' efforts to dice the deficit and restore fiscal responsibility to government. this budget comes with a lot of zeros. its numbers are in the millions, billions, and trillions. its eight easy to mischaracterize those numbers and when they mean. let's keep some perspective. when you look at this budget as a share of our entire economy, it will cut the deficit by more than half in just two years. it is not the last thing we'll do to slash the deficit, but it is a good, good promising start. the president has also endorsed pay-as-you-go rules that the

senate voted on last week. the republicans voted in unison against pay-as-you-go, a simple concept that we should only spend what we as a guest have. -- as a government have. some republicans sponsored the legislation creating the deficit-reduction legislation voted against their own bill. had they voted with us, if they had voted the way, the bill would have passed. we had 53 votes. one senator was gone because of a funeral. there were seven republicans. that would have brought us to 61. it is a real shame, mr. president. people worked on this so hard. one of 0 whom is the presiding officer. the presiding officer was a -- an expert at balancing budgets as governor of the state -- the commonwealth of virginia. and the presiding officer used that to work with senator conrad and others to bring about the

paygo rules to bring about the deficit reduction commission and then to have people who sponsored the legislation vote against it is hard to comprehend. this budget knows our economy and our future cannot afford partisan games like that. as for as nevada, the -- as far as nevada, the recession has hit nevada harder than most every other state. nevadans will benefit as much as any other citizens when we see the implementin implementing of. nevada will also benefit in another expect way. the president has declared dead the dreadful plan called yucca mountain, to turn a piece of the magnificent nevada desert into a national dumping ground for dangerous nuclear waste. this budget ends funding for that reckless project and pulls its license application. that means families in that area never have to worry about trucks and trains filled with toxic

substances passing by their parks and back under the previoubackyards.it means we wi. the president's plan will walk us further down the path toward economic recovery. we still have a long, long way to go. let's keep in mind that this budget is merely a blueprint, not a silver bullet that the guide congress, not restrict congress. no matter what the items are, neither democrats nor republicans should ever forget that every single dollar belongs to the american people. we know that we cannot make our economy work for the middle-class unless we invest the taxpayers' money as responsibly, as efficient lid and as trptly as possible. the senate democrats are commuted to doing just that. would the chair announce morning business. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. there will be a period of morning business until 3:00 p.m. with senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each. the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. lieberman: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that proceedings under the quorum call be dispense with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lieberman: mr. president, i had asked to proceed as if in morning business. mr. president, later this afternoon the senate will vote on a motion to proceed -- a cloture motion on the nomination of patricia smith to be solicitor at the department of labor. last friday, i believe, senator reid also filed a cloture petition on another nomination, and it is that nomination i'd like to talk about because it comes out of the homeland security and governmental affairs committee, which i'm privileged to chair. that is the nomination of martha johnson to be administrator of

the general services administration. it's become an unfortunate practice here, i believe, that members have been holding up executive nominations. in some case -- and i'm conversation it's the case with regard to martha johnson -- for reasons unrelateed to her nomination. she's extremely well-qualified and very much needed at the general services administration, as i will note in a moment. as i understand the process that we will file this week, presuming, as i hope will be the case, that cloture is granted later this afternoon when we vote on the nominee for solicitor of the department of labor, whenever the vote on that nomination occurs -- hopefully sooner than later this week -- immediately thereafter we will go to a vote on cloture on this

nomination of martha johnson. and so in anticipation of that, i wanted to speak to my colleagues about what is coming. she's an extraordinary nominee, in my opinion, for a job that is critically important to the efficient operation of our government, the federal government, about which a lot of us have been speaking with intensity in recent times. she's a former chief of staff at the general services administration, so she comes with some background. we'll give her the opportunity to -- it will give her the opportunity to hit the ground running, and that is important in an agency that has not had a permanent leader since april of 2008. here we are, february of 2010. g.s.a. hasn't had a permanent leader since april 2008, when the former director was asked to resign by the previous administration. since then, the agency has had five acting administrators.

it's obviously time for stable leadership. the homeland security and governmental affairs committee unanimously endorsed her nomination last june. so it's more than a half year ago. since that time g.s.a. has undergone several changes in top management, including the departure of the chief of staff and the retirement of the deputy administrator. so it's been very frustrating for the members of our committee to see such a qualified nominee being held up in the senate for more than a half year because of a hold that had nothing to do with the nominee's qualifications. i want to speak for a moment to my colleagues about the full scope of g.s.a.'s responsibility, because it's a critically important agency of our government that mostly works out of spotlight. g.s.a. is often called the

federal government's landlord because it provides work space and office services for almost every federal office and agency across our country, from courthouses to ports of entry. with 8,600 buildings and $500 billion in assets under its control, g.s.a. must be either the largest property management organization in the world or certainly one of the top and largest property management organizations in the world. but g.s.a. actually is far more than just the federal government's landlord. it has 12,000 employees spread across the country in 11 districts, and they help guide federal spending on everything from basic office equipment to the federal fleet of more than

200,000 vehicles owned and leased by the united states government. g.s.a.'s purchasing divisions have broad effect on the rest of the economy since an early -- as an early acquirer of new technologies, including green technologies, the agency has helped and will continue to help spur production that brings down costs and makes these technologies available and affordable to the broader consumer market. g.s.a.'s that important that it can help build a market for an innovative transformational technology. in fact, the american recovery and reinvestment act, commonly known as the stimulus act, which we adopted last year gave g.s.a. specific responsibility to help green the federal government by providing $5 billion to make federal buildings more energy-efficient and $300

million to buy more fuel efficient vehicles for the federal fleet. g.s.a. has wide responsibilities for providing information technology and telecommunications services for the federal agencies. with its leadership, g.s.a. can ensure that the federal government is using cutting-edge technology to lower costs, better engage with citizens and detect and defend against cyber threats. in other words, g.s.a. spends so much money every year acquiring information technology systems that if it requires the providers to put together systems that are resistant and defensive to the kind of cyber attacks that, unfortunately, public and private information networks are under today, it can drive that technology which then

will be more broadly available to the private sector as it acquires information technology equipment. so, a lot of big and important responsibilities, meaning that the agency is in need of strong leadership. if confirmed, ms. johnson will face many challenges, and i just want to take a moment to lay out a few for my colleagues which have come before the attention of our committee that has oversight of g.s.a. in the area of procurement, the contracts negotiated by g.s.a. must leverage the vast buying power of the federal government so agencies get more value for the taxpayers' dollar. last year federal agencies bought approximately $53 billion of goods and services right off of g.s.a. schedules which offer everything from office supplies to human resource services to security equipment, to energy

management services. and a few other contracts negotiated by g.s.a. having g.s.a. negotiate these procurement agreements, its customer agencies stay focused on their core missions. in other words, the agencies don't have to get into all the back and forth and the details on negotiating these contracts. the experts at g.s.a. do it for them. the agencies can focus on what they're supposed to be doing. some agencies, if i may speak directly haoerbgs have lost confidence in the ability of g.s.a. to provide the best products at the best prices and have begun to negotiate their own contracts or interagency contracts. this duplicates services offered by g.s.a. it's effectively a waste of federal money and effectively also defeats the purpose of g.s.a., which was created by president harry s. truman in 1949 with the specific

intent of streamlining the federal government purchasing process so every agency of the federal government didn't have its own separate purchasing division that may have done well or not so well, but certainly not as efficiently as one for the whole federal government. second problem: similar to this one exists in g.s.a.'s property management activities with agencies sometimes questioning whether g.s.a. has now met their needs in the most cost-effective manner. another problem the new administrator must address is the amount of excess or underutilized property owned by the federal government. the office of management and budget has reported -- these are really stunning numbers -- that the federal government owns 21,000 buildings worth about $18

billion that are underused or no longer needed. but they're sitting there. in effect, the g.a.o., the general accounting office, has put the management of federal property on their high-risk list for this reason. not all of those properties are under g.s.a.'s control, but one of its jobs is to help other agencies dispose of excess property. it's another reason why we need a full-time administrator there. just think about it, $18 billion. the freeze that the president has announced doesn't come -- which i support, doesn't come to much more than that when you think about the potential for selling some of this property and bringing more revenue to the government. let me come back to martha johnson. this is a job with big challenges, as i've just described in part.

she brings a tremendous wealth of experience in the private nonprofit and government sectors. she has a b.a. from oberlin college and masters in business from yale business school. after graduating from yale, ms. johnson began her career in the private sector at cummins engine company. she had other management positions in the private sector and then was called on by the clinton administration to be the associate deputy secretary of commerce. and then, as i mentioned earlier, chief of staff of g.s.a. from 1996-2001. very relevant and indispensable experience. after leaving government, ms. johnson was a vice president for the council for excellence in government, which is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to increasing the effectiveness of government at all levels, and most recently she has served as

vice president at computer sciences corporation. extremely well-qualified, broad qualifications and very intense in g.s.a. so all these varied experiences, i think, make martha johnson a perfect fit for the responsibilities and challenges she would face as g.s.a. administrator. the fact is she has had, martha johnson has had broad bipartisan support. i urge my colleagues to vote "yes" on cloture. i even preserve the hope that there may be a decision to vitiate the cloture vote, that we go right to a final vote and that we confirm this excellent nominee so she can go to work for the american people. i thank the chair. i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. kyl: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kyl: in the past few weeks, president obama has professed to clamp down on out-of-control spending and on deficits. that new development, of course, appeals to many americans who have become increasingly frustrated with the trillions of dollars in new debt that's been racked up by this administration. the president's newly released budget tells a different story. and it's not one of fiscal responsibility. just look at the front page headlines from many of today's morning newspapers and you'll see a helpful review of what they think of the budget. "the wall street journal," u.s.

deficit to hit all-time high. "washington post", white house expects the deficit to approach $1.6 trillion this year. "washington times" the whitehouse said that the got will run huge deficits for the future. the "publication politico" five years, $5.08 trillion in debt. this $3.8 trillion budget is another sea of red ink. more of the record spending and debt that have come to characterize this administration. let me go over some important numbers. under the president's budget, the budget which is the gap between revenues and spending in a year will reach $1.5 trillion for fiscal year 2010. for fiscal year 2011, the budget is expected to be $1.3 trillion. the deficit, i should say. that will mark the third year in a row of trillion dollar-plus

deficits beginning in 2009. these three years of deficits are more than the total accumulated debt from george washington to george w. bush. the president's budget also virtually doubles the debt held by the public over five years an virtually triples it over 10. and it exceeds 60% of the g.d.p. as a share of the economy this year, and that surpasses last year's 50-year high. interest payments will more than quadruple by the end of the decade reaching $840 billion in the year 2020. that's $311 billion more than we spend on education, roads, and all other nonsecurity discretionary spending. that's just to pay the interest on the debt. overall spending will remain well above the historical average as a percent of g.d.p. by the end of the 10-year budget window debt will consume 10% of our economy. as congressman paul ryan, the

ranking member on the budget committee pointed out, even european union colleges hardly are required to keep their debt levels below 60% of their g.d.p. i want to mention a finding from a newspaper entitled "growth in a time of debt" by two economists kenneth rogoff and kenneth reinhart, they studied g.d.p. growth an debt. they find that nations carrying an excessively large debt burden produce a negative effect on short-term economic growth. they write and i quote -- "when gross external debt reaches 06% of g.d.p., annual growth declines by about 2%. for levels of external debt in excess of 90% of g.d.p., growth rates are roughly cut in half. and this only makes sense. because you have less money to spend on those things which

provide capital, which provide growth in your economy because you are paying more and more of your income to service the debt. now, remember that our debt will consume 77.2% of our economy by 2019. this is important because there are only four ways, really, to pay down or pay off your debt. the first is to raise taxes. you don't do that when you're in the middle of a recession. in fact, it's counterproductive to economic growth in the first place. second, cut spending. well, that's very hard for congress to do. third, inflate the currency. of course, that wipes out savings. it's the least good of the bad alternatives. or, four, you can grow your way out. now, growing your way out is the way to do it, obviously. it's like your family. if you have a lot of debt, you can cut some on spending,

sometimes you can make a little more money, you can't inflate your way out like the government can. but the preferred way is to grow your way out of debt by over time making more money and thereby being able to pay it down. but there's a point at which, according to these studies, even that doesn't work when you have so much debt that you don't have enough money to put back into the system to create the growth that we're talking about. and that's what this debt burden and interest costs does. now, the administration's been touting a spending freeze worth about $250 billion over a decade to help allay concerns about spending and debt. but it doesn't start, -- for one thing until next october, and therefore it's a little bit like the alcoholic who says, i'm going to quit drinking right after i have my next drink. if it's a good idea, and it is, we should begin with it now.

i applaud any move toward fiscal responsibility. but this proposal will really do little to seriously attack the debt. and won't even erase the massive debt accumulated during president obama's first year in office. as congressman samuelson said any savings would be mostly a rounding error in the projected deficit. let's remember that the proposed spending freeze applies to 17% of the budget. programs targeted for the freeze have seen a 22% increase in their annual appropriations in the past two years. plus another 25% increase if you include the stimulus. so it's hard to argue that tough choices are being made. when you increase these programs by 22%, plus another 25%, and then say, okay, now i'm going to stop. and finally, of course, why propose a budget in february

with a more than dz 1-dz .5 trillion -- $1.5 trillion deficit and a spending freeze that won't take affect until october. maybe another analogy is like the dieter who always wants to start the diet tomorrow, but never today. the spending freeze is a good idea. so let's don't start in the future. let's start with this year's appropriation bills. and i would also suggest other stronger measures right now. we could start with the tarp money, for example. rather than using the tarp money to pay for another stimulus bill, as some of my colleagues have suggested, let's use it to pay down the debt. that money, remember, was borrowed in the first place. we didn't just have $700 billion lying around. we went to the markets to borrow that, and we have to pay interest on it. a lot of it came from china. we have to pay it back. let's do that. pay the money back. don't use it to pay yet another

stimulus program. remember, it will still ultimately have to be paid back. second, let's end unlimited funding for government-sponsored enterprises like fannie mae and freddie mac. right now, these two entities can spend as much as they like, even without congressional authority. and i find it interesting that when the president in his state of the union speech said we're going to impose a tax on the banks, he's talking about banks that either never took tarp money or banks that have paid it back. the tax does not apply to fannie mae, freddie mac. they haven't paid back the money. it does not apply to a.i.g. it does not apply to general motors. none of them have paid the money back. so if you're going to have a tax, impose it on those who haven't paid the money back. don't put it on those who either never needed the money or didn't take it, but in any event who have paid it back. third, let's rescind unobligated stimulus money.

the stimulus has already proven by most accounts to be a failure in terms of creating jobs where the money has been spent, and that's even using the administration's own standards to measure its success. so let's use the money that has not yet been spent or obligated to pay down the debt. again, remember, most of that money has to be borrowed, and therefore let's just not spend it in the first place, thus reducing the future debt that's included in the president's budget. these are just three specific ways, three relatively easy ways that we could employ to start getting a hold of spending and debt. i would also like to suggest that those who continue to evoke the spending policies of the last administration become more focused on the future. that's what americans want us to do. it makes little sense to complain about high spending from a previous era and then make the situation worse. as i said, creating a deficit that's four times as much as the biggest deficit in the previous

administration and creating a debt burden on this country that is equal to all of the presidents from george washington through george bush. americans want this administration to confront the massive spending and massive debt that it is accumulating in a meaningful way. the budget that the president sent up to capitol hill this morning does not do the job. mr. president, i note the the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. harkin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. harkin: i ask that further proceeding under t quorum call being dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. morning business is now closed. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination, which is the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, department of labor, m. patricia smith of new york to be solicitor. . harkin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. harkin: mr. president, at 5:30 today under a previous order, the senate will be voting on cloture on the nomination of patricia smith to be solicitor

of the department of labor. i will be addressing the senate here about this and about the key role that the solicitor plays, about the qualifications of patricia smith to assume this position, and sort of to bring people along as to why we're here and why it's taking so long. this has been before us since last april, and quite frankly, this should have been disposed of many, many month months ago. but nonetheless, we are in a situation where the republican side has objected, and so we've had to file cloture, which was done on friday. it ripens at 5:30. we'll have a vote on cloture at 5:30, and then we'll be in the postcloture position then on pa think shah smith for the solicitor of -- of patricia smith for the solicitor of labor. on fry di friday, the commerce

department announced that the g.d.p. surged in the fourths quarter of 2009. that's good news. it is yet more news that the recovery is having a positive impact. in my book, the most important statistic is the unemployment rate which remains stuck at about 10%. i want to be clear. a jobless recovery, as people are calling it, is a contradiction in terms. there's no meaningful recovery until the unemployment rate is coming down and people on main street are feeling the benefits. today more than 6 million workers vk wog looking for a job for more than six months and can't find one. hard-working people have seen their hours cut back, benefits reduced and millions more are simply not looking because they have given up and they aren't even counted in the unemployment figures. family budgets are stretched to the breaking point. woks are desperate to get a job and keep a job and foy for the basic necessary it is of --

necessities of their families. the obama administration has implemented an aggressive jaingdz to restore economic security for working families and to get our economy back on track. we will be offering jobs bills here on the senate floor in the near future. but a key part of restoring economic security in this country is reaffirming our commitment to strong labor standards and a revitalized strong department of labor. in these tough times when so many families are suffering, it is sad to think that some unscrupulous employers might choose to pad their profits by violating our labor laws, cutting corners on safety, firing workers illegally, refusing to pay workers the wages they have earned, but the harsh reality is that these practices are far too common now in our economy. a recent survey of workers in a very low-wage okay paxes found

that in a single week, in a single week 26% of low-wage workers were paid less than the minimum wage. one out of every four -- one out of every four -- paid less than the legally required minimum wage. and 76% worked overtime without receiving their proper overtime pay. 76%, three out of every four people who did overtime did it without receiving proper overtime pavemen pay. now, these acts of theft -- and that's what i call it; let's be clear about it, theft from america's most vulnerable workers -- represents a major loss of income for families make struggling to make ends meet. we like to think that sweatshops don't exist. we like to think that employers

don't cut corners in ways that endanger the life and lymph employees. but these things do exist, sadly, and they're even more common when times are tough. and when enforcement is lax or nonexistent. that's not fair to our workers. it's not fair to their families. and this is very important: it's not fair that the overwhelming number of honest and reputable businesses that play by the rules and treat their workers fairly. that's why now, more than ever, we need a strong department of labor to stand up for america's workers. we need leaders at the department who understand the challenges that workers are facing and are prepared to tackle these challenges aggressively. secretary solis, our secretary of labor, has put an excellent team together at the department. they're work hard to reinvigorate that agency after years of neglect. but they are still missing a vital player on their team.

for more than nine months, republicans have been blocking the confirmation of a key department official, the solicitor of labor. the solicitor of labor has the critical responsibility of enforcing almost 200 federal laws that affect american workers every day, such as safety and health, wages and work hours, equal employment opportunity, veterans protections, retirement and health benefits. so, again, a series of charts here to show what the solicitor does, how important this position is. for example, the solicitor of labor was critical in the investigation of a major explosion at b.p. products texas city refinery that killed 15 workers and seriously injured over 170 others. the solicitor secured a settlement that included over $21 million in penalties. the solicitor also helped to

protect workers' paychecks. the solicitor of labor launched an investigation of wal-mart that resulted in the payment of $41 million in back wages to workers who'd been underpaid. again, these wages would not have been paid had it not been for solicitor of labor taking this action because these workers did not have the wherewithal to bring the case themselves. so it had to be done by the solicitor of labor. $41 million in back wages would have been underpaid at wahl marlt. -- at wal-mart. the solicitoref wion into enron corporation -- we remember enron -- enron corporation's management of workers' pensions that resulted in the recovery of more than $220.8 million for workers' pension plans. $220.8 million that would not

have gone to these workers' pensions had it not been for the solicitor of labor. now, because -- i say because workers cannot bring private lawsuits under many of these larks the solicitor is the only official who can defend their rights. the solicitor is also a vital member of the senate -- of the secretary's management and leadership team. the solicitor provides legal advice and guidance on virtually every policy, legislative, regulatory and enforcement initiative at department of labor. the department simply cannot perform its mission effectively without a strong solicitor in place. now, the president has nominated patricia smith of new york to perform these critical responsibilities, and there is no question she is superbly qualified for this job. patricia smith, commissioner smith, i should say, is an accomplished attorney with a

detailed knowledge of our labor laws and a deep compliment to improving the lives of working families. at present, she is commissioner of the new york department of labor. and since becoming commissioner of the new york department of labor, she has played a prominent role in working new york's families weather the current economic crisis. she has implemented creative new work-sharing programs to help employers avoid layoffs. she has revamped the state's unemployment insurance system to help workers access benefits more easily. she's created a new program to help low-income workers train for careers in high-demand fields such as green technology and construction and health care. through these nicialts, commissioner comij has demonstrated impressive leadership skills. she has built positive working relationships with legislators, worker advocates and the business community. in a letter urging her

confirmation, the business council of new york -- the business council of new york had this to say: "ms. smith has shown a clear ablght to balance their duty as a public official, to enforce the law, and her obligation as a public official to ensure that the law provides for reasonable application and reasonable solutions. it is those critical skills -- listening, interpreting, and balancing -- that make ms. smith an ideal candidate to serve as the united states department of labor's solicitor." business council of new york state. another letter from the business community -- this one from the manufacturers association of central new york. "the department of labor, under the leadership of commissioner smith" -- they're talking about the department of labor in the

state of new york -- "has been fully supportive in our mission to enhance and improve our sector's workforce. commissioner smith and her team have been informative, helpful, and involved every step of the way. ... it is commissioner smith's dedication, leadership, and innovative thinking that make her an exceptional candidate for solicitor for the united states department of labor." manufacturers association of new york. mr. president, i'd like to include both these full letters along with six other letters of support from business organizations -- from business organizations -- i'd like to include those at this point in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. harkin: commissioner smith has a keening appreciation for the reality that challenging economic times put vulnerable workers even more at risk. under her leap, the new york department of labor has rarched up enforcement efforts to protect workers who are being mistreated and has leveled the playing field for responsible

employers who play by the rules but face unfair competition from the lawbreakers. another point i just want to emphasize: by going after the lawbreakers, what ms. smith has done is helped level the playing field for the responsible employers who are not engaging in these kinds of bad activities. commissioner smith has developed an innovative new are approach to protecting workers. her strategy, which involves targeting problem industries and increasing focus on low-wage and immigrant workers, has become a model for other states. and her fair and effective approach to enforcing the law has won her the strong endorsement of the new york state district attorneys association. mr. president, i'd like to include that endorsement letter in the record as well. the presiding officer: wonings. without objection. mr. harkin: new york has targeted apparel manufacturers, grocery stores, car washes.

this has resulted in a record recovery of unpaid wages that were stolen from workers' pockets. in 2008 alone, 17,000 workers across the state of new york received more than $24.6 million in back wages thanks to these enforcement actions. now, there are real faces and real families behind these numbers. they include 170 janitors on long island harp being paid less than $100 a week despite working 12-hour days. and garment workers in queens working in sweatshop conditions for $3 less than the minimum wage. patricia smith led the new york labor department to investigate the minimum wage in queens new york. employees were made $250 for

working a 66-hour workweek. that's $3.79 an hour. far below the minimum wage. that investigation revealed $5.3 million in wage violations in one of the worst sweatshops in the united states. $5.3 million. and another one is -- that came in, as new york state labor commissioner, patricia smith revealed illegal practices at a long island cleaning service. again i refer to this. the employees worked 12 hours a day, 60 hours a week, bringing home less than $100 a week. 170 workers were paid far less than what they actually earned, and the illegal -- the deductions amounted to $238,581. again, this is what patricia smith has done. these are real people whose hard lives -- and they have hard

lives anyway -- were made a little bit easier because patricia smith went to bat for them and made a difference. so in light of commission smith's very, very impressive record, i hoped all of my colleagues would agree that she will be a tremendous asset to the department of labor, and she deserves to be confirmed as quickly as possible. unfortunately, some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have raised concerns about commission smith's nomination. these were brought up last year in our committee. and these concerns are focused on a program at the new york department of labor called wage and hour watch. it is a small pilot project which allowed the department to partner with workers' advocates, community organizations and others to educate workers about their rights. you know, you do have the right to the minimum wage. you do have the right to overtime pay.

frankly, that would sound like a pretty good idea to phaoefplt i think it's clear there are far too many violations of our labor laws, especially, especially among low-income workers. that's really where it hits. low-income workers, minimum-wage workers and others like that. i think the more education that people like that can have about their rights about what the law is, i think the better off we all are. now some of my republican colleagues do not agree with new york's approach. well, that's an issue we can certainly debate if you'd like. but beyond these policy concerns, my colleagues have also suggested that commissioner smith's statements about this program raised questions about her integrity and her management skills. some have gone so far to suggest that she's not qualified for this position or that she's not been truthful with senators. these are very serious

accusations against a sitting dedicated public servant. i take them very seriously. i took them very seriously last year. and so i asked my staff to get me all of the documents. we investigated this from the beginning to the end with every relevant document. i spoke personally with commissioner smith and walked through this whole thing with her from beginning to end. and after doing all that, i can say with complete confidence, concerns expressed by my republican friends are totally misplaced. now, did commissioner smith misspeak on two occasions at her hearing? yes, and we talked about that with commissioner smith. she admitted that. first she said she hadn't had any -- quote -- "conversations about expanding the wage and hour watch program." well, i went back and looked at

the record, and the kind of questions that were asked. quite frankly, you know, when you're asking questions and you have a witness at the stand, maybe what they hear is not really what you ask. that happens all the time. sometimes i ask a question of a witness and they give me an answer and i think they didn't hear my question. you have to kind of repeat it. she was asked this question. and what she basically said, she had not had any conversation. when she looked at the record, she clearly and then repeatedly explained afterward in writing that she didn't say she hadn't authorized the expansion. there was no authorization to expand th-fplt it was a pilot program. after the pilot program was over, they were going to look at the results and think about what they were going to do next. that's what is happening now. the pilot program has ended and is being assessed at this point in time.

again, commissioner smith clarified this response to the committee. commissioner smith testified that the idea from the wage and hour program came from the new york department of labor, the department she oversees. again going back through the record and talking with ms. smith, it's clear that that testimony was correct to the best of her knowledge at that time. what she later found out is that one of her deputies had consulted with an outside group in the early stages of the program. commissioner smith was not aware of this fact at the time of her testimony. she subsequently corrected her testimony after she had learned about the prior communications by her staff with an outside group. so commissioner smith's explanations are completely consistent with the documents that this committee has, that the "help" committee has. in my view, that should be the

end of it. she made innocent errors, she corrected them, and there is tpho* evidence of -- no evidence of underlying wrongdoing or intention to mislead our committee. i think this point -- and i will come back to this point again and again and again in the ensuing discussion if there is one, how long it takes. i will come back to this point, and that is this: no one is alleging that the wage and hour pilot program was illegal or unethical or in any way nefarious. it was perfectly legal, perfectly ethical, aboveboard. it was documented. there were pieces of paper and stuff. it was all the out in the open. no one's alleging that. so, if ms. smith made an incorrect statement, she wasn't trying to cover up some wrongdoing. she wasn't trying to cover up something that was being done that was sort of under the table. this was perfectly legal stuff.

so why would you want to cover up, if there was a coverup, why would you either want to mislead the committee or cover up something which was perfectly legal? perfectly legal. perfectly open. perfectly aboveboard. i think by those who have kind of accused her of misleading the committee, what they're trying to do is to cloak as though there was something wrong with this. that there was something she was hiding. nothing to be hidden. again i will put in the record the documentation that when people were, went through this training program for the wage and hour watch, they got a nice little piece of paper and they got a little badge, a little card. nothing under the table about this whatsoever. so, when you hear things like she misled the committee with something, keep in mind she didn't mislead them about anything at all. she just incorrectly made a couple of statements which she then corrected in writing.

but there was nothing illegal or unethical about what she was testifying about. there was really nothing to mislead the committee about. these were just simply innocent mistakes. well, now my colleagues, republican colleagues have argued that commissioner smith's misstatements are a problem because they were based now on misinformation from her staff and it thus reflects on her ability to manage a large organization. well, again, let's look at it this way, we're all busy public officials. as senators, we have large staffs here and we have them in our state. we try to keep everything going, but every once in a while someone makes a mistake or someone does something, and we delegate. we delegate to our chiefs of staff. as committee, we delegate to our staff to do certain things.

let's put this in perspective as it pertains to commissioner smith. she runs an $11 billion -- billion with a "b" -- $11 billion agency in the state of new york with over 4,000 staff. how big was this wage and hour watch? a $6,000 pilot project out of an $11 billion budget. i got to tell you, folks, let's be honest about it, we all deal with our staffs. we deal with our budgets. this would be like something worth maybe $5 or $10 in our budget. do i pay attention to that? i'd ask my staff to take a look at that, but me personally? can't. don't have the time to do that. that's why we have our staffs to do that. for her not to have known intimately every little detail of a $6,000 pilot project -- pilot project -- to me, that

makes sense. in the meantime, while they were doing this, she's out there going after all these people i just mentioned here getting back wages for people that were cheated out of overtime, that were being paid less than the minimum wage. that's where her focus was, in helping families get their due recompense from their work. so -- and this was all during, as we know, through an unprecedented economic crisis. so we have to keep that kind of in focus. it seems to me that the real concern of ms. smith's critics with the wage and watch program is that it was an innovative approach to enforcing the law. historically, it has been very difficult to protect the rights of workers in low-wage industries because they are so vulnerable to abuse and they're

often afraid to approach the government for help. they can be fired for nothing. they can be dismissed. these are low-income workers, minimum wage or barely above minimum wage. calling on community groups, religious groups and others to play a role in reaching out and bridging this gap, i think, is an important idea. and, quite frankly, i think it merits further consideration. it's important to understand how this pilot project worked in practice. participants did not have any special authority or any enforcement power. they could not come on the private property without permission. they could not interfere with business operations. these were ordinary citizens who volunteered -- volunteered -- to distribute fliers to, sit at information booths, educate workers about their rights under

the law. this program was not by any stretch of the imagination radical. it was simply a way to ensure that hard-working people are not unknowingly victimized, by reaching out to the community. many of these people are, english is a second language. they may be new immigrants to this country. they have their green cards or maybe they're now citizens, but they're at the bottom of the ladder. they're at the bottom of the ladder, and they don't know all the laws. they don't understand all the intertry kasis. it would be, i think, logical to reach into that community, whether it's an hispanic community, latino community, or it could be a somali, the somalis who are here, or it could be some who have come here from bosnia, some asian immigrants who have come here from vietnam or from cambodia.

all these people that have come in here to work hard -- to work hard -- and to raise their families here and contribute to our american society. and they're at the bottom. this just seems logical to me that you would go to that community, people in the community who speak the language, who understand the customs, who are intimately knowledgeable with many of these families, to work with them, to let them know what their rights are. surely no one is going to come up here on the floor and argue -- argue -- that these people should be kept in the dark about what their rights are. again, this was on a volunteer basis. on a volunteer basis. so i applaud -- i applaud commissioner smith for having this pilot program. it's the kind of innovative thinking that i think we need to protect the most vulnerable workers during these very tough

economic times. it's my knowledge, my information that this pilot program has ended and is now being assessed to see if it needs to be changed or fixed, needs to be -- what needs to be done to it and do they need to expand it even more. those decisions are being made by the state of new york right now. well, there are so many things we need to be doing to build a brighter future for working families. fostering new industries, investing in our communities, building skills, shoring up the safety net. but too often we neglect to mention the importance of simply enforcing our laws. that's all we're talking about. we're not talking about doing anything other than that. enforcing the laws we have on the books. when the laws say you have to pay the minimum wage, you ought to be paying the minimum wage. not less. when the laws say you should pay time and a half over 40 hours, you should pay time and a half over 40 hours. not less than that. this should not be a matter for controversy or any partisanship.

fair treatment is the foundation of real security and opportunity for american workers. and ensuring this fair treatment starts with a strong solicitor of labor. patricia smith is a seasoned, dedicated public servant with an exceptional record of achievement and unimpeachable integrity. unimpeachable integrity. her nomination should be confirmed by the senate as quickly as possible so she can get to work helping working families to succeed during these very tough economic times. mr. president, with that, i yield the floor. a senator: the senator from alaska. ms. murkowski: i ask permission to speak as if in morning business for five minutes much. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. murkowski: i rise to honor

dr. demmit known as a man with the strength of the stump. he was a pioneer in the cause of improving indian education and leading researcher on native language immersion. i'm saddened to report that dr. demmert, an invaluable cause for education, died january 19 of this year at the age of 75. he was a man beloved by indigenous people of alaska and the arctic nations and new zealand and by the hawaiians. he will be sorely missed. in particular i would note that we in alaska honored and cherished him. residents of southeast alaska said that he walked into the forest, but his spirit an memory live on. he was tied to the lands of alaska as a fisher and gatherer. he studied and recorded the landscapes of ancestors as a

scholar and member. he served alaska as superintendent and teacher for the city school, a teacher in fairbanks, a professor in education at university of alaska southeast. as a commissioner of education for the state of alaska and trust eef the sea alaska heritage institute. throughout his life he united alaskans with the lakota and strengthened our bonds with indian tribes across the nation and other indigenous people throughout the arctic and south seas. he contributed by ensuring that the cultural and linguistic community survived in the schools and our daily lives. throughout his professional life he championed three important education issues. first, early learning and preschool programs. second, meeting the educational needs of at-risk youth. and, number three, improving the

academic performance of native indian and hawaiian children. the focus of his research was the -- his work was invaluable in the exploration of educational programs and schools serving native communities. helping educators an policymakers to better understand the role of traditional knowledge in instructional practice and assessing what works in providing a school environment that values academic performance, citizenship and the traditional ways for indian children. his research on native language immersion he'd chasing proven unequivocally that heritage language strengthens critical thinking, college preparedness an overall academic success. dr. demmorott was born to william -- he was a member of the demrott family of southeast

alaska, many who made important contributions to their communities and alaska at-large through their work as teachers, education researchers and leaders. dr. bill, as he was known by many in southeast alaska, lived up to his heritage and ancestors examples. bill's experience growing up within the alaska education system in the 1940's and early 1950's, ran the gamut of educational opportunities available to young alaskan people at that time. he attended a territorial school and boarding schools in and out of state. these experiences and the report he -- support he received from his extending family informed his views on indian education. he was not one of the ivory tower academics. after earning his bachelors an masters degrees and teaching in washington state, bill returned to alaska teaching in fairbanks,

craig and kloock. he spent the 1906's learning how to educate from the ground up. in 1969 he and a few friends attending a conference on indian education decided to form a new group, one that they thought would represent the unique needs of indian educators, communities. the group they formed was the national indian education association. the niea has become a powerful voice for indian students and educators across the country. soon after, bill was asked to work with senators kennedy and mondale to write the indian education act of 1972, legislation intended to respond to the u.s. senate's report on indian education. today we know the indian education act as title 7 of the elementary and secondary education act. thousands of indian educators an countless children and parents have found a voice and benefited

from programs from bill's work. in 1973, having earned his dock at it in education from the harvard graduate school of education, bill returned to the world of public policy, working for the u.s. department of health, education and welfare as deputy commissioner for the u.s. office of indian education and with the indian education program at the indian bureau of affairs. bill returned to the university of alaska southeast and finished the 190's as commissioner of education. as commissioner from 1986 through 1990, dr. demrott, -- today many of the issues he championed have become mainstream in alaska education. in 1991, after dr. demrott left office as commissioner, president george h.w. bush named him and trens bell co-chairman

of the prestigious indian reservation task force which issued an important report to the president and congress entitled "indians at risk, an educational strategy for action" this effort gave bill the opportunity to assess 20 years of work and progress in the education of native american children. it published an indian student bill of rates. which reads the indian nations at risk task force believes that every native american is entitled to a safe and psychologically environment in school, a linguistic environment in school to maintain a firm knowledge base, an intellectually challenging program in school that meets community and individual academic needs, a stimulating early educational environment that is linguistically and culturally appropriate. equity in school programs, facilities and finances across

native communities and in schools run by the federal government and public schools in general. in writing an speaking about this report he reflected upon his grandparents, parents, and his own education and b.i.a. schools. he felt blessed that his grandfather and parents were both fluent -- were fluent in klinik and english. he reflected with sadness that so many young people he knew were fluent in neither. he expressed concern over the course of his life, too many young people were educated in schools that reflected no respect for their language and culture and was surprised he survived this. dr. demmrott, spent the remaining years of his life teaching at western washington university yism before retiring he served as a principal investigator in partnership with the northwest regional

laboratory and other partnerships working to develop and test assessments in school using native language immersion. not only recognized as an expert in indigenous education here in the united states, he lent his expertise to education policymakers and practitioners, serving as co-chair of the minutesters of northern nation including norway, finland, greenland northern quebec and yukon territory. recognized with regard to native language discussion, he was called to testify in 2000 before the senate indians affair committee in support of the language act. the traditional language, the importance of tribal identity have become higher priorities as we build a contrary culture and context of the school that

supports native students' identity. that bill passed by the u.s. senate by unanimous consent. in addition to awful his professional accomplishments, dr. demert was a good man. he understood his role as mentor and built bridges between academia and policymakers an every day academia. dr. william g -- as we celebrate well lived and contributions to the education of indian children, we must rededicate ourselves to ensure that every child among our first people have an opportunity to learn in an atmosphere of respect where his language, cullure and history are taught and celebrated and where every indian child can achieve his or her highest aspirations. we must ensure that his legacy,

indigenous language education as a means of preserving the language of our first people subpoena kept vibrant and meaningful. he is survived by his wife of 42 years, sis sons, his daughters, his brothers, his sister, grandchildren, great grandchildren and many other relatives. i'm proud to recognize and to thank dr. demert for his long years of service. i extend my condolences and sincere sympathy on his passing to names, friends, his colleagues, and his students. mr. president, i would ask unanimous consent that the attached poem and resolution written in tribute to dr. demert of native people of hawaii be added to the end of my statement in the congressional record. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. murkowski: thank you, mr. president. with that, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, this morning, we received the administration's budget for the next fiscal year.

while there are plenty of issues raised by the fundamentals are clear, this budget is more of the same. more spending, more taxes, and more debt. i think everyone can agree that last year's budget spent too much. with a trillion dollar stimulus bill and massive increases in optional spending, the administration and the democrats in congress spent too much and took us into record territory. but the administration assured us it was an anomaly. that we just needed to get through that year and then we'd get serious about spending in 2010. fiscal hawks on the other side of the aisle told us the same thing every time we raised the issue. but now they've produced yet another massive budget filled with even more spending than last year's record totals. the president proposes to increase spending by anothe another $100 billion despite having already increased the size of the federal government to unprecedented levels. even though the administration

claimed that the current funding was unique due to the economic crisis, they show no signs of slowing spending. and while spending is going up, taxes are going up even faster. taxes on americans will increase by over $400 billion. nearly 20% next year alone with no improvement in sight. does anyone truly believe is this a good time to raise taxes on job creators or, for that matter, on anyone else. this budget provides a startling figure that should stop us all in our tracks. according to the administration's budget, the interest on the federal debt is expected to be nearl nearly $6 trillion over the next decade. $6 trillion over the next decade. we've all heard about interest-only loans. but this is the equivalent of an average of $600 billion in interest every year. that's a truly astonishing

number. in fact, in just four years, the administration predicts the government will have to spend more just to pay interest on the federal debt than it spends on the departments of agriculture, commerce, education, energy, health and human services, h.u.d., interior, justice, labor, state, treasury, and the corps of engineers, the environmental protection agency, g.s.a., nasa, national science foundation, small business administration and the social security administration combined. combined. in just four years the interest that the government will have to pay on our federal debt will be more than it spends on the departments of agriculture, commerce, education, energy, health and human services, h.u.d., interior, justice, labor, state, treasury and the

corps of engineers, the environmental protection agency, g.s.a., nasa, small business administration and the social security administration combined. the senate will have an opportunity to write a new budget this year. our leader on this issue, senator gregg, will have much more to say on the matter as we work to do what so many americans are doing, and that is to get our budget in order. and i'll have much more to say on the individual pieces of this blueprint, including the administration's priorities on our national and homeland security. but now it's crystal clear that this budget is more spending, more taxes, and more debt. more spending, more taxes, and more debt. anyone listening to the american people know that this isn't what they support. it's not what our country needs, and it's not the way to grow good jobs. mr. president, i yield the

floor. the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota.n: m prei rise today to urge my colleagues to support the nomination of patricia smith to be solicitor of labor. ms. smith is a well-qualified, might i say exemplary nominee, and i enthusiastically support her confirmation. most recently, ms. smith has served effectively as new york's commissioner of labor, frequently bringing business leaders, workers' groups and government officials together at the table. she has earned the support of business groups in her state through her willingness to engage in an ongoing working partnership. she has earned the support of labor groups in her state by upholding and enforcing new york's labor and workplace laws. ms. smith has support not only from labor and business but bipartisan support as well.

the entire new york congressional delegation signed a letter endorsing her nomination, and she has worked under both democratic and republican dmingz -- administrations during her long tenure in public service. republicans and democrats alike acknowledge her willingness to engage both sides of the aisle and to do so effectively. most important to her position at the department of labor is her strong track record of protecting workers. she has demonstrated that all workers, regardless of wage, occupation, or gender, deserves the fullest protection of new york's labor laws. as commissioner of labor there, she targeted enforcement toward the industries and geographic areas most susceptible to abuse and managed to increase compliance among employers and raise awareness about recurring workplace problems. for example, ms. smith has led new york's department of labor in shutting down exploitive

sweatshops. last year, her department's investigation turned up an instance where sweatshop operators were requiring employees to fraudulently use two sets of timecards, thereby avoiding paying overtime. workers were often required to work 80 hours a week, often working seven days a week, and then were coached to lie to labor department investigators. these employers who ignore workplace laws cheat taxpayers out of money. they are forced to make up the difference -- the taxpayers are -- when taxes on overtime wages aren't paid. not to mention this treatment of workers is both illegal and immoral. ms. smith worked to fix these problems. based on her exemplary work, ms. smith has won support from

countless civil rights groups, including the national conference on civil rights, the national women's law center, the american association of university women, and the business and professional women's foundation. now, unfortunately, there are some who have been trying to delay ms. smith's confirmation. further delay is detrimental to america's workers. the department of labor has been deprived of a critical member of its leadership team, and we should see that it's filled as soon as possible. the solicitor of labor leads an office of over 600 people who work to enforce 200 of our nation's labor laws. the solicitor also sets long-term planning strategy, participates in shaping legislative policy, and interprets legislative language. these are all essential elements to the full functioning of our

department of labor. delaying her confirmation is a disservice to the american work force. for these reasons, i urge all of my colleagues to support the nomination of patricia smith to be solicitor of labor. thank you, mr. president, and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president stph-p. the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. mr. isakson: mr. president, i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. isakson: is the current business the nomination on

patricia smith. the presiding officer: the smith nomination is before the senate. mr. isakson: i reluctantly rise to oppose moving forward with the nomination of patricia smith. i don't do so easily or happily because i believe the president of the united states has the right to make appointments, and i think within reason those appointments should be confirmed. the question before the senate is this nomination is not whether wage or hour laws should be enforced. they should be. the question is not whether ms. smith has done a good job in new york state because republicans and democrats says that she has. the question is whether the senate will tolerate a nominee blatantly and intentionally deceiving a committee of this body. my guess is the democratic body would not have stood for it under the previous administration. ms. smith has been evasive in response to numerous questions from members of the the committee specifically with regard to a program called wage watch which deputizes private

activist groups to inspect small businesses to look and seek out and find wage and hour law violations. for five years i served as a senior republican on the kphroeuplt workforce -- employment workforce subcommittee. i am a vigilant longtime supporter for fair and fully enforced wage and hour laws. the program in this question, wage watch, is a program that empowered prounion special interests to enforce the myriad of labor laws that cover small employers. this approach is simply inappropriate. it can at worst be entrapment and at best an improper attempt to enforce the law. one can imagine the outcry of the minute men who patrolled on their own on the border to the south had been deputized into the department by the last administration. there would have been an outrage. the program specifically targets

small and medium-sized businesses. in discussing the success of the program, ms. smith bragged that one business was closed as a result of this program, telling the "new york times" that she had -- quote -- "made the determination that it would be better for workers to lose their jobs than to continue working there." ms. smith stated the program would not be used for union organization. our documents obtained by the state labor department and a union newsletter show plans specifically to use the program for union organizing throughout new york. worse, the program is -- the program itself however was ms. smith's refusal to provide the committee with complete information about the program. in april of 2009, i wrote to mrs. smith to ask if she foresaw -- quote -- "the possibility of instituting similar efforts on a national level." on may 12 she replied that she had not considered or advocated expanding it across new york to

other parts of the country or to the federal level or to the state level. however, documents produced by the -- procured by the "help" committee revealed that ms. smith wrote in january of 2009, five months before the letter i just mentioned, that she would like to double the number of organizers involved while laying the foundation to expand the program to various parts of long island and upstate new york. she continued "we're creating a movement here. and the more the merrier." clearly she had both considered and advocated expansion of the program. thus her statement to me was inaccurate. her deceit on this issue forced me to write the president on december 10, 2009, and were ms. smith withdraw her name. i asked the president a new nominee, one that would look out for the interest of the workers and be honest to the congress be nominated. we see a similar program like wage watch, now called we can help, developing in the u.s. department of labor.

in fact, one of the prounion special interest groups ms. smith deputized to implement her new york program, the so-called national empowerment law project, has been chosen by skraeug solis to assist in the enforcement of federal workplace laws. mr. president, on a personal note, i ran a business for 42 years, and it was a small business. i employed golf court superintendent workers. i did a lost construction where we were subject to americans with disabilities act. we were subject to all types of labor laws. i vigorously made sure that whatever the case might be, we worked hard to see to it we obeyed not only the letter of the law but the spirit of the law. i too, in my experience, from time to time found those voluntary organizations and sometimes deputized who tried to entrap me to punish me rather than find the mistake and help

me to correct it. i think the proactive enforcement of labor law should be vigilantly looking for violations and vigilantly pursuing correction, not vigilantly looking for someone that is in the case of ms. smith in the business of new york, you can put out of business and cost the jobs of many employees of that small business. i reluctantly rise today to oppose the nomination of mrs. patricia smith. and i yield back and would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. mrs. murray: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i am very pleased this afternoon to rise in support of president obama's nominee to serve as solicitor of labor, patricia smith. and i am very confident that she is the right person for this critical job and the work that she's going to do to protect our workers is more important now than ever before. mr. president, american workers are facing incredible challenges

today. they are struggling with record unemployment and a devastating economic crisis. they need and they deserve strong leaders in the department of labor who are passionate about public service and committed to fighting for them. the department of labor is charged with the critical mission in our nation's government. their role is to foster and to promote the welfare of america's workers by improving their working conditions, advancing their opportunities for profitable employment, protecting their retirement and their health care benefits. helping employers find workers and strengthening free collective bargaining. mr. president, i believe that during these challenging economic times, it is absolutely critical that the department has the leadership it needs to make those goals a reality. that's why i was very middle --d

that president obama elected a strong candidate for the position. patricia smith has been the commissioner of the new york state department of labor since 2007. she cochair of new york state's economic security subcabinet and she oversees 3,700 employees in 80 offices with an annual budget of $4 billion. now for the previous 20 years, she worked in the labor bureau of the new york attorney general's office and she served on the obama administration's transition team for the department of labor. mr. president, i have received many letters of support for patricia harris, from people who admire her work, from people she has worked with and from workers that she has helped. so i want to take a moment this afternoon to read some excerpts from some of these letters because i believe they really do demonstrate patricia's broad support and why she deserves to be confirmed by the united states

i received a letter of support from the c.e.o. of the plattburg new york chamber of commerce. he knows patricia well and said that she has been an outstanding partner with the new york state labor department and will be an outstanding solicitor. she encourage her earliest confirmation by the senate. that is the c.e.o. of the plattburg new york chamber of commerce. i also heard from the united states women's chamber of commerce. they said after learning of ms. smith's qualifications, her expertise and the laws she has worked to uphold. i can clearly see she is someone who will work with conviction to enforce the laws of the united states of america. i am impressed with her out of the box thinking and creating programs that will keep jobs. we especially need these attributes in this time of economic challenge. close quote.

i received a letter from a group of professors and scholars of labor an employment law and labor relations from 50 scholars from respected institutions across the country such as georgetown university law center, columbia law, yale law school and cornell university school of industrial and labor relations. they too urged speedy confirmation saying that tricia has -- quote -- "consistently demonstrated the highest integrity an commitment to ethical standards. he is experienced, intelligent, thoughtful, and energetic. we believe this is exactly what the u.s. department of labor needs in a solicitor. once confirmed, she will be among the best solicitors of labor the department has known." and, mr. president, her support transcends party lines. former new york attorney general, republican, had this to

say about his fommer employee, patricia smith has proven herself as one of the foremost experts in labor law, which is why president obama saw fit to nominate her. she was an asset to the new york attorney general's office and i'm confident she will be an asset don't of labor." so, mr. president, i'm here as the chair of the subcommittee on employment and work place safety. know the challenges america's workers are facing right now that's why they deserve a solicitor of labor like tricia smith who will fight every day to protect them. if she's confirmed as the department's top legal counsel, she will have the profound responsibility of enforcing more than 180 federal laws and managing more than 450 attorneys nationwide. she will be responsible for defending the department and litigation as well as providing legal advice and guidance on nearly every policy, legislative, regulatory, and

enforcement initiative of the department. most importantly, she will be responsible for defending the rights of workers when they're not able to speak for themselves. mr. president, trish hayes a big job ahead of her. but she need to act now to allow her to get started. we owe it to our country's workers to have a confirmed solicitor of labor in place. now i've had a number of conversations with tricia and i want my colleagues to know i am confident she is highly qualified and very eager to get to work. i will be voting with confidence to confirm patricia smith, and i urge my colleagues to do the same. thank you, mr. president, i yield the floor.

mr. enzi: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. enzi: thank you, mr. president. i rise in opposition to the mom of patricia smith to serve as the solicitor of the labor department. and i've got to say this is my 14th year in the united states senate, and this is the first time i've taken the lead on -- in opposition to a nomination that has come through with my committee. so i take this very seriously. when the founding fathers drafted our constitution, they were very concerned about concentrating too much power in any branch of the government. that's why they carefully crafted the system of checks and balances to make sure that each has the method of checking the work and operations of the other. here in the senate one of our great checks is our duty to provide our advice and consent to the executive branch. it is a responsibility i take seriously that compels us to

ensure that the nominees who are brought before us are qualified and presented their credentials to us completely, thoroughly and honestly. each nominee must pass the vetting process to ensure that he or she possesses the strength of character are and to ensure that the public can trust in his or her ability to carry out the duties for the office which they have been nominated. my senate colleagues know i rarely oppose presidential nominees. i believe the president is ultimately responsible for the conduct of his administration and answerable to the nation's voters, so he has the right to select the members of his team up to a point. that's where the advice and consent comes in. now, before i elaborate on her nomination, i do want to recognize her accomplishments as the commissioner of labor in new york and the commitment she's shown to serving the people of new york, her prior service would ordinarily have earned her our support and make her a

bipartisan choice to lead one of our most important offices in the labor department. unfortunately, there are other contributions which must be taken into account in reviewing her credentials for this position which i believe disqualify her for this position. i've released ranking member's report detailing my concerns with mrs. smith's nominations an post it on the "help" committee's website. today i'll explain the factual inconsistencies between what mrs. smith said before "help" committee for the record compared to what is recorded in official documents i received from the state of new york. the solicitor of labor is an important role. he or she is the chief legal officer of the u.s. department of labor. the third ranking official in that department. general counsel to the secretary and is asked to manage one of the largest legal offices in the federal government with more than 400 attorneys serving on the solicitor's team.

unlike most legal offices and cabinet agencies, the solicitor has litigating authority from the department of justice and exercises that authority on behalf of the department of labor. the solicitor is also responsible for ensuring that all stakeholders, including small business, are treated fairly. in the course of conducting a thorough review of mrs. smith's background and the qualification, the committee discovered a program in new york state called wage and hour watch that she announced in january of 2009. the program was established to recruit and train union organizers and public interest groups to leaflet groups and to interview employees in an effort to find violations of the law that could be used to bring state actions against businesses. as part of the program, ms. smith committed to providing the groups with the direct pipeline to senior state

enforcement personnel to report any violation found. participants were given official cards by the state of new york identifying them and their group as being part of the program. and here's a copy of one of the cards and you'll find down there across from the date that this is for a two-year period starting on february 7, 2009. and you get one of these cards after one day of training. now, according to the state department of new york -- state of new york department of labor's press release on january 26, 2009, wage and hour is modeled in part after neighborhood watch. the program that will help promote labor law compliance with formal partnerships with the new york state labor department and community groups and provide ordinary people with formal and systematic role in

fight against wage theft. that sounds good. except neighborhood watch was setup so that people would notify law enforcement authorities of things they thought were strange and should be looked at. they didn't have permission to go into people's homes and investigate unannounced. now, the release also identifies the six groups, two labor unions and four community groups chosen by mrs. smith by the program and explains they have been active in labor issues and referred cases to her agency. upon the conclusion of my remarks, i'll ask unanimous consent that all documents referenced be made part of the record. in addition to her may 7th confirmation hearing, ms. smith participated in a committee staff interview and answered questions for the record. in her responses ms. smith

requested that the committee seek relevant documents in new york which i did receive from the freedom of information request. my staff reviewed the several thousand of pages of documents eventually produced by new york and we sent ms. smith some additional dwheas she answered in late july an former chairman kennedy also sent questions that she answered in december. now, my concerns with her nomination relate primarily to four years where ms. smith provided at best incomplete and factually inaccurate system to the "help" committee both during her may confirming hearing as well as in the followup questions. the first inconsistency i want to highlight is what ms. smith's plans to expand this program. in the may 7th hearing, ms. smith was asked by senator burr about her plans to expand wage and hour watch. she explained that there were no such plans. his question was: you have had

any discussions that would extend wage watch in any fashion or federal level. ms. smith said, no, we have not had any discussions of that. i have not had any discussions with the department of labor in new york about whether we would extend it across new york state. again, it is a pilot program which we just did in january. we specifically limited it to a small number of groups, and weep limited it to a small geographic area, we limited to basically new york city and long island to assess what the problems would be. on may 13, 2009, ms. smith made a similar state in writing in response to three separate questions from committee members including me. she said, this initiative was designed as a local model in limited geographic area in a state for a particular issue under a particular stach iewvment it was not designed for other laws to be used or on the federal level until the pilot's

completed as she said up here, i would not advocate to expand it to other areas of the new york or other places in the country or the federal or state laws p that's what she said. the problem here is that many documents, including press releases, ms. smith's talking points for her own speeches an e-mails she was copied on showed that there were plans in place to expand the program in virtually every instance. many with june 2009 deadlines. documents show that in april 2009, the state was maintaining lists of possible new entrance into the program. and i have a copy up here of -- of groups that were being solicited with the wage watch expansion and that's in april of 2009. that's before she testified. the state even sent out applications to a number of groups to join wage and hour watch during may when ms. smith had just testified to the "help" committee there were no plans to expand the program.

this is the plans to expand the program. dear friend, we are preparing to expand wage and hour watch beyond the original groups, the pilot program. we're writing to you because you've expressed interest in becoming or becoming a wage and hour watch group as a number of other organizations and individuals. and later down it says in order to allow us to plan for the next stage of the program, please return the application form with the reference letter by monday, june 15th. the record shows that ms. smith's program will expand the program of wage and hour watch into investigating occupational, safety, and health matters from day one. now, that isn't the original intent. the original intent was a wage and watch group. but we can show where it was intended to investigate occupational, safety, and health matters. and, of course, originally it was not sold just as enforcement

of wage. it was sold as an educational program. but it changed to enforcement, infiltration, and spying. and t -- and then added investigating occupational safety and health matters. on january 15, 2009, an email to ms. smith to the dozens of staff announcing the program, she states -- "after six months once we have had the chance to get the program rolling, we would like to expand other groups, particularly upstate, including community-based student groups, churches, other faith-based organizations and labor unions. this is an exciting new initiative and one which we could potentially replicate elsewhere in the country." in the press release that was issued to announce the program, ms. smith's agency states after a six-month pilot period, the labor department will begin seeking additional groups who wish to participate statewide. the release also directs the public to contact her agency by telephone or through a dedicated

email address to establish additional new york wage and hour watch groups. "the new york times" noted the plans for expansion in an article. they said after the first experiment in new york city on long island, the labor department will seek additional groups for the program. the groups must be nongovernmental and nonprofit and can include religious organizations, student groups, labor unions, business soarkz, and neighborhood groups. here's a sampling of other program expansion activities before ms. smith testified in may, 2009. a december 1, 2008, email, ms. smith listed potential expansion groups in upstate new york. a february 2, 2009, email from ms. smith's deputy to two individuals explained how to set up a wage an hour watch group. on february 18, 2009, email from ms. smith's deputy to an outside group noted plans to expand the program. the february 27, 2009, email

from ms. smith's deputy memorialized a meeting with the six pilot groups and included a paragraph on training in june in both new york city and upstate for purposes of expansion. an april 9, 2009, email exchange among ms. smith's subordinates listed several groups for expansion. after ms. smith testified and answered written questions made denying expansion plans, her department continued to promote expansion and looked to recruit new members. for example, on may 15, 2009, email to over 20 outside individuals requested application forms be submitted by june 15. a june 1, 2009, email to outside parties announced preparations to expand wage an hour watch. a third 3, 2009, email from an outside public interest group offered over 40 individuals the opportunity to join wage an hour watch. the june 9, 2009, former application was submitted to

ms. smith's department by the laborers international union of north america's organizing fund to conduct wage watch activities in the construction industry. also contrary to ms. smith's responses to written questions that the program was only about wage an hour laws, her subordinates had expanded the program to occupational safety and health enforcement. it says -- "thanks for your offer to insert something about safety and health enforcement in the training d.o.l. is conducting on saturday. unfortunately, given the late notice and the training schedules and grant deadlines, we won't be able to put it together by saturday. however, what we would like to do is for you to announce that we will contact each of the participating groups and offer their organization a training on what safety and health issues they should be looking for while conducting the oversight for wage and hour issues. if that works for you, it would be great for us."

now, it wasn't supposed to be oversight. it was supposed to be education so that people would know what they were supposed to get and be able to take the kind of actions that individuals are supposed to be able to take, but you can see that it's changed dramatically. an email from the new york committee on occupational safety and health, the safety and health public interest group closely tied to organized labor sent to ms. smith's deputy on february 6, 2009, notes said -- "we will contact each of the participating groups and their organization training on what safety and health issues they should be looking for while conducting the oversight of wage and hour issues." in response, ms. smith's deputy solicits a list of things to train wage and hour watchers to look for, and they respond as well as suggesting that the groups take pictures of working conditions they believe unsafe. it sounds like an investigation. ms. smith's own public pronouncements contradict her testimony to the united states

senate. a may 19, 2009, national public radio article quoting ms. smith and her deputy states -- "new york's wage watch is just a few months old and officials say it's too soon to measure success, but the pilot program is expected to expand across the state this summer. a set of talking points for ms. smith to deliver to an upstate coalition group sometime after january, 2009, but before she testified at her confirmation hearing states that the program will be expanding and solicits volunteers." so they are currently expanding it in six district labor unions and advocacy organizations in new york city and plan to roll it out across the state in the coming months and years. we will be expanding this program, and when it does come upstate, we'll need theelp of many of you to roll it out.

there also does not appear to be any document that supports ms. smith's statement that there were no plans for expansion. indeed, i'm told the public documents actually contain more than 50 specific references to expanding the wage and hour watch program. all of these red tabs, all of these red tabs are references to expanding the program. all of the red tabs talk about expanding the program. it doesn't look incidental. concerns about the factual inconsistencies in ms. smith's testimony are not solely held by the minority. former chairman kennedy's staff submitted questions about the expansion of the program. ms. smith responded that at the time of the confirmation, she

had had no discussions about a potential expansion with anyone other than generally indicating that if it were proved successful, my goal would be to expand it to other areas of new york. despite all of this evidence, ms. smith's defenders have claimed that she misspoke and that she delegated a small program to a deputy. however, the documents show ms. smith herself promoting expansion and refuting members in her own speeches and media interactions. in addition, i question ms. smith's ability to lead the solicitor's office and her subordinates including her deputy were allowed to act outside of their authority as suggested by earlier explanations. it's difficult to see how it would be appropriate to blame a great breakdown between ms. smith and her deputy for inaccuracies regarding program expansion plans. ms. smith worked with her deputy for more than five years. when former governor spitzer

appointed ms. smith to the new york labor department, news articles noted that she brought her deputy and protege with her. i find the explanation even more surprising because of ms. smith's pedigree. her prior boss, former attorney general and governor eliot spitzer, was known for his aggressive prosecution of corporate officials, including some who were accused of not overseeing their subordinates properly. i find it unlikely that the state of new york would accept ignorance as an excuse if an executive on wall street tried to use it as a defense. why should we accept a similar excuse now? mr. enzi: a little more information about her background and the spitzer education program and her participation there. some have also suggested that this program was reasonably

beneath ms. smith's notice. noting that her agency has an an $11 billion budget with almost 4,000 staff. if confirmed, ms. smith would be in charge of a legal compliance for a department whose budget projects spending ten times what she oversaw in new york. $104.5 billion in 2010. leaving aside the extensive documentation showing she was heavily involved in this program, i asked my colleagues why would we consider expanding her responsibility 10-fold if she was unable to oversee her subordinates effectively in new york? former president harry truman had a sign on his desk that read "the buck stops here" to show the responsibility for the conduct of subordinates ultimately rested with him. miss smith ought -- ms. smith ought to own up to the responsibility that ultimately rests with her. with regard to the second inconsistency, ms. smith stated that the program was developed

internally and only then did new york department of labor approach or recruit outside groups. however, emails obtained by the committee directly contradict this statement, instead showing much of the driving force and even legal research for a program model came from organized labor and its allies. here are a couple of examples. an april 16, 2008, email from mr. jeff eickler, for the retail wholesale and department store union, to ms. smith's deputy regarding an enforcers' program with four stages of attached research explaining potential models for their concept of wage and hour enforcers. and an august 18, 2000, email which ms. smith's deputy responds to mr. eickler's idea that the state consider allowing participants to infiltrate businesses that are part of the program.

most disturbing to me, however, about this inconsistency is the fact that ms. smith admitted in her response to a question that she apparently saw the emails contradicting her testimony in july but did not correct the problem until directly asked in september about this issue by majority staff. that's two months later. a third inconsistency is that ms. smith also characterized wage and hour watch as an educational program in testimony. however, the record shows it was designed and intended to be an enforcement from the very beginning, with the union organizers and community organizer participants serving as amateur investigators and informants. the very first documents discussing the program describe potential participants as community enforcers. i refer to the previously introduced april, 2008, email from union official mr. eickler describing this as an enforcers'

program. a november 28, 2008, email from one of ms. smith's subordinates, disseminating draft training material, stating the one-day session of training will not turn the enforcers into labor law experts but will assist them in identifying labor law violations and make the referral of greater value. the role of community enforcer is where we have to come up with original material. notably, ms. smith is personally copied on that email. ms. smith's own words, her subordinates, internal and public statements and deliberations, the media and the groups involved in the program, all emphasized and portrayed wage and hour watch as an enforcement from its very beginning. it was only when she was questioned by "help" committee members about the program that ms. smith chose to portray the program substance as educational in nature. quite a difference. finally, ms. smith stated the

two unions who were selected for the pilot program, united food and commercial workers local 1500 and rwdsu were told not to use the program for organizing. however, the agreement created by ms. smith and entered with the unions' special interest groups specifically allows the pilot groups to make use of information gathered for community organizing, which ms. smith also admitted in response to a written question. the committee has a copy of the united food commercial workers, ufcw, local 1500 work plan sent to ms. smith's deputy which also directly contradicts ms. smith. the plan states that the union intended to use wage and hour in , quote -- "all of our organizing campaigns." end quote, including those outside the designated wage and

hour watch ear. ufcw local 1500 also published plans to target nonunion workplaces as part of the program in its publicly available union newsletter. it's difficult for me to believe that ms. smith and her department didn't know that union organizing was intended by these joining the pilot program. all the participants and signatories from two labor unions involved appear to be employed as full-time organizers. other individual groups purely responsible for union organizing also applied to join when the program was expanded. it's clear that ms. smith's testimony and responses to follow-up questions are at