so i think there could be a number things that get knocked out. and i think it's going to be, it's going to be difficult to figure out which changes can be made in the reconciliation process, and i think actually, you know, as bob knows better than anyone, i'm not of those things will not be decided for really a little while now until the language is actually presented. >> my friend e-mailed me a bloomberg story this board that trotted out an old, activity, fully that i think the quote was the republicans are the opposition but the senate is the enemy. and i think it would just a matter of speaker pelosi doing whatever she could to get 216,000 she could do it, right? house majorities can get there. they considered by those votes eventually. that is embedded in this

intense, bicameral dispute and i think we lose sight of the impact of icann was on stalemate that it arises to put in a spirited unified party control. when we least expect it. and that is what i think has the potential here for the railing and throwing health care off the rails. >> well, i will go back to the lovely title that i carry, parliamentarian emeritus which a friend of mine told me emeritus comes from the latin meaning out and out to be. [laughter] >> i'm very glad i am out of the parliamentarian's chair, because what i will be watching over the next few weeks is the role that alan frumin, the par the carrying of the senate will be playing. it is enormously important role. i have every confidence he will play it well and i am really glad i am not doing it. >> well, i would use a prerogative that i have as moderator and chair of this meeting to bring the debate to a

close, a power that the senate chair does not have in many cases as we have learned today. as we have learned today, so thank you all for coming today. thank the panel is, and we will look forward to seeing how this all plays out over the next few weeks. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> and today starting at 2 p.m. eastern th the u.s. house will consider six bills

>> today the state department briefing is scheduled at 1 p.m. eastern, and we will have live coverage when it starts here on c-span2. and senate banking committee chairman chris dodd told a news conference to outline his proposal for a financial regulation overhaul to apply coverage of that at 2 p.m. on c-span3. now the proposed merger of nbc universal and comcast reported to be worth $30 billion. this is the first portion of a senate hearing on the plan with the testimony from fcc chairman julius genachowski. and a justice department antitrust official. it's about an hour and 10 minutes.

>> this hearing will come to order and we welcome all. i notice there are a few people in the room. or room as i should say. we are here today to discuss consumers. they are the good guys, right? the people we try to protect. and competition and consolidation in the video and broadband markets. these are services that are vital to our democracy and faster what kind of content do they get, how much i have to pay for it, can they get it in all cases. they shape the way we communicate. they shape the way we share news and information. they shape the way we entertain ourselves, or dumb down our cells, which ever you look at it. and the way we spend our free time. when consolidation occurs in these markets, we need to pay

attention, therefore, we need to pay attention. when companies as well to include both content and distribution, we need to pay attention. because it's finally important that when we have mergers in these markets, consumers cannot be left with lesser programmi r. so today we're going to talk about these issues. this hearing as an opportunity of a series discussion about consumers, how consolidation affects their lives directly and what we can do to make sure that they are absolutely protected with the can our first ever with authorities from the federal communications commission and the department of justice, to top of the line people in our country, much less the federal government. we know they take their jobs seriously. so we respect that while comcast in the sea merger as a concept is pending, they are limited to what they can discuss, and

that's only the process, rather than the substance of the merger. otherwise i'm not alone, they would be doing something bad. but we look to frame our discussion, which we will continue with the private sector witnesses on our second panel. and i need to apologize because we are doing the faa bill on the floor, and byron dorgan who's a committee member is managing it for an hour. and i have to go down at 11:00. so i apologize for the. so i thank you all very much, and we shall get started. senator hutchison is not here, so i will call upon senator inouye. >> i thank you very much. there's no question that a proposed merger between comcast, the nation's largest video programming distributor which also happens to be the nation's largest residential broadband provider, and nbc universal, the

fourth largest intermedia entertainment company deserves are screwed in the, vigorous scrutiny. however, size alone should not be the basis for approving or disapproving mergers. if that is the standard, then many previously approved mergers should have been denied. the key fact is how the merger will impact the quality and affordability of services available to consumers. and whether the merger will be in the public interest. today's hearing will hopefully provide the members of this committee with a better understanding of the impacts of this proposal based upon the facts. further, the merits of the proposed joint venture should not be judged based on extraneous issues such as personality or bodies.

i've known mr. brian roberts and his father, ralph roberts, the founder of comcast, for many years. and both of them in our of unquestionable integrity, and under their leadership and guidance, i have no doubt that comcast will live up to the commitment they have made as part of the proposed joint venture with nbc universal. the question before us is whether, even with the commitments that have been made, this is a good deal for consumers. there have been significant changes in the communications in 20 and entertainment marketplace. it is in this context that the proposed merger must be evaluated with the public interest at heart. the changing marketplace should also serve as a basis for reviewing policies that need

updating due to developmedevelopments. for example, as one of the authors of the 1992 statute that established retransmission consent, i believe the time is ripe for the federal communications commission to exercise its oversight responsibilities on matters of this nature that impact consumers and the general well being of the nation. while i believe the fcc has the necessary authority to resolve retransmit and consent disputes, i would be interested to hear from the chairman whether there are any additional tools that would be helpful in the sec's oversight efforts. so i look forward to working with my colleagues on the committee and the fcc on these important issues, and i thank you very much, mr. chairman. and i, too, we'll have to leave early. and if i have a couple of questions for the fcc if you will submit them.

>> of course. >> thank you. >> mr. chairman? >> the honorable kay bailey hutchison from the great state of texas. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. welcome to our distinguished fcc panel. and i am pleased that we are holding this hearing. we are going to have to grapple with the convergence between additional distinct businesses like telecommunications and video programs distribution. we want to look at this type of consolidations impact on consumers and competitors, but we also want to make sure that policy determinations about this deal do not impact innovation and investment in this rapidly moving area. in my judgment, the fcc review of this transaction should be limited to the transfer of the

relevant licenses between the parties and whether that is consistent with the public interest. merger reviews at the commission have not always stayed as narrow as i believe they should. frequently, parties have used more to review proceedings as a proxy policymaking forum to pursue conditions that reach well beyond the merger itself. in a number of cases, previous fcc's have and post some of these conditions. while i hope that the current commission will probably conduct its public interest analysis, i also hope they avoid imposing conditions that will require a significant ongoing involvement of the government in monitoring and policing the market. in that context, mr. chairman, i would like to note that we have seen some recent disputes between programmers, broadcasters, and cable providers about the terms for an retransmission of signals on cable systems, mainly in the

sports arena, and that has led some to do just that we need more government involvement in these marketplace negotiations, such as through fcc managed arbitration. again, i think congress and the regulators need to tread very carefully and make sure that the policies we discuss take account of the evolving nature of the marketplace. the competition between providers and the growing number of choices consumers have to access content. what we do not want to do is intervene in private market negotiations in a way that describes what's going on in the marketplace, or leads to advantages for one stakeholder or technology. with respect to the comcast in b.c. transaction, mr. chairman, i do have a number of questions, particularly how a combined entity would deal with independently owned broadcast stations. and a number of cases, non-nbc owned stations will have to

negotiate the terms for retransmission other broadcasting, with the very same company that provides its programming. how comcast will deal with those stations from a transparency perspective is important for us to understand how this transaction could impact one segment of the industry. taxes has 14 telemundo stations, three of which comcast will own and operate. we also have 21 nbc stations, one of which will be owned and operated by comcast. consumers in texas want to know how programming and availability of all these stations will be impacted. but they particularly want to know whether comcast will continue to invest in and develop programming for the stations. and that nbc and telemundo will remain available as free over the air stations. now, i understand that the chairman of comcast has made commitments in this area, which i think are very positive.

remaining free over the air stations is an essential component of this transaction, in my opinion. transparency will be important in this area, but it will also be critical to assessing how comcast will deal with competitors who want access to nbc programming, as well as affiliated programming developed by comcast such as its sports programming. i have heard from a number of smaller cable systems representing primarily rural areas of the my state. although bundling or tying arrangements are prohibitive. there are concerns that the combined company may wish to pricing arrangements to strongly encourage the smaller citizens to accept multiple streams of programming. i will be interested in hearing mr. roberts thoughts of how comcast will address those concerns. i'm also interested to hear how he and other witnesses view the 16 voluntary commitments that comcast has made, some of which i have heard personally, and

whether those conditions adequately ensure transparency and availability of content to consumers and competitors. so, mr. chairman, thank you for holding this hearing. thank you for appearing. i think it's important that we look at all of this, and i just hope that we don't overdo it, but that we do just the right amount of regulatory and congressional action. thank you very much. >> thank you, senator hutchison. senator hutchison, like myself, has to go do the faa thing, but that's not for a while. senator dorgan will be taking my place for a while. and he's also going to chair the second panel, which i won't be able to because i will be on the floor. and so you can give your statement that or you can give it now. >> mr. chairman, i will go to the floor when we start the faa reauthorization discussion over there, and then i'll come back

and be happy to cheer for the second topic i will be glad to make a statement at that point in time if you want to go to the witnesses now. >> as i said we really have two of the most important people in government, and two of the smartest people in government and anywhere, and i really mean that. this is a perfect first panel, and julius genachowski, of course, is head of the little agency called the federal communications commission. and christine varney does antitrust, at a very high level for the department of justice. so, mr. genachowski, we turn to you, sir. >> thank you, mr. chairman and members of the committee. thank you for the opportunity to address the role of the fcc in reviewing proposed mergers and indications industry, including the contemplated transaction

involving comcast and nbc. the commission approaches these matters mindful that maintain a vibrant, innovative, consumer friendly, and competitive communications sector is essential for our economy, our society, and our democracy. communicacommunications policy affects the lives of all americans and is becoming ever more important. communications represents a major sect of our our economy and plays a vital role in addressing many of the challenges our nation faces. congress has set the basic framework for our review of mergers and transactions, sections 214 and 310 of the communications act required that before fcc licenses or authorizations may be treasured from one folder to another, the chairman genachowski must find affirmatively that the transfer is in the public interest that this is a statutory required to protect and promote the interests of all americans. in exercising our statutory responsibility in the context of repeating transactions, the commission is focused on several important and interrelated principles. these include protecting and

advancing the interests of the consumers, as well as those of children and families, ensuring effective competition, promoting innovation and encouraging investment and a broad and rapid deployment to broadband and other advanced services throughout the united states. specifically with respect to television programming the commission's goals include a vibrant and healthy marketplace, guided by the well-settled communications act that is the competition, diversity, localism, and a deep respect for the first amendment. in the review of any particular transaction, some of these considerations may be more centrally at issue than others. additional factors such as spectrum, universal service, or foreign ownership and national city may also be important in specific cases to allow for the requires that the commission analyzed these issues through an open process. the administered procedures act provides for a record based agency review, with a full opportunity for all interested persons to file their facts and arguments, and ultimately a decision supported by the

evidence. in my written comments i describe in more detail the commission process, including our coordination with our colleagues at the department of justice. the commission's review of communications transaction fills a unique role that complements the important role played by the department of justice. of course, the fcc's view of transactions must be thorough, efficient, timely, and transparent. it must have the appearance as well as the reality of objectivity, fairness and the lives and the best available data and analysis. and pass some have expressed some concerns about fcc reviews of transactions. i'm committed to working with my fellow commissioners to ensure that the agency's review meets the highest standards of openness, transparency, rigor, and fairness that it minimizes cost and delay was only protecting the public interest. in general, the fcc begins its transaction review process once a complete and transfer from the parties. at that point we as a public comment. and the comcast in b.c. present

the compass from an initial application in late january. and at the request of the party, the commission away the fight of a supplemental economic report which we received last friday. the commission now will soon issue a notice that begins the public comment period. to promote a thorough and efficient process, a dedicated team at the fcc has begun work on staff level review of the proposed transaction. reflecting the scope of the transaction commit 15 numbers come from another of the agencies bureaus and offices and bring to bear years of expertise. i have directed team to learn from experience. to examine pass him of transactions and see what the benefit of hindsight what the fcc did right and where we can do better. we have begun the process of consultation and cooperation with our colleagues at the justice department. ajit indicated, mr. chairman, the decision-making prevent me from commenting on anyway on the merits of pending transaction, including the comcast-nbc transaction.

our decision on merger are made only after we compile and review a full record. the fcc will of course thoroughly consider all the important issues that have been raised or will be raised in the context of the transaction. as the committee is aware, the conditions and media landscape is evolving that new media, and its mutations technology are an increasing important part of the landscape, even as most of americans continue to rely on traditional forms of media and communications. the landscape today is very different from five and 10 years ago, and will be very different fight than 10 years from now. while the changing landscape must of course inform the fcc's decision-making, certain core buyers remain constant. robust and healthy competition is essential to producing consumer benefits. better services and lower prices, and an important part of our responsibly is to ensure that the condition key mutations transaction to not enable firms to frustrate innovations or raise prices openly paid by consumers. we must ensure that american consumers enjoy all the benefits of competition and choice and a vibrant and diverse gaming occasions in the landscape that

upholds by the first amendment values. finally, investment, innovation and employment our key objectives as is the rapid and widespread employment of communication services. these and other traditional goals and values will inform our review of transaction. thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today and, of course, i would be happy to address any questions. >> thank you, sir. ms. varney? >> good morning, mr. chairman and members of the committee. i'm delighted to be here today to talk with you and chairman genachowski about how the justice department analyzes mergers. our nation's antitrust laws by a vitally important role in ensuring u.s. markets remained vibrant and competitive. marketplace competition benefits american businesses and consumers. by ensuring that the market provides price competition and product innovations that increase our standard of living that i take serious leak the need for vigorous review of transactions and judicious enforcement of antitrust laws. over the course of many years

and many investigations, the antitrust division has he built significant expertise in both the telecommunications and media industries. both industries have seen dramatic technological innovation that has brought incredible benefits to our society. we look forward to bringing our expertise to the review of the proposed transaction between comcast and nbc. we also look for to working closely with the federal communications commissions during both our agencies review of the transaction. although the justice department and the fcc have different missions, ours is to protect competition while the transports it to promote the public interest. we share similar concerns and intend to collaborate effectively. i am precluded as is the chairman from discussing the specifics of the proposed comcast-nbc transaction because of the matter is currently under investigation, and are authorizing statutes prohibit discussion of pending matters. i hope, however, that if you of

some of the antitrust division's work over the past year will provide useful insight to you, regarding our approach to antitrust enforcement. as the assistant attorney general for antitrust i have sought to take a measured and responsible approach to enforcement using well-established antitrust principles, a eight evaluating each matter carefully, thoroughly and in light of the particular facts of the transaction. some matters involving large significant companies have preceded unchallenged because they were unlikely to result in anti-competitive harm. as senator inouye pointed out, size cannot be the determinant factor in antitrust i antitrustf i wished that for instance, the justice department did not challenge either the combination of oracle and sun or the collaboration between microsoft and yahoo. some proposed mergers have been approved under conditions designed to protect competition. for instance, a combination of

ticketmaster and live nation as well as that of being this and rio tinto present only after we outgained consent decrees resolving our competitive concerns that in ticketmaster, for instance, we required that the center of ticketing assets, licensing of ticketing software, and prohibited retaliation and anti-competitive bundling. we have also been ready to litigate when we need to. for instance, we are currently challenging a transaction involving deed in this, the nation's largest dairy processor. because we believe the transaction harms competition and will invite no crisis. additionally, just this week the parties to a proposed transaction involving the two largest health insurers in lansing, michigan, announced they were abandoning their merger after being informed by me that we intended to sue to stop their transaction, because it would have harmed competition

for health insurance. the justice department also uses its expertise to advocate on behalf of competition and consumers. for instance, we recently provided the sec with a detailed market analysis of broadband competition as part of the commission's ongoing preparation of a national broadband plan. we provide similar analyses to other agencies and policy makers, sharing our industry expertise and understanding of market dynamics and transportation, agriculture, finance and many other sectors. in my prepared statement, i described in some detail the procedural framework that governs the justice department's review of the transactions such as comcast and nbc. one point in the discussion is worth emphasizing is the justice department's review is confidential. customers and industry participants with views about the transaction must know that the law places significant, meaningful restrictions on our

ability to disseminate information provided to us during our merger investigations. however, with appropriate waivers from the parties, we may share confidential information with the commission. in the course of our review of the proposed comcast-nbc merger, we will also use our analytical skills and tools to determine the competitive effects of the transaction. we will work closely with the federal communications commission to ensure consistency in the governance review of the transaction to protect competition and promote consumer welfare in a vibrant telecommunications and media market. mr. chairman, this concludes my remarks and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you very much, and i will start with questioning. you have both gone to great lengths to explain your separate roles, that where you can, with waivers, talk to each other. and i want to sort of make that

clear, because the fcc assesses the court public interest standard in the communications act. and the d.o.j. considers mergers under the clayton act, which is a different matter. they're looking for substantially less competition or unattended a 10, tendency to create monopoly. and franco, i'm thinking back after 9/11, the first bill that the congress passed was a like the cia and the fbi to talk to each other. and it was one of -- it was embarrassing that we had to do that because it was embarrassing that they couldn't talk to each other. and just all of a sudden everything changed. . .

>> we seek the parties waiver to provide the pert than information to another reviewing agency. and generally parties provide that waiver because they are entrusted within a government review. in the confidentiality, we are

able to work fairly collaboratively with our sister agencies throughout the government. i think we have a mechanism in the process place that works. i will let you know when if the process doesn't work. on the substantive side, i think competitive is a very important input into his broader analysis. although they have great competitive of analysis on the fcc, we have a long history and i think we complement the piece of their review. our is more focused on the narrower competitive question. >> i think i agree with that. we have just started to collaborative together, largely as a result, and we've committed to the process and has benefited for everyone involved. our agencies have staff with

complimentary expertise. they are speaking with each other, sharing data and information where it's appropriate, testing analysis on each other, and coordinating in a way that increases the chances for the better decision for the public and the cost for duplicates isn't necessary. there's opportunity for improved decision making and more effective decision making by effective collaboration. that's something we are both committed to. >> okay. obviously video content is evolving, more access than in places never before. my wife is in a different kind of television. viewers can go, they can watch tv were or internet screen. now how do you analysis take into account, both of you, the

evolving nature of video markets and does the internet video really compete today with traditional cable programming? >> well, sure. let me fill that first. the first thing that i note, the cable act of 1992 and telecom act of 1996, there's been a commitment on the part of congress rain the fcc to promote competition in the area as the best strategy to protect and empower consumers and to be very serious about it. in fact, in the video marketplace, there have been many changes since the early '90s. a lot of good news, still some issues of concern. we have a satellite industry, a competitor that didn't exist before, telecos providing multichannels in some markets, hopefully that didn't exist before. hopefully increase in competition.

there's also issues of concern. we hear from consumers about their rates and considering whatever the competition, it's not restraining rates. it's something we have to take seriously. we hear from consumers and operators in rural areas saying that the competitive dynamics in smaller markets are very different, and the fcc's policy should take those into account. in fact, over time, both congress and the fcc have taken into the account the differences in rural areas. now, with respect to the internet an evolving story in the early chapters of it, a lot of hope that it leads to more competition, more innovation, more consumers benefit, lower prices for consumers. but the story continues to play out. there are issues of concern, i don't want to touch on items that will come up directly in the comcast, nbc transaction, but there are issues that we

certainly need to pay attention with respect to competition and the overall broadband marketplace and with respect to developments on the internet itself. if i could say one more word, the enduring values to me remain what they were. promoting effective competition, empowering consumers, ensuring there's innovation, and even as the technologies and the landscapes change, our focus will be on making sure those values, those goals are achieved. >> thank you, sir. ms. varney, my time is out. i apologize for that. and i call upon senator hutchinson. >> in my previous life, i was general council of a bank holding company. and i found that sometimes the regulators that had to approve mergers and acquisitions had no sense of timing and a contract

would expire and then be renegotiated at detriment to one party or the other. so i would ask you since this is going on two tracks, are you talking about timing and process, is it going to be going in a -- together at the same time that you would be having your public comment period at the fcc and that you would be doing your due diligence, is this an issue or factor in the way you are going to proceed or were you looking at one and then the other which i think could really make a difference in just the real world of contracts and also business. i'm sure when there's limbo that there probably is also a limbo in investment and a investment in decisions that should be made

in the best interest of both companies. i would just ask you what you are looking at. >> yeah, i think -- first of all, we've with already started and our staffs have started talking about how to ensure there's a process that takes place that is as efficient as possible while tackling the important issues that any transaction raises. in some cases, we found this is true of both of our agencies, sometimes the delays and the process are due to understandable issues that the parties have in pulling together the information that's required. i mention that in our case, where just now able to put out our public notice, really beginning the process. because for completely understandable reasons, it took some parties some time to get the information they needed. i would have how we can best most efficiently run these processes in a way that delivers

on our important responsibility as viewing agency but recognize that delay doesn't do anyone any good and we want to move as quickly as we can. >> they are parallel proceedings. one doesn't go first, they go together at the same time. we are working hard to work together and our staff is investigating innovative way to share documents in the manner consistent with the law and all of the requirements that would be exby dish and would benefit the review and parties and everyone. >> thank you, in my final minute i would like to ask you if you are of the opinion that i stated in my opening statement that, and everything that you said so far would indicate that, but basically you stick to your congressional responsibilities as opposed to being creative and putting new issues in that maybe you're not in your per view, how

do you feel about that? >> is it i -- >> especially the fcc, which has been a little more creative. >> yeah. [laughter] >> the public interest standard is obviously broad. i mentioned in my opening statement a series of important values and factors that will take into account in reviewing transactions. we also are obliged to be open to issue that is are raised with us as part of our public process to analysis those, to take those seriously. that's our mandate. now any decisions that we make at any transaction need to be tied to the issues that arise in that transaction. and that is our focus. we have rule-making processes to deal with broad issues of general applicability. we also have very serious obligations to consider all of the issues that arise.

any actions that the fcc would take and i'm sure assistant attorney general will answer for herself, will be tied to issues raised in the transaction that are appropriate for decision and action in the transaction. >> yeah, senator the same standard applies to merger review at the department of justice. every merger is considered on the merits of the transaction, and that alone. we essentially in every merger have three courses of action. we can determine that the merger creates no anti-competitive effect and do nothing. we can determine the merger is anti-competitive and cannot be remedied. our review would be subject to judicial review, and finally if we determined the transaction is anti-competitive but can be remedy, that is subject to judicial review. we stick to our netting. thank you, thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much. i'm going to use my prerogative.

telecommunications is a massive subcommittee. i'm going to ask senator kerr yi and ensign, ranking members, to ask their questions now. >> thank you, mr. chairman. obviously the proposed merger that we are discussing today would create an interesting and unique company. i have confidence the chairman of the fcc and assistant general for the antitrust are going to conduct a fair review and if needed impose sensible conditions on it. let me say, at the outset though, that i have immense respect for brian roberts and for his father ralph. they have been terrific corporate citizens. everybody in the industry would acknowledge that and we begin there. they have taken a small cable

companies and turn it had into a communications giant. i think that success is admirable. i have an open mind on this, i've asked roberts and listened to him explain the price increase, access, thing that is are on the table here. clearly, your scrutiny is important to this and i think they acknowledge that and welcome it. we all know that would that big merger, it can distort a market, reduce consumer choice, drive up prices, but they can also provide and promote efficiencies and innovation if they are done properly. my advocacy during the recent consensus dispute has accessed the fact that i try to focus on the consumers and encourage the market to maximize consumers access to content and try to discourage prices frommest

colating, without consumer benefits. that's the principal that should guide us here between cable, satellite, and television providers. i'm also a big believer in localism, diversity and programming and continued growth of the internet as a tool for communications. these are the principals that guide me in thinking about this. i'd like to ask you, mr. chairman, if you would just comment quickly, i know you can't speak specifically to the case, but with respect to a merger of this,ing what -- what are your considerations on the negotiations and impact on consumers as you've seen them? >> well, let me -- i shouldn't and can't speak specifically to this transaction. but certainly, the topic of retransmission consent has been a topic of active consideration at the fcc at least since christmas week and new year's day when we all were on the cusp of some stations shutting down.

we saw it again last week. there's a lot of consumer concern, a lot of consumers who wonder why their lives should be effected because of business disputes between two different media companies. at the same time, media companies have a right to engage in transactions and determine the terms of those transactions. we've heard more increasingly, renally more arguments from various beam who follow this closely or are involved in this that the framework that's in place and have been in place for a long time may have loss pace with the changes in the marketplace, maybe changes in the technology, and i think, we're beginning the process of reviewing whether they are improvement to the framework that make sense. we look forward to working with you and the committee on. certainly, it's something we will be looking into and we'd like to be a resource to the

committee whether the framework continues to make sense or whether reforms are sensible. >> fair enough. ms. varney, should we consider the internet as a possible stand alone for television service delivery, and if so, how can stand-alone internet services be compared to the other distributors have? >> internets is still in it's early chapters. we don't know where it's going yet. we are committed to increasing competition. we are in many transactions in the telecommunications and media very concerned about the role that internet can play as an effective competitor to increase that and bring more diverse quantity and quality to consumers and hopefully lower prices. i'm hesitant to say at this point what the internet can and don't do to promote or inhibit

competition. but in any transaction where there is a aspect of the internet providing a competition effect, it will be seriously evaluated. >> which means, obviously, that is one of the things you will look at in the context of this? >> without commenting on the specific merger, we will look at anything that is relevant in any transaction. >> and, mr. chairman, how do we ensure that independent programmer that have competing content have redress under the nondiscriminatory protections in the cable act? and perhaps you might share with us how many complaints have you resolved and how many complaints are contending? >> the issue of independent programmers have access to multichannel video providers, the issue of diversity of programming and independent voices have been a long-standing issue for congress and the fcc. as you mention, there are provisions in the fcc rules that propod some mechanisms for enforcement.

i can't tell the specific number of complaints, we'll get that to you separately. we've had some. we've heard complaints that the existing framework can be improved to give independent programmers who believe they have a complaint under the statute a more efficient process to have those complaints resolved. but this is one of those areas where the values remain constant and i think both the fcc and committee will remain vigilant in thinking about how the values can be applied in the marketplace, changing landscape. >> can you share with me just as a matter of principal, do you think that consumers should lose access to broadcast programming when the broadcaster and the cable providers fail to reach an agreement? >> i think that's certainly an issue. one the things that concerned me the most in situations like that is when consumers are surprised. this was i think one the biggest issues around the new year's day

potential shutdown. the idea that a consumer could find out on december 30th that they might lose their tv signal on january 1 and have to figure out their options to that they can just have consistency of viewing. it's hard to explain to a consumer that it makes sense. without drawing a general rule about whether there are circumstances where -- >> the perception of what mechanism, if any, might be used to resolve this. obviously some people are now pushing for some kind of arbitration, and others -- there's a lot floating around on this issue. do you have any thoughts about it? >> the only thought that i'd say now are the events of the last two or three months confirm that this is a subject that should be looked at seriously. all ideas should be looked at with the goal of coming up with the framework that works for consumers and that's fair to the parties involved. >> that was avoided with skill. [laughter] >> mr. chairman.

>> that's it. okay. senator ensign. >> thank you, mr. chairman. chairman, genachowski, i appreciated earlier when you were talking about wanting to continue encouraging the government, promoting, you know, investments, expansion of broadband across and more competition, all of those good principals that i think we all share. sometimes we have disagreements on exactly the best way to get there, and things, but certainly the principals, those kind of guiding principals that we all do share. we've talked about that. i want to turn just a little different because i -- we've heard recently dealing with title one, title two issues, title one being a much lighter regulatory touch, title two given the fcc much more potential heavy handedness when

it comes to regulation. i'd like to touch on that. because we've heard recently some groups have called on fcc to real late on the communications -- regulation on the communications act. i believe it would reverse the successful deregulation that's led to explosive growth in the broadband age. we know that regulation has cost. at stake would be billions of dollars in broadband, so i guess i would like to ask your opinion, what would the impact on the private sector investment be if the fcc were to reclassify the internet under title ii? >> the first thing i'd say senator is job number one at the fcc, our focus is on developing the policies that will promote universal broadband in america, rural america and urban america

so that we can have a world class infrastructure that's an engine for job creation, for ongoing investment, innovation, helping improve our education. this is to me a major issue of global competitiveness for the united states. we are working very hard as you know looking at what are the policies we need to do to promote the interest and protect and empower consumers the world class infrastructure. on the technical issue that you mentioned, as you know, the fcc has in the past relied on title i as it's authority to promote the interests of consumers, rural americans, others in and around broadband. and today we're -- not literally today, but we're arguing in court defending the position that title i gives us the authority that we need to do the right things for american communities, american businesses, american consumers. we will continue to assert that position.

and we will hope that we get a favorable decision from the court that's looking at it right now. until then our focus is on the issues that i mentioned. if the court does something that requires us to assess, consider issues, we'll do that. right now, i think, there's nothing more important to do than move forward on the national broadband plan that drives forward u.s. global competitiveness on our communications infrastructure. >> well, i appreciate that. and i just want to, you know, encourage simply because i -- ace mention, i think that there is a real cost to, you know, heavier regulation and we have to be so careful with, you know, this almost miracle of investment in the internet that we've seen in america and across the world that we want to continue to see that, that investment with 4g coming out and all of the various thing that is we have seeing.

it's very exciting. there's a lot of job creation, a lot of the future of our economy we know is there. and i just think that whether you get the favorable court decision or not, if the fcc decides or considers taking it from class or title i to title ii, i think it could be a major, major mistake. i think that's why the issue needs to be aired out and discussed and a lot of input put in so that we consider all of the ramifications if that does happen. i appreciate both of your service, and both of you being here today though, thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator ensign. i have to go to the floor, senator kerry will chair and senator cent -- cantwell is next up. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you for your discussion this morning. it's challenging because of your oversight review to really get

into some substance here. i do have a question. but i guess i'd like to say at this point in time, you know, i can't support this merger. maybe you'll provide some facts and oversight and qualifications that will help with this. f from the seattle perspective, there's a lot of groups that are already concerned about this. obviously, we like media diversity in the northwest, if you're ever been there, you see that. we can turn out at less than 24 hours notice for any fcc chairman who ever wants to come there and discuss it. so. [laughter] >> but my concern today is that, you know, we're talking about one of the largest, you know, carriers of both internet provider and phone service and cable with the merger content.

specifically right now, seattle is very upset about what happened with the oolemma -- olympics. the fact that access was not provided to the canadian broadband system or the ctb which would have always provided an alternative coverage was great frustration. there was a lot of criticism and critique that online access was also blocked by various awe then indication measures, making it difficult for people to gain access. i know my colleague, senator cole, who with chaired the subcommittee, says i fear the practice of locking up certain content only for paid tv subscribers maybe a preview, particularly in the context of the comcast/nbc merger.

i think the "seattle times" said it, it just leads to mischief. now i'm not sure we're going to be able to uncover all of the mischief that might happen and protect against it. that's my concern. how are we going to do that? but those two examples of how seattle viewers were shortchanged on what is, you know, digital age of content access is very frustrating. but my question is this, as it relates to chairman genachowski, it's my understanding that comcast is challenging the recent extension of the program access rules. i'm interested in what parts they are challenging and if comcast prevails wouldn't it mortally wound of the protections that we have in place to say you have to meet these programming requirements. and if we get rid of that rule, aren't we going to see even more mischief in this process? >> well, senator, two things.

on your first point, while i can't comment on the merits of the transaction and i shouldn't comment on the specifics that you mentioned, i can let you know that the interest of consumers will be heard in our review of this transaction. they have to be, that's their obligation. a core principal for us is to protect and empower consumers as we review the transaction. with respect to program access rules, certainly all of the competitors in the video programming marketplace will tell you that over the last 10, 15, 20 years since the rules were adopted, they have been a force to promote competition in the marketplace, even though they may not have worked perfectly at times. and that has been our experience at the fcc as well, in fact, recently, we improved those rules by closing what's called a

terrestrial loophole and providing a better mechanism for competitors to get access to sports programming. we take it very seriously. it is in court, as you mention. i'm optimistic, i think if issues arise out of the litigation that we have to work on together, i look forward to that. we have seening that rules like that can promote competition in this landscape. >> you have to take -- say comcast on that, couldn't you have to take that into consideration on this merger. >> i want to be careful since it's a pending review, we'll take all relevant issues that are raised by the parties in our proceeding. i imagine this issue will come up in the context of our proceeding. you can be assure we will review it very carefully. >> i think we -- you know, i didn't agree with mr. martin on a lot of things. this just begs the question for us to review a la carte, i think

we can't hold consumers hostage because we're building a vertical integration. thank you. >> thank you, senator snowe. >> thank you, mr. chairman. with respect to some of the procedures involved and since the last serger that have been considered by both the justice department and the fcc, and i was wondering whether or not there have been any internal changes in both agencies with respect to the merger review process. because obviously there have been a perception in the past that some of these mergers have been rubber stamped in their own merger -- media-related merger. if you are looking at some of the charts with have been media

ownership and gross ownership issues certainly have been a central focus on this committee for an extended period of time as the mergers have become more and more frequent. :

>> it's gone from 50 to a relatively a few. so the department of justice didn't apply any conditions to the accessories or at&t bellsouth. and fcc provided now my contemporary conditions on various mergers. x. industries, tribune, new score and dow jones. starting with you, chairman genachowski, can you tell us what is going to change that you mention in your statement as i noticed that some have questioned, in particular cases, where the commission's processes was officially opened and reflected, a sufficiently thorough analysis that relevant data and issues. so was going to canada perception beyond it's just a rubber stamp and given the increasing consolidation that is occurring? they can affect diversity, localism, can affect independence, negotiating fair deals for those who are not, you

know, connected with comcast. >> let me state first about the fcc and then about our coordination cause they're all relevant to your question. at the fcc itself, we've set up and empowered across bureau team to make sure that we fully meet our mandate with respect to this merger and all other mergers. one of the first instructions that i gave the team was to go back and look at relevant transactions and do it on an assessment of what went right, what went wrong, what can we learn from what happen in the past so that we can do our job on behalf of the public, and do it efficiently. we're also looking very hard at the issues of openness and transparency in the context of merger reduced at the fcc. in this case we are very different groundrules. the d.o.j. has to stay

confidential. ours should be and on the record often process, and we're exploring the best way to conduct a process to do that. as you know, and other proceedings that we've managed over the last few months we've revolutionize the way the fcc does business. over 50 public workshops around broadband, we are reformed our export tables. so we take this very serious it. with respect to court nation's, -- coordination, we'd each empowered our staffs to start coordinating, start collaborating to both honor and respect our separate missions. but to make sure that we're helping each other achieve the goals that in each case the relevant statute has given us. >> ms. varney? >> senator, i can assure you there is no rubber stamp at the department of justice. i will speak to the past but i can say since i've been there, we have sued been foods over its acquisition in wisconsin,

illinois and michigan over no consolidation. were very troubled by that. we announce we're going to sue blue cross blue shield over its acquisition in lansing, michigan. they abandoned the transaction. we are on the record in the southern district of new york with our concerns about the proposed google books settlement. would have approved some big transactions with conditions. we condition the ticketmaster approval. we conditioned the voting machines acquisition, which has been in the press quite a bit lately. we condition the at&t acquisition of centennial, which is at the telecommunications space. we put conditions on that. we have recently find et span, a major electric provider in new york for the way it was a business. so we are very, very active. we do every transaction on the merits of the transaction. and you can be sure we will do the same here. >> well, i know in the department of justice's

instance, that you have to review this transaction based on substantially lessening competition. but yet we have seen, human, just increase consolidation. out is a we have to evaluate these trends that are occurring as well. not just on the short term, but also on the long-term and what's going to occur. chairman genachowski, one of the question, on program access rules. what has changed in that regard? >> i'm not sure what you're getting at, senator. what has changed in terms of -- >> if anything has changed in terms of program access rules. >> the goal of access rules i believe remains as important as it was. we've been redoing the program access rules to make sure they are as effective as possible. a couple of months ago we close the so-called terrestrial loophole so that the rules could work more effectively for

competitors and will continue to look at ways to make sure that rules designed to promote competition actually promote competition and practiced. >> because obviously, in this instance that will become even exponentially greater. i mean, in terms of that defined the problem. in competition and making sure that there is fair competition and the incentive to negotiate fair deals, or allow their own pro-grams that they have developed to be offered to nonaffiliated stations. thank you. >> senator thune? >> thank you, mr. chairman, and i want to thank our panelists for being with us today. this is an important subject, and one that we obviously want answers on. and i know that you're limited in some of the things you can say today. but i wanted to ask you, in south dakota, we have a number of small rural telecom companies that provide high quality, multiprogram the do distribution to the extent that you can comment, i guess i would direct this to you, mr. genachowski, how might these entities be

impacted by this merger? and how much -- >> we will leave that to go live to the state department daily press briefing. we're expecting to more about a travel warning for parts of mexico. this was issued following the murder center of two americans. >> live coverage now on c-span2. >> european high representative catherine ashton as well as quartet representative tony blair to discuss efforts to promote middle east peace. the secretary will also meet with senior russian official to discuss progress on the success or agreement to start a cooperation on nonproliferation, counterterrorism and regional security issues. and the work of the bilateral presidential commission. she will depart washington on wednesday. tomorrow, says the secretary of state for population refugees and migration, eric schwartz,

will present the keynote speech of the celebration of the 30th anniversary of the refugee act of 1980 at georgetown university's student center. his speech will honor the durability of the landmark 1980 legislation and will highlight some of the modern-day challenges and opportunities facing the state department and all of humanitarian organizations as we. i think the speech is at 9:15 a.m. tomorrow morning. and we announce the launch today of opinion space, and interactive the site hosted on state.gov that seems to foster global conversations on foreign affairs. opinion space invites users to share their perspective and ideas on u.s. foreign policy and innovative visual opinion map that will illustrate which ideas result in the most discussions in which ideas are judged most insightful by the community of

participants. assistant secretary for campbell remains in the asia-pacific region. he had meetings today in jakarta on a range of bilateral regional and global issues, in advance of the present strip and the launch of the indonesia comprehensive partnership. he is now, i believe, in singapore and will be coming back here to washington because of a change in his travel schedule. there was not enough time in his stopover in tokyo for meetings with the japanese government. so those meetings will be rescheduled. ambassador robert king, a special envoy for north korean and human rights issues is in geneva today to participate in the human rights council's

13th session. he will urge countries to support the resolution on the situation of human rights in the dprk, as well as meet with u.n. special repertoire. and a number of you have asked, you know, for a period of time about the status of an american in pyongyang, and we can confirm march 14, the dprk granted the swedish embassy access to detained u.s. citizens. [inaudible] >> know, he's back in the states. he's back in the united states. this is another individual. we're not at liberty to disclose his name. >> it's a key? >> just to get the pronoun right. [laughter] >> but finally, obviously we will ask the secretary the

secretary pledged worked tirelessly with mayors can afford to bring the killers of american citizens, leslie henriquez was an employee of our u.s. consulate, and her husband, arthur, the killers to justice. we offer our deepest condolences to the families as well as to the spouse of the u.s. council employee was killed in a separate incident. the investigation is ongoing. today is a mexican national holiday, but consulate, will be closed tomorrow to review its security posture. >> p.j., on that, is that your lasting? can you give us a few more details, what did she do with the embassy? what were the circumstances of this party that they were at?

and an authorized departure for dependents, can you give us a more specific tammy people were eligible, how may people have taken advantage of it so far, that kind of thing? >> i don't have any particular job title for. we will see if we can get there. i should have had it here. worked in the consulate, odyssey. it was one of our busier consular sections. you know, to process visas citizens for mexicans who want to travel to the united states. my understanding, that both of these, the spouse of our consular employee, local national employee, and her husband, and as well as leslie enriquez and her husband had both been at a private birthday

party. and were in the case of leslie enriquez, on the way back across the border. they lived on the u.s. side. she was a civil service employee. you know, beyond doubt, as to the circumstances of what happened, you know, this is all part of the investigation. >> what about the second part about the authorized departure? >> the authorized departure was something that, you know, the decision had already been made and was about to be announced. obviously, we've looked at increased risk associated with, you know, along the northern border between mexico and the united states, and have made that decision to offer, to authorize dependents to come back to the united states, if they choose. the population is just over 100 adobe potentially affected by this answer as i know. this was just announced

yesterday. can't say at this point how may have taken. >> when was the decision made? >> last week. based on assessment by diplomatic security about the conditions along the northern border. >> when last week? >> i mean, i learned about i believe on friday. >> well, why was it not announced until sunday? >> well, i think we're going to announce it as part of our revision of the travel advisory. >> people able to -- were people able to take a bishop authorized departure before sunday? >> well, these individuals that were involved in the incident yesterday would not have been affected by that. >> i'm not suggesting they would have been. were there employees of the embassy or -- employee, families of employees of the consulates able to take advantage of authorized departure before sunday? >> i do not know. >> can you take that question?

because it goes to the whole double standard issue. >> double standard being -- >> the double standard being when there is -- when decisions like that are made, they are not to be shared only within the embassy committed also made public. so this decision was made in people taking and about how taking advantage of it before sunday, that would be -- >> i'm not aware anyone was taking advantage of it before sunday. >> a couple of follow-ups. you have any information at this point to suggest they were targeted because of their affiliation? >> is a fair question. i be learning about jumping to any conclusions at this point. that's all part of the investigation. but as to the circumstances surrounding, you know, these killings, i mean, we're always want to see the killers brought to justice. but as to the specific circumstances, all part of the investigation. that mexican authorities have the lead on this. the fbi is consulting diplomatic security is also consulted.

>> which one of your consuls are being closed? there's about six of them. >> as far as i know the only one in juarez. >> who was going down there? is the fbi going down? >> ds is hard on site. >> are you sending more people and to investigate the? >> the fbi has localized teams to engage with and support the investigation by mexican law enforcement. >> can you say if this is going to change any of the u.s. plans to support the mexican efforts against drug cartels? are you going to be changing, sending more people down there, more money? are you going to pressure them in anyway? >> i think this reinforces why the united states has provided to married him significant assistance to mexican authorities, because we've always understood that this is a shared struggle by two allies and neighbors.

we have provided any known as amount of assistance to new mexico -- mexico in recent years to help primarily with equipment. our aid at this point is transitioning to focus more significantly on training now that much of the equipment to provide assistance to mexico has been purchased and delivered. so we're going to continue to cooperate as the secretary has said. you know, there are things that need to be done on the mexican side. there are also things on the u.s. side. you know, in terms of money, guns, to try to diminish and ultimately defeat these cartels specks so no plans to increase or send troops to the border or anything like that at this point? my last question, has been any conversation between senator clinton and other senior officials, does you plan to bring this up when she is down there? >> i'm certain that this will come up during a future discussion with mexican authorities.

[inaudible] >> no, they just happen yesterday but as far as i know, the investigations are -- >> to happen saturday spent the investigation, unicom launched yesterday. and as far as, no, we are fully on board and satisfied with their response. >> just last one on this. do you see any reason that u.s. mexican relationship would be hurt or impaired in any way, because of these killing? >> not at all. not at all. obvious a, let's -- i understand fully what happened, during this investigation, but i think this underscores as i said a minute ago that this is a common challenge. and there is violence along the border. at various times it has build a cross onto the u.s. side of the border.

but i think we are determined, as our mexican authorities, to get to the bottom of this particular tragedy, but also do everything we can to restore the rule of law. >> these files have affected before the u.s. citizens but are you more concerned that because these are u.s. diplomats speak as i wouldn't jump to conclusion. i think obviously we see that this is something that has profoundly affected an mexican population at various times. it has also affected u.s. citizens. but as to whether this was a particular incident directed at u.s. diplomats, i think we're not prepared to draw that conclusion. >> are you requesting more security to the mexican authorities for the u.s. consulates along the border? >> we have our own assets there, and i'm sure that just as we indicated, we will be reviewing our security procedures at our

facilities, all along the border. and if additional resources are needed, or whether they be american resources for mexican resources, then we will have that conversation. [inaudible] >> not at all. i think we are encouraged as we have said, many times before by the commitment of the calderon government to fight this violence. we share that commitment. want to make sure that we are doing what we can, just as we see, unicom and mexican authorities doing what they need to do, both in terms of, you know, security forces to protect mexican citizens, but also fighting corruption that allows this violence to continue. but i'm sure in our ongoing discussions we will see what else that mexico needs, and we

will work that into our long-term planning. >> i am penny starr with the news. with the strategy of these u.s. citizens being killed in mexico, the administration has been forthcoming with their names, ages, the circumstances of the tragedy, the killings. and yet, according to the state department, there are dozens and dozens of u.s. citizens who are victims of homicide in mexico. they are documented every year in their annual death if u.s. citizens abroad by nonnatural causes. just in fact from january through the indigent, the first six months of 2009, there were 32 s. citizens who were victims of homicide in mexico. and i want to know, their names are not provided, only the location of their death and the cause of death, which is listed as homicide. i'm referring to those 30 in the first six months of 2009.

what's the difference between the two u.s. citizens who died this last weekend in mexico and the countless americans who have died in homicide of mexico we don't know what their names are, what their ages are, you know, what the circumstances of their deaths were? what is the administration doing to see that justice is served for those u.s. citizens who were victims of homicide and specifically in mexico? >> to your very specific point, obviously these were employees of the united states government, and that's why we announce their particular identities. >> is there a difference then between someone -- >> know. well, you're talking of the difference between a u.s. government employee and the difference between a private citizen, and it's up to the families to announce what details they want to announce on their particular identities. i mean, as we do in any country

in the world, we take the safety and security of u.s. citizens extraordinarily seriously. we go to great lengths to try to do everything we can working with host nation governments to make sure that they can live or visit these countries safely. it's why we announced travel warnings to u.s. citizens to provide them with full information as they decide, you know, where to travel either in this hemisphere or around the world. to try corner for you though, we announce the identity of one american who was killed during the earthquake in haiti, and she happened to be a u.s. foreign service officer. there are many americans citizens who died in haiti, but the announcement of their deaths, we fell, is private matter and unless those family get to decide to. >> beyond the name though, let's get to the part of seeing that justice is served. these two employees of the united states government, you

know, valid they're going to serve justice for the. but what about the other u.s. citizens that died in mexico? has justice been served? we don't even know who they are. >> it is especially the reason why we have invested hundreds of millions of dollars in mexico to help provide the resources so that working with the mexican government, we can make sure that to the extent there is violence, whether it affected u.s. citizens in mexico or mexican citizens, that these killings are investigated, that the culture of corruption and impunity that has been evident in certain places in the past, that is reversed. so you know, this is a shared struggle, a shared responsibility. we are working extremely closely with our mexican neighbors on this issue, but throughout

mexico, we have consular officials, security officials who are constantly looking at, evaluating, you know, the safety and security of mexico and the implications on u.s. citizens. >> so there's no difference on how they're going to move on a case having the fbi involved if you're a government employer or just a regular u.s. citizen? >> we work with our -- we work with our mexican counterparts to investigate the ongoing violence, including violence against u.s. citizens. >> follow-up on the fbi, what exactly fbi agents are doing with a sicko? you say they are supporting the investigation, but there are some reports by the mexican media saying they are investigating the assassinations, working alone.

>> the mexican authorities are in the lead on this investigation, given the sovereignty of mexico. we have volunteered to help with that investigation. we have a very strong relationship between u.s. law enforcement and mexican law enforcement. as two particular things they're doing, i will refer to the fbi. >> but why the necessity to send fbi agents to? well, some cases, you know, we have some expertise, and you know, in any investigation that there will be issues that might be, we might investigate on the side of the board that can be relevant to the mexican investigation. but this is part of the ongoing relationship that we have. it's very close. it's very deep. it has grown significantly in recent years, given what has happened on both sides of the border. >> one more thing. you have absolute support to

president calderon on drugs, but has been more than three years since president calderon took office. and has been more than 10,000 people that, mexicans, and if you mayor americans, how long this country will continue to support counter ron to see succeed? did you call the success? even more than 10,000 people have already been -- >> i think it underscores both the significant challenge that mexico faces, challenge the united states shares. i don't think anyone expected that this would be fixed in a relative short period of time. you're talking about violence fueled by drug use that produces vast sums of money, that produces significant capabilities that could rival, you know, the strength of any army. so it is going to take, this is

a long-term challenge. it's going to take determination. it's going to take resources. i think it's going to take in listing the support of the population, both the mexican population to themselves, take back their own communities. it's also going to take cooperation by the american people to understand that, unicom and there are things we do on this side of the border, you know, that compound the challenge for mexico. so i think the tragedy of this weekend just underscores how severe, significant, danger this represents to mexico, to the united states, to the hemisphere. and i think we all share that determination that ultimately, you know, for a variety of means, we will take back these streets, one community at a time. >> i will try another approach to this. only 1 percent of the crimes in mexico are fully prosecuted and receive a final sentence.

what makes you think that there's going to be a final prosecution and sensing in this particular case? and don't you think it would be ironic that only this case would be solved and you know, prosecuted? well, go ahead and i have a second one. >> i'm discomforted by that question, to be honest with you. this is a significant challenge for mexico. this is a significant challenge, you know, for the united states. you know, thousands of lives have been lost. and ultimately, you know, the government of mexico has to make sure that the resources, the security forces are put in place to fight these cartels. we have a role to play, you know, in helping mexico achieve that. we have a role to play, which we

are doing, in terms of working with mexican authorities who are bravely trying to fight back, but only to take back their streets, but also to fight corruption that has been a significant challenge that undercuts the rule of law in mexico. in his resources, that sometimes come from the united states, that propels this challenge in terms of movement of weapons, the movement of money, that ultimately creates a circumstance that completely undercuts the authority of the government. but i think we all share the tragedy of this. thousands of lives have been lost. thousands of innocent lives have been lost. they are all important. and it underscores that we ultimately will seek and we hope achieve justice over the long run. but this is a significant

challenge. it affects the security of mexico. it affects the security of the united states, which is why we take it so fiercely. >> has the u.s. received any request for any weapon in the sky? >> as a law-enforcement issue. >> just one question. aren't you still confident that the mexican government can maintain the situation the control on the poor? >> we understand how hard it is, but we also understand the commitment that president calderon has made to this, politically. and the resource commitment that has been made by my sicko. this remains an ongoing challenge. it is not easy. it is not going to, you know, the success is not going to happen overnight. it is going to have to happen community by community, street by street. and it will not just be the government that is successful here. it has to ultimately be a commitment by the mexican people, you know, to push these

people out of mexico. it's going to have to involve a commitment by the american people in terms of our lifestyle and how, what we do here, can have an influence on what happens there. and that ultimately affects basic and citizens. it affects american citizens. it affects other citizens and hemisphere. this is a joint challenge. and i think we remain determined based on the tragedy that happened over the weekend. >> would they be assessing whether not that consort should reopen, or is it just one kind of security? >> i think is just one kind of security. as we continue to find out more about what the background of this particular incident. >> is any discussion of the reassessment of the broader security situation for all of the consuls along the border? >> i'm sure everyone will be reviewing their security posture in light of what's happened. >> new topic. >> aside from this incident on

saturday, are you aware whether any threats directed at -- had to been recently threats directed to americans or american diplomats? >> not to my knowledge. >> new topic, is that okay? >> sure. spent when the secretary spoke to president netanyahu, did she make any his government answered actions they would like to see taken? >> she did outline for prime minister netanyahu some specific things which we want to see from the israeli government. i'm not going to go into the specific detail. i think that, you know, they involve not only specifics about the project in question that was announced last week, but really more so about the willingness of the parties to engage seriously in this process and to jointly create conditions for its

success and be willing to address the core issues at the heart of the peace process. i would say that, you know, we also have some concerns today about the tensions regarding the rededication of the synagogue in the jewish quarter of the whole city. and we're asking all parties to act responsibly and do whatever necessary to remain calm. we are deeply disturbed by statements made by several palestinian officials, ms. characterizing the event in question, which can only served to heighten the contentions we see. and we call upon palestinian officials to put it into such a site. so this is something that we are and will continue to talk with both parties about, which is as we see, you, proximity talks started. both sides have responsibilities to make sure that there is an

appropriate environment that allows progress to be made. >> did she ask them to put an end to the 1600 apartments, the project that was announced a? i'm not going to go into particulars, but her discussion on friday did focus not only on this particular, you know, this particular housing initiative, but also about the process more brought in. >> there is word today that the project that netanyahu would announce the project will go for. any reaction to that? >> we, she, when she outline for the prime minister our specific concerns, she asked for a formal response by the israeli government. and we await that response. >> hold on a sick. so you have no reaction to him sing this project will go forward? >> as i have just said, when she outline what she thought appropriate actions to the prime minister, she asked for a

response by the israeli government and we wait for the response. >> so you are discounted would've you said today, that this means nothing to? >> i'm singly as for a formal response from the israeli government and when we get that response we will react to it. >> there were reports over the weekend that said that she had indeed asked for an association of this project. you can't address that? >> i just said, i can't has to particulars of what she asked. i'm just not going to get into the particulars. >> is senator planning to go to the middle east, and are the talks going to start or have they reached a dead-end? >> well, as we have announced george mitchell intensity in the region this week. however, his schedule is not yet set. >> i understand our meeting in israel tomorrow. tomorrow and wednesday. >> this is a fluid situation. as of this moment he is still in

the states expect the. >> are you disappointed in the rededication or the reaction to. >> there have been some mischaracterizations of this particular event and we have concerns that this could lead to further tensions, and we just call on everyone, you know, to be careful about public statements that can cite for the violent. >> so you're not objecting to the rededication. >> not at all. this is about statements made about this event. not about the event itself. by policy and official. >> have there been any communications on the palace in officials on the issue and are you requesting specific things? >> we have made our concerns known about these public statements regarding this event. we remain in over the weekend come we're in contact both

palestinians other than the secretaries called on friday in ambassador being, has it been any means or calls it a? >> called against a range of officials from u.s. government, israeli government i'm not aware of any further meetings at this point. >> can you give us any specifics about those calls? >> many. i'm not aware of the secretaries anything further. [inaudible]

>> i'm sure it's more than. i just don't have a run down. >> it wasn't the secretary? >> no. >> i will take this question. i'm not aware that the secretary talked to president over the weekend. if she did we will let you know. >> do your concerns about the comments, do they rise to the same level as you're concerned on unhappiness about the statements, the announcement speakers are not going to draw that here. as we have said many times speed is you're trying to even it out here. >> i'm not -- no. >> by some very powerful interest groups. and you come out without anyone asking you about concerns on the palestinian side, you have offered this out. and so it looks like you are attempting to balance your position. >> i understand your question.

i wouldn't describe it in that way. as we said, both sides have responsibilities, and where we have concerns about either side and jeopardizing the conditions that we think are necessary to move this process forward, as we said when we announced the proximity talks would start, we will not be, we will not hesitate to say so. we have very specific concerns about public statements made surrounding this particular synagogue rededication. and we are not hesitating to talk about those concerts that we are very particular concerns about housing project announced while the vice president of the united states is standing in israel, and we have condemned the announcement. but we're not trying to achieve any kind of copper building here. anytime we have concerns about actions being taken, on either side, i want to hesitate to say so.

>> dude they can turn you? >> i haven't got that kind of detail. >> can you talk of a process of u.s.-israeli relations, the israeli envoy to washington said israel's relations with the u.s. is facing the most severe crisis in 1975. do you agree with that assessment? >> well, israel is a strategic ally of the united states. and we will continue to be so. the vice president, during his trip to israel last week we stated that, that commitment. we have very specific concerns about, not only the substance of announcement, the timing of announcement, but it's broader implication in terms of jeopardizing any further progress on the peace process. we have made some specific request of the israeli government in that regard, and were looking forward to the response. but this is a specific area of concern, but it should not be taken as an indication that our

commitment to israel's security as the vice president last week remains unshakable. >> last week he said it was jeopardizing the relationship, and i wonder if you're backing off from that that? >> well, no. well, we will evaluate, you know, the applications of this once we hear back from israelis and see how they respond to our concerns. >> you said that ambassador mitchell strip is a very fluid situation. can you tell us what specifically you need to get nailed down before you can say what is going? is any possibility he might not go if those things are determined to? i would expect, to become george mitchell to be back in the region. but as to the particular timing, i think that still, you know, the question. he will be with a secretary at the end of the week in moscow

for the quartet meeting. but as to his particular departure plans, we will let you know. >> would you expect them in the region for the quartet meeting? >> i expect them in the region soon. >> do you want an answer on the 1600 in each result before making a decision on whether he is going? >> i wouldn't condition one on the other. we want to see this process move forward. the proximity talks are a means to accomplish that. but we want to make sure that it's scheduling the next round of talks that we have an environment that allows us to move the process forward. so i don't think, it's not a question of if george will go in the region. it's a question of when george goes to the region. but we want to make sure we have from both sides that when he travels, we can make progress.

>> and is it so position, last week when asked on the day that you issue the media note with the statement that both sides had accepted proximity talks or indirect talks, you are asked if you were certain that the talks had indeed begun. and you said i am certain. is it so your position that indirect talks began last week? >> yes, they have begun. but as to when the next round will occur, we want to make sure -- i'm confident there will be another round of proximity talks. we want to make sure that when they happen, -- let me finish. that the conditions are right so that we can make the kind of progress we want to make. >> i don't understand the difference then. if you haven't mitchell going from room all up to jerusalem and back and forth, which has been doing for nine months now, why are you saying that proximity talks began last year? last week. >> the difference is --

>> if you have a policy mistake they're not interested in this talk and less of the project is canceled speed is what we've had for the past year is a talks about talks. what we want to get is talks about substance. we are prepared to have talks about address the substance, the core issues at stake in the peace process. >> have you been any discussions about actions the u.s. could take if israel ignores the specific request that you won't be till? >> we'll get to that point if we need to base on the response by the israeli government which we haven't received yet. >> nevermind. [laughter] >> do you have anything to say about the u.s. official stationed in south korea who is accused of swindling $200,000 out of a window and then playing the country? >> i ask we do not know anything

about this case. so i will take whether this is an issue what our role might be versatile of the deed a jazz. >> thank you. >> thank you.

>> our mission is to make the world more open and more connected. and we do that by providing people a free tool whereby they can share information with anyone, anywhere at anytime. >> with more than 400 million users online, it's the fastest growing website in the world. facebook, public policy director tim sparapani tonight on "the communicators" on c-span2. >> up next the state department release of its annual human rights report. will her opening remarks from secretary of state hillary clinton and the assistant secretary of state mike posner. will sure as much this briefing as we can't until the senate

convenes at 2 p.m. eastern. >> every year, the secretary of state hosts a briefing like this one. and while in that sense it may seem routine, this event is extraordinary because of its connection to who we are as a country and to the universal aspirations we seek to make real through our foreign policy. the idea of human rights begins with a fundamental commitment to the dignity that is the birthright of every man, woman and child. progress in advancing human rights begins with the facts. and for the last 34 years, the united states has reduced -- produced the country right on human rights practices, provide the most comprehensive record available of the condition of human rights around the world. these reports are an essential tool, for activists who courageously struggle to protect rights in communities around the

world, for journalists and scholars who document rights violations and who report on the work of those who champion the vulnerable. and for governments, including our own, as they work to craft strategies to encourage protection of human rights of more individuals in more places. the principle that each person possesses equal moral value is a simple, self-evident truth, but securing a world in which all can exercise the rights that are naturally theirs is an immense practical challenge. to craft effective human rights policy, we need good assessments of the situation on the ground in the places we want to make a difference. we need a sophisticated, strategic understanding of how democratic governance and

economic development can each contribute to creating an environment in which human rights are secured. we need to recognize that rights protecting democracy and rights respecting development reinforce each other. and we need the right tools and the right partners to implement the right policies. human rights may be timeless, but our efforts to protect them must be grounded in the here and now. we find ourselves in a moment when an increasing number of governments are imposing new and crippling restrictions on the nongovernmental organizations working to protect rights and enhance accountability. new technologies have proven useful both to oppressors and to those who struggle to expose the failures and the cowardice of the oppressors. and global challenges of our

time, like food security and climate change, pandemic diseases, economic crises, and violent extremism, impact the enjoyment of human rights today, and shape the global political context in which we must advance human rights over the long-term. human rights are universal, but their experience is local. this is why we are committed to holding everyone to the same standard, including ourselves. this year, the united states is participating in the universal periodic review process in conjunction with our participation in the u.n. human rights council. in the fall, we will present a report, based on input of citizens and ngo's, gathered online and in face-to-face meetings across the country, attended by senior government officials. assessing opportunities for progress and soliciting citizen

engagement is one way that we demonstrate our commitment in word and deed to the basic principles that guide us toward a more perfect union and a more peaceful world. as we work to protect human rights at home and abroad, we remember that human rights begin, as eleanor roosevelt said, in small places close to home. so when we work to secure human rights, we are working to protect the experiences that make life meaningful, to preserve each person's ability to fulfill his or her god-given potential. the potential within every person to learn, discover and embrace the world around them. the potential to join freely with others to shape their communities and their societies so that every person can find fulfillment and self-sufficiency. the potential to share life's beauties and tragedies, laughter

and tears with the people they love. the reports released today are a record of where we are. they provide a fact base that will inform the united states is diplomatic, economic and strategic policies toward other countries in the coming year. these reports are not intended to prescribe such policies, but they provide essential data points for everyone in the united states government working on them. i do these reports not as ends in themselves, but as an important tool in the development of practical and effective human rights strategies by the united states government. that is a process to which i am deeply committed. the timeless principles enshrined in the universal declaration of human rights are a north star guiding us toward the world we want to inhabit, a just world where as president

obama has put it, peace rests on the inherent rights and dignity of every individual. with the facts in hand and the goals clear in our heads and our hearts, we recommit ourselves to continue the hard work of making human rights a human reality. it's now my pleasure to invite mike posner, assistant secretary of democracy, human rights, and labor to the podium. >> thank you. secretary clinton. and welcome. i want to, just if i may say a few introductory words about the report, and something about the trends we see and then open it up for questions. the report covers 194 countries. it's the work of probably close to 1000 people in reporting,

writing and editing. it's a massive document. it is over 2 million words. i can't figure out how many pages that is, but if you try to print it it will take reins of paper. it's the single most exhaustive comprehensive compilation information about human rights produced anywhere in the world. i want to thank everybody in the state department who worked on it, especially steve eisen gone who is for the last four years been leading the effort in the trl team, but really people all over the world who work on this report, in very risky and stressful places. the original purpose of this report was to inform congress in the 1970s, congressman fraser and congressman harkin introduced legislation linking human rights to a policy. and they needed information about how do you make those decisions. it's now much more than that.

it is used throughout the executive branch, throughout this building, but also other agencies of government. it's just by journalists like yourselves, and import a, it is now a great source of information for people living in countries around the world who are often learning about things in their own countries by reading the report. we are doing much more to translate the reports, to disseminate them throughout the world. there is a huge international readership of these reports. the reports are predicated on three broad assumptions, which secretary clinton and the president have repeated in assessing or in promoting our human rights policy. one as she just said, we believe in a principled engagement. part of that engagement requires us to be informed and have an understanding of the world. that's what this report is seeking to do. secondly, we hold every government, including our own,

to a single universal standard. and third, we have a commitment, a fidelity to the truth. and this report, the production of this report and publication test that assumption, probably more than anything we do in government. as the secretary said, the report is not a policymaking document. it's a predicate. it's a foundation upon which policies are shaped and guided. it's the starting point. it's not the end. in terms of trends, there are three things, and some of this is build out in the introducti introduction. we live in the world of conflict. more than 30 wars and internal conflicts fueled by ethnic and racial religious tensions and differences. these conflicts disproportionately affect multiple populations, often women, children, people with

disabilities, refugees. >> we don't live now to the u.s. capitol as the u.s. senate convenes for morning business. a period of speeches on any topic. and that work will resume on a $17.6 billion measure to create jobs and includes a payroll tax credit for businesses that hire new workers. the senate is considering house changes to the bill that explains the source of its funding with a test vote at about 5:30 p.m. eastern. and now live coverage of the u.s. senate here on c-span2. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray.

gracious god, today inspire and encourage our lawmakers to do the work of justice and mercy so that all citizens will be bound together in respecting one another. give our senators an awareness of this nation's rich diversity and heritage, as well as the mutual goals that unite us as a people. lord, lead us all away from any self-sufficiency that makes us not feel our need for your redeeming and refreshing grace.

and, lord, we praise you for your healing mercies that have been felt by our leader's wife and daughter, mrs. landra reid and lana. we pray in your merciful 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., march 15, 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 warner, a senator from the commonwealth of virginia, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: robert c. byrd, presidet pro tempore. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: mr. president, last thursday my wife was involved in a violent car accident. we often say the senate is a family. i'm reminded of it time and time again when both triumph and tragedy unite us. in the past few days i learned all over again just how close, how genuine and how meaningful that family is. the tremendous outpouring of support for my wife and daughter from people across nevada and the nation and from this senate family has deeply touched all of us. we received literally hundreds and hundreds of e-mails and phone calls. we really very much appreciate all the thoughts for landra and

every prayer on her behalf. the kindness and concern, overwhelming and humbling. it was a close call, but we're grateful it wasn't worse and are confident she'll be making a full recovery. it won't be tomorrow or the next tkaeurbgs but she'll be -- next day, but she'll be back on her feet as soon as she can. landra and i have been married for almost 50 years. she is the strongest and most selfless person i know. if anyone can recover, it is she. before we begin this week's work, i want to say to my senate family and all those watching, thank you very much. mr. president, following leader remarks the senate will turn to a period of morning business until 3:00 p.m., with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. following that morning business, the senate will resume consideration of the house message on h.r. 2847, the hire act, or the jobs 1 bill. at 5:30, we'll have a cloture

vote on the motion to concur on the house amendments with respect to that bill. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: let me first say to my good friend from nevada how good it is to hear such a positive report on landra's recovery. we're all grateful that hopefully she'll be home sometime soon and on her way to a speedy recovery. mr. president, the debate over health care continues, and this week all eyes are on the house. all we hear about is the arm twisting and the horse trading going on over there behind the scenes, the mad dash ahead of the big vote. and once again americans just can't believe what they're hearing. behind all these stories is a

simple truth: democratic leaders are doing everything they can to convince a handful of lawmakers that they should vote for a bill they don't really like and which their constituents overwhelmingly oppose. they're scrambling to get these wavering house members to vote for a bill that claims to be reform, but which promises to lead to higher health care costs, higher insurance premiums and a vast expansion of government's role in our daily lives. they're pulling out all the stops. they're doing everything they can to jam this bill through. and they don't even seem to care anymore about how ugly it all looks. what we're seeing is nothing more than a replay of the same revolting process democrats used to pass this bill in the senate, a process that completely outraged the public. the same deals they used to get this bill through the senate are back, as if voting on these deals the first time wasn't bad

enough, democrats in the house are now getting ready to vote for them again. every one of the deals that were so revolting to the american people will still be in the bill that house members are expected to vote on later this week. that means that anybody who votes for this bill will be voting in favor of the special deals that were put there for no other reason than to sway votes. a handful of democrats stood up in opposition to these deals and this entire process. one longtime democratic congressman said last week he won't be voting for the bill as a result of the deals, here's what he had to say: "i reject unekweufly the -- unequivocally the unsavory deal making which took place in the senate where nebraska, florida and louisiana obtained special benefits that do not apply to the other states, and those special benefits provided to those states at the expense of the residents of all other states.

i simply cannot support legislation that contains those enwarranted giveaways to a select few states at the expense of others." that was a democratic member of the house of representatives. but others are keeping quiet. they're still on the fence, and that's why this week's vote promises to be even uglier than the last one. because this bill goes beyond things like the cornhusker kickback and the louisiana purchase and the gator-aid. i was disappointed to see the white house reverse itself over the weekend and endorse many of these sweetheart deals after the president said he'd try to have them removed. apparently they determined removing the deals might jeopardize efforts to pass the bill. so now the white house says it won't object to all the special deals. just some of them. the white house says it won't object to all the special deals. just some of them. what that means, of course, is that some senators and house members are getting special

deals on top of special deals. but that's not enough -- that's not all the white house is willing to do to jam this bill through. according to press reports, it's also promising to raise campaign cash for house members who vote for the house bill. we read in one of the papers today that the white house is openly signaling that those lawmakers will go to the top of the list for fund-raisers and presidential visits ahead of the november elections. so if press accounts are accurate, lawmakers who support the bill are being told they get repaid with presidential visits and big-money fund-raisers from the president or the vice president. vote for the bill and you get you a special visit for your reelection campaign. we also read this morning in "politico's," "the pull," that the drug lobbyists were here in the capitol over the weekend huddling with democratic staffers to make sure their interests would be protected in the final bill.

this is precisely the kind of thing americans rebelled against after the last vote on this bill. this debate should be about the substance of a bill that would restructure one-sixth of our economy and the direction americans want to go in as a country, not how much money such and such senator or congressman needs in order to vote for it. it's especially disappointing that this particular white house is supporting all this. after the cornhusker kickback and other special deals, the administration had an opportunity to distance itself from this process, to hit the reset button and to work toward a bill americans could be proud of. unfortunately, in its desperation to force this bill through, the white house is reverting to the "anything goes" approach, and the results are predictable. americans won't like this bill any more than they liked the last one. their verdict about this bill and this process, they don't

like either one. and once again, the only people who don't seem to get it are the democrats here in washington. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved, and there will be a period of morning business until 3:00 p.m. with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. the senator from arizona. mr. kyl: mr. president, picking up on the comments of my colleague, the republican leader, there is another distressing story in the paper today. it's reported by the associated press that all of the special deals that last week the president said he was going to try to remove from the legislation, now they say, except for the cornhusker kickback, they're going to leave them in there because they need the votes. and if that's correct, mr. president, this process is even sicker than we thought that it was. part of the reason for the

democratic leadership using the reconciliation provision to fix the senate bill was to take all of these special provisions out. but now it appears, according to the associated press, that they're going to be kept in there because they need the votes. the let me just detail a couple of what these are. from last week there was a story in "politico" that detailed six specific items. of course the cornhusker kickback that got such bad publicity that everybody agreed it had to go, including the senator who voted for the legislation after he was promised in his state there would be no cost for the coverage of additional medicaid patients. that's apparently going to be -- quote -- "fixed" at great expense, i might add, to the taxpayers of the united states. but apparently unfixed are six other items. and there are more, by the way. quote -- "we have defend it, and we will defend it," said senator bernie sanders of vermont,

whoeus state picked up $600 million in extra medicaid funding. again i'm quoting here from "politico," march 10, is the story. second, in a letter to congressional leaders last week, obama targeted the nebraska and florida deals for elimination. the florida provision could also shield some seniors in california, new york, new jersey, and pennsylvania, according to senator bill nelson's office, the article says. now, this provision deals with medicare patients. and the reason it's important to me is because there are 330,000-plus arizona seniors who have medicare advantage plans. these are the plans that would suffer under the legislation proposed by the president. and because they would have benefits that they currently enjoy taken away from them, the seniors in all of the states are obviously complaining to their

senators. so, democrats have said, well, okay, if seniors are upset about having these benefits taken away, then we will shield the seniors in our states who have these medicare advantage policies so that they don't have to give up their benefits, the biggest set of beneficiaries. there are over 800,000 of them in the state of florida. but apparently also some in california, new york, new jersey, and pennsylvania. special deal for them f. this bill, by the -- if this bill, by the way, is so great, why do we have to protect our citizens from its provisions? but that's the way it works. however, my senior citizen constituents in arizona don't get grandfathered as do those in other states. the it just shows you not only what bad policy there is in the bill generally, that you have to protect your constituents from suffering the effects of the bill, but also the bad policy that does that to the detriment

of other constituencies *fplt apparently now that's going to stay in the bill. then there is the so-called louisiana purchase, $300 million to louisiana. then there was the $1.1 billion in extra medicaid funding to massachusetts and vermont. this "politico" argument quotes senator patrick la had i as saying -- leahy as saying -- quote -- "what i told harry reid is vermont does the right thing and i don't want vermont to be penalized for doing the right thing." that's the kind of argument that is made in response to provisions of the bill that are bad provisions, because they hurt the people in your state. but the solution is not to exempt your state's constituents from the bad effects of the bill. don't pass the bill. it's a bad bill. here's the fifth example. there is a $100 million hospital grant program requested by our colleague from connecticut,

senator dodd, whose acknowledged that the university of connecticut would qualify for the money. here's a sixth one being promoted by the chairman of the finance committee, senator baucus, on behalf of the residents of liberty, montana. there is one that protects two insurance companies, blue crosss blueshield and mutual omaha of nebraska. i believe there is another one in the state of wisconsin protected there. my point, mr. president, is, first, if this bill is so wonderful why do we have to have the special deals for representatives or for constituents in the states of certain democrats in order, presumably, in the house of representatives, to help the speaker of the house get her vote total up to where she can actually pass the bill. why don't we pass the -- fix the bill in the first place so this is not visited on the

constituents that i represent or anyone else's constituents, for that matter. bought a minimum, the president should follow through on his plan last week to try to get these provisions out of the bill. it turns out now, apparently this week, according to david axelrod, that's no longer part of the plan. mr. president, the last thing i'd like to do is to comment briefly on a "washington post" column by robert samuelson this morning and ask unanimous consent to include it at the conclusion of my remarks in the congressional record. thank you, mr. president. i'll just briefly summarize it. the president is visiting in ohio, i believe, today to highlight the case of a particular ohio res. definite i believe she's -- resident. i believe she's a breast cancer survivor. her insurance eventually became too expensive for her to keep it up and she has a diagnosis of another disease and the

president is highlighting this case. i think it's important to highlight it for another reason. i presume that the president and the residents of ohio are finding an alternative way to ensure that she is cared for. frequently we have constituents come to us with situations like this. and they represent very heartwrenching situations. problems that you want to deal with. and the real question is how to deal with it. the answer to her problem is not pass the health care bill. there are alternatives. for example, for those who cannot get insurance that is affordable to them because of preexisting conditions, republicans and the democrats have put that on the table, it is something that can be solved with a specific solution rather than the health care bill that the president is trying to sell us to. what robert samuelson points out in this article is there are a lot of different situations like this where people are not

insured, nevertheless, get care. in fact, the argument that is made that we need this kind of health care bill because there are too many people who are uninsured and get expensive and ineffective treatment at the emergency room, he says, is unfortunately an argument that is not true. he quotes a study by the robert wood johnson foundation that finds that the insured population accounted for 83% of emergency room visits, reflecting their share of the population. in other words, there is not a difference of who visits the emergency room and who doesn't depending on whether you're insured or not. he goes on to say after massachusetts adopted universal insurance, emergency room use remained higher than the national average an urban institute study found. the point is after you get the so-called universal coverage, you don't find any difference in terms of the emergency room visits. if anything, with universal coverage, you have even higher emergency room visits.

so his point is and i quote robert samuelson, if universal coverage makes appointments harder to get, emergency room use may increase. so you're not making the problem better. if anything, you're making it worse. my guess is that you're not really affecting it much one way or the other. so it is simply not an argument that because people who are uninsured go to the emergency room that, therefore, we have to pass some kind of nationwide health care bill, such as, has been suggested to us. he goes on to point out, he say you probably think insuring the uninsured will improve the nation's health. he debunks that myth. expanding health insurance would result at bs in modest gains. he goes on to point out studies that validates the fact that it doesn't make a difference one way or another. claims that the uninsured suffered tens of thousands of uninsured deaths.

that lack of health insurance has no more impact on your health than the lack of flood insurance. he details why that's so. though it seems compelling, covering the uninsured is not the health care system's major problem. the big problem is uncontrolled spending. and that's a point that republicans have been trying to make from the very beginning. to point out that we ought to first focus on dealing what's driving health care costs up. but that will, if we are successful have a positive impact on getting people insured. because it will reduce the cost of insurance that they have to buy or that their employer is buying on their behalf. that's what we should be focusing on rather than this rather illusive issue of coverage of the uninsured. no one is arguing that we shouldn't cover the uninsured. that's not the argument that we're making. the argument that we're make something that it doesn't justify a$2 .5 trillion

expenditure. if you focus first on reducing costs, that is a good thing in itself, and also enhanced coverage because cost is less expensive. here's the last or the paragraph in the piece and i will quote and close. what samuelson said the president is telling peep sl what they want to hear, not what they need to know. he said, "whatever their sins, insurers are mainly intermediaries, they pass along the post of the -- cost of the delivery system. in 2009 the insurers had profits of roughly $9 million. that approached 4% of the total health spending o of $2.72 trillion. four tenths of 1%. he goes on to say this hardly explains high health cost. what people need to know is that obama's plan evades health care's major problems and would

worsen the budget outlook. it's a big, new spending program when government hasn't paid for the spending it already has. end of quote. his point here is that instead of trying to make insurance companies the villain here, the president should be honest about what their true cost is. as somebody pointed out my colleague, lamar alexander, if you took all of the profits of all of the insurance companies, it pays for two days worth of health care expenditures in the country. what about the other 363 days no one is blaming the insurance companies, they are primarily passing the costs on. so, bottom line, mr. president, is that we need to be honest and explain to the american people what we're really trying to accomplish here or what we should be trying to accomplish is reducing health care costs. that will make access easieror people because they will be able to afford the insurance that now may be unaffordable for them. but that the idea that the

insurance companies are the reason we have the problem or that the emergency rooms are used more because of the uninsured are two myths that are dispelled in this piece by robert samuelson. mr. president, i -- i yield to my colleague from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: first of all, i thank the senator from oklahoma for yielding. unanimous consent that i be recognized in morning business for such time as i shall consume. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: mr. president, after weeks of global warming scandal and we've talked about it on the floor what happened in climategate, prior to -- just prior to the copenhagen convention, i had the opportunity to -- to visit and to uncover some of the things that we had expect -- suspected were going on for a long period

of time five years ago i had the occasion of giving a speech on the floor wherein i outlined from information that had come through the backdoor to me from scientists how bad the science was and how it had been, in fact, cooked. then, of course, along came -- along came climategate. after weeks of the global warming scandal, the world's first potential climate billionaire is running for cover. yes, i'm talking about al gore. he's under siege these days. the credibility of the ipcc is eroding. the e.p.a.'s endangerment finding is collapsing. and belief that global warming is leading to catastrophic -- catastrophe is evaporating. gore seems to be drowning in a sea of his own global warming illusions nevertheless.

he's desperately trying to keep global warming alarmism alive today. it's my understanding that tonight he's having a high-level meeting of all of his -- his global warming alarmists around the country to see how they can resurrect this thing and how they can regroup. now, consider gore's nearly 2000-word op-ed piece that recently appeared in "the new york times". it's a shore fire sign of desperation. gore's piece was about china, solar, wind power, the rising sea levels, all the scary stuff, big polluters, melting glaciers, cap-and-trade. one is in search in vain for an explanation of the ipcc's errors and mistakes or phil jones, former director of the climate unit, we heard a lot about him he actually assembling a lot of

the science or so-called science or creating the science, i should say, so support the position of those who believe that anthropogenic gases call global warming. it was seven years ago, i believe this month, that i had occasion to study on the floor and find out that, in fact, that we spent so much time on this thing that -- and that -- and that everyone was believing this to be true. and when we realized the science wasn't there, i made the statement that the notion that anthropogenic gases are causing catastrophic global warming is the greatest hoax eve perpetrated on the american people. well, what's gore's take on the climate gate scandal? climate scientists, quote, were besieged by an onslaught of host tile information -- hostile information requests. even the ipcc announced last week an independent review of its process an procedures. you see, former vice president

gore was saying, oh, that was nothing much that was just a few comments. i might add that one of the largest an most respected publications in the u.k., which is called the -- the u.k. -- do you remember the hi name? one publication said this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation. the "u.k. telegraph," "the new york times," the "chicago tribune", "newsweek ", "time" say this is a legitimate scandal and reform of the i rp pcc is essential. ipcc is the intergovernmental panel on climate change. they put it together in 1988 to try to scare people into changing our policy in this country. by the way, i mentioned "time"

magazine as one of the many magazines in publications who said looking at this climategate, the investigation should be there. this is the same "time" magazine, i would have done the same thing, back in 1975, on the cover they had another ice age is coming. you might remember this, the last polar bear standing on the last cube of ice, mr. president, and it says, global warming's coming, we're all going to die. anyway, the publications are coming around. when it comes to reform and openness and transparency and peer review, and when it comes to practicing good science, gore stands alone. he wants the world to put its head in the sand and pretend nothing's happening it reminds me of the two boy ostriches chasing the two girl ostriches through the girl. they're catching them, the one girl ostrich said, what do we do? they said, let's hide, and so

each girl ostrich stuck their head in the hole and the boy ostriches came gallop be up to the clearing and one of them said, where did the girls go? this is what we're looking at here, they're hiding their head in the sand and gore's writing this op-ed piece that even if all of these disasters won't happen, we still have to deal with national security risks and energy independence. of course, gore fails to mention that the united states leads the world in technically recoverable resources of oil, coal, and natural gas. according to a recent release from a report from the congressional research service, america's combined recoverable natural gas, oil and coal endowment is the largest on earth. america's recoverable researchers are far greater than those of saudi arabia, china, canada, all combined. and that's without including america's absolute immense oil

shale and methane hydrates deposits. it always is kind of humorous when people are saying we've got to get rid of our oil and gas and our coal and those things which we're using to generate the energy necessary to run america, and they say we've got to become independent. but they want to do away with all that. we have enough oil and gas and coal and now nuclear, which we're expanding to take care of our needs so we wouldn't have to be dependent on any foreign country for any of our energy. we have enough here. the problem is a political problem that the democrats would not allow us to go ahead and explore our own resources and exploit them. we're the only country that doesn't do that. gore has got to know that the alarmism continues to crumble, so he's swinging for the fences hoping for a home run to change the game. gore is striking out as he loses support almost daily in congress

and from the american people. let's face it, gore's side of the argument is collapsing. he and his allies are running short on facts, and gore's criticism of the recent events ring hollow. for example, after the climate-gate scandal broke, gore was asked by an online group called slate what he thought of it. gore's response was i haven't read all the e-mails but the most recent one was ten years old. that's not true because they went to 2009. all he's left with a is a two-pronged fork of anger and attack. read the new york op-ed piece. i was told his op-ed piece in "the new york times" was three times larger than that which they normally will receive. he wrote that those who question climate alarmism are members of a criminal generation. that's me -- a criminal.

a criminal. is roger pillke a criminal or reufrpbd linsem of m.i.t. chris landsy of the national hurricane center. they have not committed crimes. they want honest, open scientific debate. i might add that thus farther only scientists who commit crimes are those at the c.r.u. again, this is the collection point of all the science the united nations has put together in this thing called ipcc. those involved in climategate according to findings of the u.k.'s information commissioner. weekly standard placed al gore on its cover. we have that right here. showing that the emperor has no clothes. the cover story by steven hayward is entitled "denial: the meltdown of the climate

campaign." hayward writes a compelling narrative of climategate and its consequences. this story is a must-read for anyone interested in the recent implosion of global warming alarmism. let me mention something because if you look at the movie, "the inconvenient truth," the one where he made, i guess, most of his money. it talks about how -- the last sentence, "are you willing to change the way you live?" we thought that was probably a good idea. let's put that up here. it has now been 1,009 days since we have invited al gore to sign this pledge. "as a believer that human-caused global warming is a moral, ethical and spiritual issue affecting our survival, that home energy use is a key

component for overall energy use, that reducing my fossil fuel-based home energy usage will lead to lower greenhouse gas emissions and leaders on moral issues should lead by example, therefore, i pledge -- this is al gore -- i pledge to consume no more energy for use in my home, my residence than the average american household one year from today." it hasn't been a year ago. it was three years ago. it is 1,090 days ago. then, of course, there's always the question, you know, what if we're wrong? what if we really should do something? since the kyoto treaty failed -- we came this close, i say, mr. president. you weren't in your current position right now at that time. this is how close we came to actually signing on and ratifying the kyoto treaty. we didn't do it. then along came members of congress. we had -- in 2003 we had the

mccain-lieberman bill, cap-and-trade bill. we had then in 2005 the mccain-lieberman bill. then waoetd warner-lieberman -- then we had the warner lieberman bill in twaeufplt the boxer-sanders bill in 2009. now it looks like we're going to have the john kerry and lindsey graham bill that's up. what do they all have in common? it's all cap-and-trade. i have a respect for james hansen. the only thing that i really respect is that he has made this statement about cap-and-trade. he said, you know, cap-and-trade is a devious ways for getting away from the issue. the main issue is we've got to do something about greenhouse gas emissions, co2. if we're going to do that, why not go ahead and have a tax on it? there's a very good reason that the cap-and-traders don't want a tax. the american people would know what it's costing them. what does it cost? with regard to any of these bills i mentioned, it's

approximately the same because cap-and-trade is cap-and-trade. you've got to somehow make everyone think they're winners and other people are going to be the losers. so we had the ranges come up from the wharton school of economics, from m.i.t., from the c.r.a. and the range is always somewhere between $300 billion and $400 billion a year. that's prely significant. $300 -- that's really significant. $300 billion and $400 billion. if you're like i am, it's kind of heart to relate to billions and trillions of dollars. what i try to do is say what my average family in my state of oklahoma who pays taxes today, how much this would cost that family, and it comes out to be a little over $3,000 a year. $3,000 a year, that's an awful lot of money. what do we get for it? get the other chart up here. yeah, that's it. we had an occasion the other day to have lisa jackson. lisa jackson is president

obama's administrator of the e.p.a. environmental protection agency. a fine lady, i think an awful lot of her. we had this up during the time she was testifying before us. what this chart is -- and this was put together -- people are not questioning this chart's reliability now. it says "wheeled do check what would we do check what would we do?" it stands to reason. this says -- the reference is the red. these are the bills that they've introduced. i mentioned the bills before. that was the mccain-lieberman bill 2003, mccain-lieberman bill 2005, warner-lieberman 2008 and some of the rest of those. it says what would happen if we passed those? what would happen if we don't pass? you look at the chart. knowing. i asked the -- nothing. i asked the question of lisa jackson, administrator of obama's of the e.p.a.

i said this chart up here, is this an accurate chart? in other words, to put it in plain words so we understand it. if we were to pass -- at that time it be might have been the markey bill it doesn't matter. cap-and-trade is cap-and-trade. if we passed that bill or any of the senate bills that we had talked about, how would that have reduced co2 worldwide? her response was it wouldn't really reduce it because we are doing that unilaterally in the united states of america. what happens when we reduce -- when we take away our ability to have energy in america, we have to have energy -- we have to manufacture somewhere. so they've estimated how many thousands of manufacturing jobs, if we were to pass any of these legislations -- let's put al gore back up there a minute. that's a good one, yeah. yeah. hm -- those are polar bears, by the way, and they're all smiling, in case you can't see that, mr. president.

we lose our manufacturing jobs to countries like china and mexico and india. right now in china they are cranking out two new coal-fired generating plants every week. you think they're going to follow us in our example and start restricting their co2? they're not. they are preparing to generate the electricity necessary as people start coming in. that is what is happening right now. i would say this, though: i don't want you to feel, even though his world is crumbling, don't feel sorry for al gore because he's doing all right. there is an article, actually an article just came out. this is the "national review." at the same time a "new york times" article -- and i've kind of put together the things in both of them. it says former vice president al gore thought he had spotted a winner last year when a small

california firm sought financing for an energy-saving technology from the venture capital. this is the firm where al gore is a partner. the company is called the silver spring networks. it produces hardware and software to make the electricity grid more efficient. it came to mr. gore's firm, kliner, perkins, caufield and buyers, one of silicon valley's top providers, looking for money to expand its partnership with utilities seeking to install millions of so-called smart meters in homes and businesses. mr. gore and his partners decideed to back the company and in gratitude silver springs retained him and john doerr, another kliner perkins partner as unpaid corporate advisors. the deal appeared to pay off in a big way last week when the energy department announced a

$3.4 billion -- $3.4 billion -- in smart grid grants. of total, more than $560 million went to utilities with which silver springs has contact. wait a minute, we're talking about silver springs, the company with which al gore is correct connected. kliner perkins and its partners including mr. gore could recoup its investment many times over the coming years. silver springs networks is a foot soldier for the global green energy revolution mr. gore hopes to lead. few people have been as vocal about the urgency of global warming and the needs to reinvent the way the world produces and consumes energy. and few have put -- i'm reading now. this part is from "the new york times." "and few have put as much money behind their advocacy as mr. gore and are as well positioned to profit from this

green transformation if and when it comes. critics, mostly on the phreut right and -- political right and among global warming skeptics, say mr. gore is poised to become the world's first carbon billionaire profiteering from government policies he supports that would direct billions of dollars to the business ventures that he has invested in. representative marcia blackburn, republican from tennessee, as sertd at a hearing this year -- this is a hearing over in the house -- that mr. gore stood to benefit personally from the energy and climate policies that he was urging congress to adopt. mr. gore says that he is simply putting his money where his mouth is. do you think there -- this is gore speaking now -- do you think there is something wrong with being active in business in this country? i'm proud of it. in an e-mail this week, he said his investment activities were consistent with his public advocacy over the decades.

-- quote -- "i have advocated policies to promote nuclear energy and accelerate reductions in global pollution for decades including all the time i was in office." mr. gore wrote "as a private citizen, i have continued to advocate the the same policies even though the vast majority of my business career has been in areas that do not involve renewable energy or global warming, pollution reductions. i absolutely believe in investing in ways that we are consistent with my values and beliefs. i encourage others to invest in the same way." mr. gore has invested a significant portion of the tens of millions of dollars that he has earned since leaving government in 2001 in a broad array of environmentally friendly energy and technology business ventures like carbon trading markets, solar cells and waterless urinals. he has also given away millions more to finance the nonprofit he

founded, the alliance for climate protection, and to another group -- the climate project, which trains people to present the slide show that was the basis of his documentary "an inconvenient truth." royalties from his new book on climate change "our choice" it's called, printed on 100% recycled paper, will go to the alliance. other public figures like speaker nancy pelosi, robert f. kennedy jr., who have vocally supported government financing of energy-saving technologies, have investments in alternative energy ventures. some scientists an policy advocates also promote energy policies that personally enrich them. as a private citizen, mr. gorde, does not have to disclose his income an assets as i do and others do in this chamber in congress and the white house. when he left government in 2001,

he listed assets of less than$2 million including homes in suburban washington and tennessee. since then, his net worth has skyrocketed helping by timely investments in apple and google, profits in his books and movies an scores from speeches where he can paid more than $100,000 a peach. i suggest that price may be -- speech. i suggest that price may be going down just a little bit for al gore. mr. gore's spokeswoman would not give a figure as to the net worth, but it he has an investment in capricorn investment group. this is really pretty good reading. mark marrono, a climate change expert, said that what he saw on mr. gore's alarmism distorted

the debate and served his personal interest. so i would just say don't feel sorry for al gore, he's doing fine right now lastly on this subject -- put up that other one there, luke. that's it. yeah. my wife and i have been married for 50 years. we have 20 kids and grandkids. they're really achievers, their great people. all 20 of them -- all but six live within walking distance of my home in tulsa, oklahoma. not many people can say that. but the one that doesn't is the family of six that belongs to my daughter, molly, and her husband an four children. well, it happens that one of these children, you can't see very well right here, her name is agita marie, she is one that we found in ethiopia. my daughter adopted her. molly had three boys and always wanted a girl and so she adopted this cute little girl. this little girl, by the way, is 9 years old, she's reading at

college level and she came up to washington to speak to a group that i sponsor every year, it's called the african dinner, 400 or so, when they're up here, i say to my friend in the chair, because of the global warming problem that we had, we had the blizzards and snowstorms and the airport was closed and they were stuck here. what do you do with a family of six when they're stuck? well, they went out and built an igloo. this is not just a normal igloo. it sleeps four people with the ice bricks and all of that. and on the top of it they put al gore's new home. this is next to the library of congress and there's a picture of it. i regret to say that one of reelt -- the real liberal stations, keith olbermann declared my daughter's family as the worst family in america.

anyway, she's not. let me have one last subject i wanted to address. i wanted to compliment sean a hannity. what he has done, he has taken, you know, there's a lot of wasteful, stupid spending in america and he has taken 102 of the ridiculous things that we spend in america and listed them, 102, protecting the michigan insect collection from other insects, 101, highway biewft fried by -- beautified by fish art. he goes on and on and on. and over the last few evenings he -- he -- he listed these. last night was the last -- let's see the last 20 of them. let me real quickly run over these in reverse order. this is number 20, researching how paying attention improves

performance to difficult tasks in connecticut. that was $850 thowvment kentucky, -- $850,000. kentucky, the transporataion department awarded contracts to companies to a company accused of bribing the state secretary. number 18, amtrak losing $32 per passenger nationally and awarded with a windfall of $1.3 billion. widening in arizona interstate even though the company that won the contract has a history of tax fraud and pollution. $21.8 billion. i'm going to submit this for the record. but i get on down to the last things. number nine, resurfacing a tennis court in montana, $50,000. number eight, university of indiana studying why young men do not like to wear -- i don't want to say that. number seven, funds for massachusetts roadway construction to companies that

have defrauded taxpayers, polluted the environment, and have paid tens of thousands of dollars in fines for violating workplace safety laws and the millions of dollars sent there number six, sending 11 students an four teachers from the arkansas university to the u.n. climate change convention in copenhagen using almost 54,000 pounds of carbon dioxide from the airline travel alone. that's $50,000. number five, winding down to number one, story telling festival in utah, $15,000. number four,or mats in the department -- dormats in the department of army in texas, $14,000. number three, university in new york researching young adults who drink malt liquor and smoke pot, $389,000. number two, solar panels for a climbing gym in colorado. and number one, grant for one

massachusetts university for robobees. they are miniature flying robobees, and that was $2 million. i want to ask you, mr. president, what do you think all 102 of these have in common? i bet a lot of people think they're earmarks. they don't. one thing they have in common they're all done by the president, president obama. he said when they passed the -- the -- $787 billion stimulus bill, he said there will not be one earmark in this bill. well, everything that you're looking at there was all in this bill. that was not done by members of congress. that was done by unelected bureaucrats. they're the inconvenient truth -- the inconvenient truth is that we do have a problem with earmarks in america, but it's not congressional earmarks. i was distressed the other day

when i saw last thursday that my republican -- that the republicans in the house did something, they put a permanent moraorup that all earmarks that we in the republican party have over there. let's stop and think about that. one of the things that people don't understand is that if you kill what people think is a congressional earmark is it doesn't save a penny. it is part of an underlying bill, it goes to the bureaucracies, the unelected bureaucrats, the president, president obama. and i suggest that there is a serious problem with what the house did they resolved that -- that -- is a policy that the republican conference that no number shall request a congressional earmark, limited tax benefit, so forth, all in conjunction with clause 9, with the rules of the congress. let's see what that is, cause 9, rule 29, applies to all

legislation in the house of representatives, whether it it be authorization, appropriation, tax or tariff. that's what we're supposed to be doing here. and they said, we're not going to do it. and i think that's rather interesting because we all, everyone in this room who serves here, i've done it four times. we take an oath of office. we solemnly swear that we will bear true allegiance to the constitution of the united states. here they've come out and said we're not going to do this. this is mindboggling this can take place. this is -- is something that will have to be reversed. you know, when you go back and you look at the federalist papers, that was james madison, the father of the constitution, he made it very clear, he. ms. collins:ed the phrase, power of the purse, that's what we do here. in article 1, section 9, it says what we're supposed to do. we're supposed to do the appropriations and spend the money that comes in. that's what we're supposed to

do. that's our constitutional responsibility so we have a serious problem in this and what they're talking about the moratorium and i think there are some of those who want to do this in -- want the senate to do it. i'm hoping that we won't. i'm hoping we won't just follow course because i respect my friends over in the house, but they made a mistake. and we don't want to march down that same path. i think it's very important for us to understand, earmarks, what they call appropriations over here, that's what an earmark is if you want to define it, they don't -- they don't save any money. that money merely goes to the bureaucracy so they can spend it. all 102 of the things that i mentioned were the bureaucratic earmarks, not one of them was a congressional earmark. so we have this as a very serious problem right now one of the reasons that i have always said that i don't like the idea of the -- of the earmark discussion is that people don't understand. they think somehow earmarks are

something that if you eliminate, you save money. you don't save a cent. earmarks of the spending that takes place, it's discretionary, not mandatory, but discretionary spending, it constitute 1.5% of i'm concerned about the 98.5%. for that reason i introduced a bill that is very similar to something that president obama said. everyone rejoiced during the state of the union message when he said, i'm going to freeze non-defense discretionary spending at the 2010 level. everyone applauded. they thought that was a great statement to make until i went back and i looked to see and i found out that non-defense discretionary spending had increased between -- 2008 and 2010 by act of this president, obama, by 20%. so what he's saying is he's going to increase discretionary spending by 20%. then we're going to freeze it. i want to bring it back down. i've taken the same bill and said that we're going to freeze that at 2008 levels.

i would encourage my friends we have now about 40-some cosponsors of that legislation. so that being the case, i hope that we will look very carefully and consider not just what people are thinking throughout, but -- but do them a great service and tell them, in fact, what the real issue is on earmarks. with that, mr. president, i will yield the floor. suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. ms. klobuchar: i ask that the quorum call be vitiated.

the presiding officer: without objection. ms. klobuchar: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to speak up to ten minutes. the presiding officer: without d very much in the last few weeks on the economy with our tax extender bill as well as the jobs bill that we passed. and i, for one, am glad. my state is glad, because that's what i've been hearing all around my state, especially from small business people who have been having trouble getting credit. and you, mr. president, know, as someone who has worked so much on this issue, how important that is to the strength of our economy, as 65% of our jobs have come from small businesses. today i'd like to take a few minutes to discuss two bipartisan bills i recently introduced that i hope will do more to add to the creation of jobs, to innovation, to exports. the first one is called the export promotion act of 2010. and the second is the travel restriction reform and export enhancement act of 2001. export promotion is a topic of

special interest to me. i chair the subcommittee on competitiveness, innovation and export promotion. the export promotion act is kp cosponsored by senators shao*u lemieux hr-rbs lemieux and wyden. we have a special interest in global markets. the president recognizes this, and that is why i'm pleased he called for tkaublg of exports -- a doubling of exports in his state of the union spaoefplt one way to do this, to take this opportunity to open new markets is going to be cuba. a bipartisan bill i introduced with senator enzi, a second bill, would do just that. the bill makes it easier for american farmers to export agricultural products to cuba, currently a closed market, by relaxing the restrictions on

financial transactions between the two countries and by making it easier for american farmers to travel there to promote their products. the sponsor of the bill in the house is minnesota congressman and chair of the agriculture committee, colin peterson. another way to promote american exports to make sure that businesses know about the potential export opportunities available to them. currently the united states derives the smallest percentage of our g.d.p. from exports compared to all other major countries. america has always been the world's customer, buying our way and in effect buying our way to huge trade deficits. but it's clear that exports will be increasingly important to our economy as people in china, india and other developing countries gain more purchasing power and they become our potential customers. right now more than 95% of the world customers are outside our border. think of it, with the growing economic power of customers in these new developing nations, i was just in india a few months ago, and you see that massive

humanity, the potential as that country builds itself up of people that can buy our products all over -- from all over our country. more exports in our country will mean more business, more jobs and more growth for the american economy. exports are also important for small businesses for several reasons. first and most obviously, exports allow a company to increase its sales and grow its business. second p-rbgs diversified -- second, diversified base of customers helps a business weather the ups and downs. so there is a world of opportunity out there, and i can tell you i have seen it in my own state. m atracks, a little company named after a little second-grade boy named matt who came home and drew a picture of his trucks for his dad. his dad, a mechanic, decided to build this product in his machine shop and now they export

to dozens and dozens of countries all over the world. they started with five employees. they're now up to 50. how did they do it? they went over to fargo, north dakota, which covered this area of minnesota, talked to a woman named heather at the foreign commercial service department. they went over there. she matched them up like a business match.com, with potential countries from kazakhstan to turkey that were interested in their product. that is how they grew their business. acro minimum, down by austin, minnesota, in the middle of cornfields, they have had a long-standing family business where they do trenchless digging. they put major steel pipes under ground and they have the machinery to push those pipes underground, and they can dig major trenches underground without actually digging up the landscape, without digging up the ditches. they have done it in has angeles, but they're doing it in india. why?

highly populated areas like digging this way. they don't have to dig up overground to do it. as you look at these countries with the businesses they need, acromen is up to many kpwhraoefplts for so -- employees. for so many businesses it is difficult to do this because for them the world contains an ann ann -- ancient map. the rest of it is vast space, unimplored territory. they know there is something more. they know accessing these markets will help them expand products, open new facilities and hire more people but they don't know how to find out more opportunities. fortunately there is help available. a number of federal programs through the small business administration, commerce department, export-import bank that assist u.s. companies in promoting their products abroad. and the idea here is to give that kind of help to small- and

medium-size businesses so they can vet a potential customer so they can find out what's available. they don't have a full-time trade department or full-time person looking at each continent like a country like 3-m or car tkpwoerbgs very successful businesses in my home state would have. so they need this help. another example, epicurean in duluth, it has companies in 45 country. i invited a representative from epicurean to join me and he thinks we're on track. our business will support these programs that help these companies get the word out. it does three major things. first, it expands the scope of existing department of commerce programs that help businesses commercialize and manufacture new technologies that export abroad. second, it increases the people at the department of commerce

that are responsible for identifying new export opportunities abroad and matching these markets with american companies. for the past few years the program that specializes in matching small businesses with potential export markets has not replaced retiring officials, losing roughly 200 people since 2004. even as demand for their assistance continues to increase. this bill would restore staffing levels in this program to those 2004 levels. i talked to the secretary this morning. that is the key to this. this legislation will expand the commerce department's rural export initiative to ensure businesses in rural areas know about the all the available export opportunities for them. why is this cost worthy? well, look at this. a return of approximately $213 on each $1.

$213 on each dollar, that's what we're talking about here. what we're trying to do here, senator lemieux and i with this bill and also with our bill rargtd cuba -- regarding cuba, is to open these markets up and say if we can give our small and medium size businesses and our farmers a little help either getting in the tkaorbgs knowing if a customer is real or not, letting them know where the company is hot, they're going to work. these are private-sector jobs. our idea here is not to create those jobs but to help them get into those markets, make them on an even playing field with the big businesses that already have the resources to do it. the ability to envision creative new products, then develop them, commercialize them and sell them has been part of the american dream as long as there has been an american dream. that spirit of innovation has gotten us everything in my state from the postit note to the pacemaker. and those companies, metronics,

started in a garage. those companies, 3-m, started newspaper two harbors, minnesota, a tiny little town. target started as a dry goods storefront in a mall in minneapolis and they grew to what they were. but they can only do this now if they get that kind of help. it's no longer just america that's their market. it's india, kazakhstan, turkey, china. it is not as easy now to build to the point they need to build to. that is why senator lemieux and i are introducing our bill to assist the commerce department to assist small and medium size businesses. it is important to keep the end game in mind. an end game where the united states is the world leader in job creation by virtue of making an selling the world's most innovative products. this bill will help us get there. thank you, mr. president. an i yield the floor. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. mccain: i ask unanimous consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that i be allowed to engage in colloquy with the senator from connecticut. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: i would ask my friend, i know that he has been observing the last few days and the events that have transpired as regards to the situation in israel and the united states' reaction to the announcement that there would be additional housing construction in areas that the israelis believe are within the boundaries that will exist once peace is settled and the palestinians, who are of the view that it is -- it has been their area, as there is many territorial disputes between

palestinians and israelis. and one of the reasons why there's compelling argument for a peace process. i know that my friend from connecticut is disturbed, as i am, about the level of tension and the public discourse that's been going on which cannot only not be helpful to israeli-u.s. relations, but also to the ability of israel to deal with other tensions in the region and the threats, the exist heistial threats they face. i've had the honor of traveling to israel on numerous occasions with my friend from connecticut, and i would state for the record that no one has a cloture relationship and a better understanding of the israeli-palestinian situation

and the urgency of the peace process. i would just ask my friend: don't you think that if we want the israeli government to act in a way that would be more in keeping with our objectives, that it doesn't help them to have public disparagement by the secretary of state, by the president's political advisor on the sunday shows. on the contrary, shouldn't we lower the dialogue, talk quietly among friends and work together towards the mutual goals that we share? mr. lieberman: mr. president, i thank my friend from arizona for the question and for the opportunity to engage in this dialogue on the important and troubling course of relations at this moment between the u.s. and israel. mr. president, i've been asked to ask consent that this colloquy be conducted as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lieberman: i thank the chair. i say to my friend from arizona

whatnot only he knows but what he's helped to bring about throughout his career; two things: that the american relationship with israel is one of the strongest, most important, most steadfast bilateral alliances we have in the world because it's not based on temporal, that is matters that come and go, or politics and diplomacy. it's based on shared values, shared strategic interests in the world and, unfortunately, now on the fact that we in the united states and the israelis are also targets of the islamist extremists, the terrorists who threaten the security of so much of the world. we have a strong bilateral relationship. the second thing to say is, in answering my friend's question,

is that the israelis depend, to a very large degree, on america's friendship as they approach the world. and you are absolutely right, without a confidence -- not that everything israel does, america will support. but that underlying, we're heading in the same direction, we're a hraoeurbgs we're friends. -- allies, we're friends. it's as if we're part of the same family. without that confidence, israel will never have the confidence in us -- without that confidence in the u.s.-israel relationship, the israelis will not have the confidence to take the risks necessary for peace. and so the uproar over the last several days is very troubling in that regard. vice president biden, as my friend knows, went to israel really to reset the relationship.

unfortunately, at that time, from all the israeli government says -- i have no reason to doubt them -- a bureaucratic decision was made within one department of the government -- the ministry of the interior -- to issue a permit. i gather one of seven permits necessary within the next few years for this building project to take place. and it has become not just a bureaucratic mistake, but a major, for the moment, source of division between our ally, israel, and ours. and it doesn't really help anyone to continue this. i want to say briefly to my friend because he said something that most people don't know, and this is my understanding of the situation. this -- the departments for this housing are in an area of jerusalem that are today mostly

jewish. the israeli government has taken the position, however, since 1967 that anybody ought to be able to buy property and build and live in any section of jerusalem they choose to, regardless of their religion or nationality or anything else. that's a very american concept. secondly, this particular part of jerusalem is in most anybody's vision of a possible peace settlement going to be part of israel. a lot of israelis feel that all of jerusalem should remain the eternal unified capital of israel. going to the negotiations that occur between president clinton, president obama and the prime minister in 2000, about as detailed as any negotiations, this particular neighborhood of jerusalem in the document that was almost accepted by arafat was part of israel. so this is not, it's not a

violation of that. it's not a violation of the moratorium on new settlement that prime minister netanyahu adopted. and it ought not to be -- that first wave of reaction when vice president biden was there. i understood, he was upset, it was impartial. maybe -- embarrassing. maybe some of the words, condemn was a little strong for a bureaucratic mistake. but why this continues now o*pbt including the sunday talk shows with mr. arafat saying it was an affront serves nobody's good. mr. mccain: shouldn't we be emphasizing what i very much appreciated vice president biden -- and i quote him. he said -- quote -- "in my

experience, one necessary precondition for progress toward peace in the middle east is that every time progress is made, it's made when the rest of the world knows there's absolutely no space between the united states and israel when it comes to security. none." i thought the vice president had it exactly right. and as you say, mistakes are made. it's a government in israel which is sometimes interesting to watch, particularly when you watch the proceedings in the likud, the parliamentary proceedings -- in the knesset. proceedings in the knesset. but somehow it seems that the rhetoric has escalated and may be giving the impression to the

wrong people, the neighbors of israel who have stated time after time that they are bent on israel's extinction. the statements by ahmadinejad that he wants to -- quote -- "wipe israel off the map," and perhaps there may be sufficient space, as the vice president pointed out, that they could exploit that in a way that would be harmful to the state of israel. and i know that's not the intention of the president's political advisor sunday. and it's not the intention of the secretary of state. but the secretary of state knows the israelis very well. she's had dealings with all of the countries in the region. she is very knowledgeable and experienced. i hope all of us would realize let's lower the rhetoric. let's try to fix the problems that exist among the close

friends we are, rather than escalate the tensions that exist in a very dangerous time. the senator from connecticut and i were recently briefed about perhaps increased tensions in southern lebanon, the possibility of attacks from southern lebanon into israel, the continued nuclear build-up on the part of the iranians, the continued statements of assertiveness by the president of syria -- assad. there is increased tensions in the region, and this is not the time, while certainly, most importantly, not the time that we give the impression that there is such differences between ourselves and israel that it could be exploited by israel's enemies. mr. lieberman: mr. president, i thank my friend from arizona. i agree totally with what he said. i think it's very important that

the senator from arizona has gone to this statement, the speech that vice president biden made, i believe it was on wednesday of last week in tel aviv at tel aviv university. what's interesting is that that speech came after the first day he was there when this bureaucratic announcement of the housing permits being issued in jerusalem was made. vice president put out a statement condemning that action. i understand why he was upset by it. happening when he came up. president of israel apologized for it. said he is appointing a review committee to look at how it happened so that they could setup a mechanism within the israeli government, if i understood what their intention is, without the prime minister's office being notified. then vice president biden made

an important speech to telaviv university, said that the relationship between the u.s. and israel is unbreakable. and there's no space between us. and when there's space between us, it only helps our shared enemies, not our -- not the two of us, these two great democracies. vice president biden also made clear that we have -- while we're committed to the israeli-palestinian peace process, it is very, very important, and the prime minister too, he is taking his party to a place that it's never been before in a speech that he gave at university. he, for the first time, said very clearly as the prime minister that he supports the two-state solution, two countries, two peoples side by side. and then he issued that moratorium on settlement expansion in a whole series of areas which secretary clinton on

an earlier visit described as unprecedented. so then you go to the vice president's speech and he says there that he focuses on iran and the threat of a nuclear iran, the threat of an iran that suppresses the rights of its people. and says that not only is that iran explicitly a threat to israel, as ahmadinejad has said, threatening israel's existence, vice president biden made very clear our concern about an a runnian nuclear -- iranian nuclear weapon is not because of what ahmadinejad said about israel, although that is serious, it is because of a nuclear totalitarian iran threatens the short, medium, and long-term security of the united states of america. so after that speech, i thought this whole business about the permits for housing was over.

and, yet, then the state department spokesman comes out on friday and very strong language about the phone conversation between the secretary of state, who, of course, the senator from arizona and i not only respect, but like very much. she's our friend, our colleague much she has a long record of support for the u.s.-israel relationship. but friday afternoon's press statement just seemed to me to be dredging up again something that had been calmed and ought to be calmed. the senator from arizona's absolutely right. i take it that that's the point that you're making. that there's too much that ties us together with israel. too much on the line for both countries to continue to make a mistake for which the prime minister of israel has apologized into a division between two great allies. mr. mccain: and wouldn't my colleague agree that the original purpose of the vice

president's trip, as i understand it, was a precursor, or even an announcement of indirect talks between the palestinians and the israelis using the good offices of senator george mitchell? so the trip really was a signal to the world that the process of peace between israelis and the palestinians was on track in the beginning, albeit, a modest one was taking place. so it might be well if our friends in the administration and other places in -- in the united states, we could start refocusing our efforts on the peace process, which came very close to beginning, again, modest, indirect, but still a beginning of peace talks and emphasize the need to commence those, assure our arab friends

in the region of our commitment to the palestinian-israeli peace talks and move forward in that direction and understand that the prime minister of israel has apologized and he tried -- as the senator from connecticut pointed out, tried to put in an mechanism to make sure that an n instance of this nature would not arise again. so we could go back, and i won't, and be very critical of the obama's administration initial demand freeze of settlements. which, in my view, is unnecessary an preconditioned and impediment. but that's done also. and so now we've had our spat. we've had our family fight and it's time for us to now stop and get our eye back on the goal, which is the commencement of israeli-peace talks and move forward with that, which i have

particularly -- and i know the senator from connecticut shares my view, particularly with the leadership that we are seeing on the palestinian side, the chances for fruitful negotiations, i think, are better than they've been since the time you cited back when president clinton had arafat. mr. lieberman: it is destructive of our national and u.s. interest and takes our eye off the two ball that's we have to focus on, one is the israeli-palestinian peace process and the threat of a fluke iran. it is a threat to the palestinian leadership. iran is the number one supporter of hamas which is antagonist to

the leadership of the palestinian authority. the senator from arizona is absolutely right. peace between the palestinians requires delicate negotiations. my friend and i were together in the palestinian area in january of last year and we met with the leadership and -- and it's an interesting moment because in both countries the economy's doing pretty well, the palestinians have seen a real surge in economic growth. security is better on both sides. and we've got leadership on both sides. the prime minister of israel and the president of the palestinian authority, and the prime minister, you have three leaders there committed to the resolution and a peaceful process.

if for some reason the people in the american government continue this dispute, frankly, it makes it hard not just for the israelis, but the palestinians to get into the peace process because the -- we -- we can't be more dmonding than they -- demanding than they are, if you will, and they really want to establish -- want to move the peace process forward as i'm convinced as the prime minister of israel so -- it's time to lower voices, get over the family feud between the u.s. an israel. it just doesn't serve anybody's interest but our enemies. and george mitchell is -- i said to him and personally i will say it here, he's a saint. whoever the saint of patience is, george works under that saint. through his patience and per persistence of talks between

palestinian and israel will begin and. mr. mccain: i ask that my taint an statement from the senator from connecticut be included in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call: quorum call:

mr. nelson: mr. speaker? i mean, mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. nelson: i ask consent that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. nelson: mr. president, i guess the house is on my mind right now. that's why i addressed you as "mr. speaker." since the house seems to have something important going on with regard to something known as health care reform and health insurance reform, and we are

waiting expectantly to hear information that the house will get the votes together and pass the senate-passed bill on health reform that we passed on christmas eve. mr. president, i came to speak about another subject today, and it is when i was a young congressman way back in 1980, i voted on something known as the clean water and clean air act. and one of the parts of this legislation, it has a fancy name, but in essence that's what it was: clean air and clean water. and one of the major thrusts of this was where we have toxic

waste dumps all over this country which was first exposed by this toxic canal called love canal in the state of new york that often the cause of this toxic dump, the company has since, long since gone and is probably bankrupt. and, therefore, there was no financial means by which we could go about cleaning it up. you couldn't get to the responsible party because they had long since left town or they had long since gone through a series of bankruptcies, and there were no funds available to clean it up. and that left it on all the rest of us -- the taxpayers.

and what we found was that there were a lot of these places all over the country. this was particularly true in my state of florida. and of all of these sites, now we call them superfund sites named after the trust fund that was being set up, filled in the trust fund by money that would come from a fee being imposed upon the industries that were doing the polluting or under the concept that the polluter was going to pay instead of the average taxpayer. and they called this trust fund the superfund. and so they call these sites the superfund sites.

now, in my state, we have 52 of these sites, and we have another 13 identified. but nationwide, there are over 1,200 of these sites that have already been named, and they need to be cleaned up. well, here's the problem: why aren't they cleaned up? well, as i said, when i was a young congressman and we passed this new law, we were going to have the financial means to clean these sites up by having the industries that were polluting pay a fee that annually would go into this trust fund. and in return they were getting something. they were getting relieved of any financial liability. and that was the deal. and along this law -- this law

operates for about 15 years, and it comes up for renewal. and lo and behold, those industries activated their lobbyists, and they killed the reimposition of that fee in the mid-1990's so that they got off scot-free because they don't have any more liability, but they're not paying their fair share. the industries were the petroleum industry, and it was a minor tax that was imposed on the production of oil and the importation of foreign oil into this country. and the chemical industry in 52 chemicals that were produced, and there was a small fee that was assessed for that, that went

in and filled up this fund basically to the tune of about $1.3 billion a year. but along comes the mid-1990's, and those industries activate their lobbyists, and they kill the fees on a going-forward basis, but they didn't kill their relief from liability. and so what we have is now a trust fund that is depleted of money. we have over 1,200 sites all over the country that desperately need to be cleaned up, and there is no money except going to the american taxpayer and getting the money from them to keep cleaning up. these sites. well, what we need to do is to reimpose the fee so that we go back to the original agreement

that these polluting industries -- in other words, the polluters pay into the trust fund, and they got that in exchange for relieving them of liability for the pollution that has left these toxic dumps. so, mr. president, i am introducing legislation that would cause this to occur. the president has recommended it. he has recommended a provision by which it would fill the trust fund partially by $1.3 billion in the first year from these fees, and thereafter $2.5 billion a year. i'm changing the recommendation from the president a little bit because the president is imposing a corporate fee as well, and i don't think that corporations that didn't have anything to do with polluting

ought to be paying this fee. i think it ought to be assessed only on those corporations that were part of the polluting. under the original theory of the law back in 1980. and so, that's how i have changed the legislation from what the president has recommended. and i'll be introducing this shortly, and i'm going to send it around to our colleagues, and i hope that they will join me as cosponsors. now, mr. president, i want to tell you about one of these sites that i visited this morning in jacksonville, florida. it's right on the saint john's river. it's right next to one of the main sites of the port of jacksonville, which is a major national seaport. it is 31 acres, and it is all fenced with signs with a skull and cross bone that says "don't

go on the property because you could get cancer." as a matter of fact, e.p.a. has done an analysis of this, and they say the toxic chemicals that are on this site, if somebody were to drink the water, if somebody were to live there, if somebody were to go and scratch around in the sand, they could be exposed by cancer-causing agents. can you imagine right in the middle of a big city next to the saint john's river where the runoff is going into the saint john's river, and guess who's ingesting that? the fish in the river. and the mammals in the river. well, so what we need to do is clean up these sites.

now, this site started back over a century ago. , in the late 1890's. it was a fertilizer plant. it operated for almost a century. it was shut down in the 1980's. and then it was declared a superfund site a few years ago after the analysis showed just what kind of toxic things are there. and i'm telling you, e.p.a. doing an analysis of this has come up and said it could affect nervous disorders, it could cause cancer. they've gone through a whole list of potential terrible health effects that could occur from something that could come

from somebody being exposed to this site. mr. president, there's another reason that we want to clean up this site, and that is that this 31 acres is sitting right next to the major part of the port of jacksonville, which is going to significantly expand once the panama canal is widened and the super tankers, or in this case superships that have these cargo containers on them are able to come from asia through the panama canal to the east coast of the united states, the port of jacksonville will significant lip expand, and this -- significantly expand, and this particular location called the tally rand part of the port of jacksonville will be able to expand by 31 acres raoeupbt -- right on the saint john's river

right next to the port of jacksonville. highly desirable real estate, a lost which you can't even dare go through the fence and walk on the land because of the potential toxic exposure. and remember, this is just one of 1,200 sites across america that need to be cleaned up. is it any reason that people should be able to now clearly understand why we need, under the theory that the polluter pays, to reinstitute the original agreement struck in 1980 for the trust fund to be filled by the fee associated with these toxic substances, and, therefore, be able to clean

up these sites for the benefit of the american taxpayer? mr. president, i yield the floor and i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: