countries it seems from your work manifests some of the misunderstandings that are addressed through person-to-person contact. >> definitely. the media and iran both conservative media and the less conservative media, those few leftist papers, they have to be careful the way they portrayed the u.s. of course, those who are on the right side have a very clear, mostly black picture of this country, we could moral society, which is about collapse. and this is a constant theme that we hear from a number of officials. as well as right wing journalist. but when you go to the left side, it's a different picture. they have to be very, very careful not to portray necessarily positive image of the u.s. because the government

is very sensitive. a very prominent journalist a couple of years ago, he received phone calls from the office of the top official that the store yet published about the u.s. had angered that official because it was too positive. and he was asked to compensate, publish something negative. so we had to go find something, i don't know, crime rate or something that was going up in the u.s. to compensate, to balance it out. so it is -- there is a fine line that they have to be following. the other thing is, depends on where you are, on the political spectrum. it depends on how close or how far you are from the center of power. you have a different position, vis-à-vis the united states. the farther you are from the

center, centers of power, the more likely you as a journalist try to say that the u.s., its threat is serious, economic, military, diplomatic threats are serious. and the way to deal with it is to open up political system and include more reformists, factions in the political process. warehouse, where you go to the right side, people who are in charge, they have a different view and different image of the u.s. and that is it is mostly paper tiger, and they think by pursuing a more confrontational approach they can both maintain and become more powerful regionally. but this is the way they go. >> golnaz, i wonder if, one of our videos that contribute to the. >> we have a video from someone

who's working on her second movie per her books have been translated in 20 languages and are taught in schools in many countries. and in this video she sent us, she talks about what it means to be engaged artist. >> i don't know if i'm politically engaged. to tell you the truth, i have some problem understanding this notion of engagement. especially as an artist. this notion of engagement becomes extremely particularly it does as we talk about engage art or engaged artist, we are talking about -- no longer talk about painting but we're talking about propaganda. we no longer talk about cinema. they talk about movie propaganda. so it's very tricky for me to get this notion.

plus the fact in my life i have seen people, you know, that they were extremely engaged for democracy, in their own household that i have seen people see extra in the engaged in environments and flying jets all around the world, asking journalist, calling themselves engaged journalist being more cynical than engaged. on the other hand, i know that we are social beings, not to call ourselves social animals. and we have to live together. and in a way to be able to live, even from very selfish point of view, the society that is around us has to go well. so i guess the most important point, if i could make a point, i think the most important point of all is to be engaged to

ourselves, to our humanity, to our sense of justice, and to the rule that we can play for ourselves, but also for all the people around us. and probably this is a real engagement that thank you very much. >> geneive, sonya talked about the various forms of cultural diplomacy, citizen diplomacy. person-to-person contact. obviously, the arts are one of those areas, but also plays into another sort of something here it which is misunderstanding, particularly from the west about iran. and one of them is i think there's a perception in the west and certainly in america that, you know, americans would be very surprised to find that iran has an extremely vibrant, diverse art community and one of the real strong sense of the

exchange program has been around the arts and photography, et cetera. and it plays into something that another area, which is that religious exchanges are person-to-person contacting in those areas, and i know you have some experience writing about it and working in some of those areas. i wonder if you could speak to the religious aspect? and in particular you talk about civil society something as a broader issue. >> that's an interesting question, and, you know, again because iran is such a difficult country to understand, i mean, that's why it's so interesting, so dynamic, i think that americans tend to either view iran as a really religious traditional society, or as a secular one. and that somehow they don't understand that it's much more complicated than that. but i think, you know, as part

of that it's -- years ago for example, even as recent as three or four years ago, clerics you to come to the united states from iran. when i was there 10 years ago, a delegation was actually supposed to come to georgetown university and they're all these visa problems or they were sent back to iran. but even recently as three or four years ago clergy to come here. and i think that, you know, that small sort of delegation like that could go a long way in trying to even explain to people in this country how diverse the clerical establishment is. because in fact it is very diverse. you know, we hear for example, and we heard in the earlier panel, about the sort of religion playing an ideological role in iran, which of course is very much the case, at least that's what the regime has intended. but, in fact, when you meet some of the clerics themselves, as i did when i was working as a

journalist in iran, and a lot of them don't support the views of the regime. and a lot of them are far more progressive than we sort of have any idea about sending in the united states. day, you know, and these are just sort of some of the dissident clerics that we read about in the newspapers, but these are intellectuals. these are religious scholars who have very, very complex educated views on the role of islam and a moderate islamic society. and i think for example, if we ever had exposure to some of these religious scholars we would find that there are as many sort of hard-liners and ideologues in the iranian population and civil society as there are a lot of progressive clerics who are also influencing iranian society, and that's very important to sort of keep in mind. >> can i add to that? of all of the different areas of exchanges, i think the one that has been the most steady and not

have so many of cendant has been religion. and interfaith exchanges, and a lot of people are skeptical right now, where the exchanges and engagement can they do anything. and it's clear we should be looking for critical mass. we should be looking for very long-term approach. but through the discussions of religion, many other things are discussed that are of great importance to both of our countries. issues of common humanity, of justice, of compassion, of human rights. and so i would say that that's something that can be continued, and it isn't just about interfaith discussions that don't lead into the rest of the arenas of society and politics. they very much do, and we should do everything that we can to support those. >> it is very ironic that some of the most challenging intellectual dissidents in iran are coming from the circles.

and they're actually the most powerful advocates of secularism. but not in the european sense that it is more of the american sense. these are not from religion and this is something very, very interesting that's been going on for almost 25 years. and again, it's ironic that many of those people find it very hard to get a u.s. visa. >> sought to step back, before the u.s., they don't have an intersection or anything in iran so they have to go to dubai or they have to go to turkey. and that in of itself is costly and has consequences. so sometimes they even have to go to dubai and especially not with the internet restriction, people having difficulty supplying on line for visas inside of iran. so they're having to go to dubai and fill out, go back to dubai and then fly out from there. it makes it very difficult.

>> a more contemporary question. it's come up a couple times already, that the current climate, particularly i guess since june, makes extreme it difficult to do some of this work. you preface one of your answer by saying i have to go back a ways because, you know, this is real difficult to do know. but this is where we are. and efforts are continuing, not all of the efforts by various organizations and others that do this type of work are even visible. but how do we, how do we do exchange is? what needs to change other than the obvious, but what kind of things can be done given this because none of you, all of you work in the areas in areas where you don't believe in giving up on. so what can we do now? what needs to happen? how to make that progress? >> well, i think, i mean, one thing is to keep in mind that

sort of the traditional types of exchanges are more difficult now, as you mentioned that it's not only the visa problem, but if you take, for example, there were groups of iranians who came out of iran and went to germany this past summer for a series of conferences that were held, and these are activist civil society people and they could return to the country. so we have to keep in mind that as part of these exchanges, we are also putting them at risk, because even if they are given visas and asserting that risking the fact that these are people who are publicly, you know, sort on the radar screen of the governed. these were just young people who came out of the country to attend a conference. and not even today they are still stuck in the berlin. some of them in bonn. i think the approach now is to try, if you want to have exchanges of people, try to choose those people are less prominent, who are not in any way sort of have drawn the

attention of the government. and then have some sort of plan b. so if they cannot return to the country, the idea is to bring them out and have exchanges, that there are provisions for them to be able to sort of, you know, exist in some sort of temporary existence, should that happen. because that's a real possibility outcome is that people can come out and cannot return. >> there are still organizations that even since the june elections have been able to carry out exchanges, and i think they have done it in a way in which it's a very, very clear what they are doing. science for example. and so they have certainly kept it out of the political minefield that we are in now. but i think that a lot of people are talking about engagement, very broadly, as we saw in the video down to what we're talking about here now. engagement with whom? because there is this new movement inside of iran that a

lot of people are wanting to find ways to support, but we need to re-examine the purpose of the exchange that there are a lot of different organizations that do this for different purposes, and to really clear fly the intent, i think that depends on what kinds of things that you're doing. some kind of joint consulted the commission, perhaps to the united nations with the u.s. and iran, at least passing some kinds of messages, key making about what it is that we're trying to do. would prevent some of the things that have happened. we can't -- it's really difficult to say. some people will be stopped, will be allowed to go and do something might happen to them afterwards that it's difficult to say, but i think if there is a way in which we can sit down and talk about what we were jointly like to do, that would be one way of moving forward. but it's encouraging, as

discouraging as we are in this, it's encouraging to say that people are still able to carry on exchanges now. >> i wonder if this is a place for we could bring it in a bit based on your expense as a journalist and someone who monitors the iranian blogosphere, among others. one of the points that's been raised earlier, especially by mohammed, is the ways in which conversations that happen to the media can be distorted or manifest or reinforce, i wonder if you can talk about sort of what the conversations in the iranian blogosphere, which of course is already oversimplified by me, look like? what are the diversity of those conversations look like? what are the things that people talk about when they are talking amongst themselves, about these issues? and maybe even as compared to a year ago when there was so much attention. >> i think compared to a year ago, people are blogging more

about politics odyssey, about the green movement, about political prisoners, about people who have been brave. so the discourse has changed since last year. nowadays, we mention here engagement has been discussed and many bloggers see you guys, this is maybe not the right time to engage with the iranian government. nik had a good cartoon of obama wants engage with him again jobs government. so this is one other topic that has been discussed but nowadays what's very interesting, i see this debate going on about what happened in turkestan. lots of bloggers are discussing that and they are joining with what happened in iran to the situations are very different, very different countries. and let me go to one blogger who has fled iran. we have his picture.

this is his blog, and it would also goes to big picture of it. he fled iran through the mountains. is a very popular blogger, and he has been blogging about the green movement, and he was taking part in many of the postelection protest. in his latest blog he writes about the situation in turkestan, and, you know, in turkestan is a she missed a chance to government and why didn't happen in iran. and briefly he says that first of all, this is a very funny person, that's what he is so popular. he says it is such a small country, that the opposition could from all the other cities get to their within two hours. while and i read it is not possible. and also he says you bring about the issue of internet same that since iranians are very fond of internet, and lots of

discussions about how to demonstrate, especially average of the revolution, was going on the internet. so people were discussing all night him and the next day they were so tired that they could wake up on time to go to protest. [laughter] >> that's why they didn't make it happen on the anniversary of the revolution. >> i want to go to questions in a minute but i want to step back and ask a broader question a couple broader question. it seems like the more you read about exchanges with iran, the more obvious it becomes that, particularly in the west and especially in america people don't realize that we are doing it for some time. and i wonder, i want to ask first, is that a problem? and if so, how do we remedy that. we have a political debate in this country, certainly in the last year, in which some argue that engagement is just not the diplomatic level but at this level, is that enron and

validate the regime and all this sort of thing. and we've been doing this for some time. so how, doesn't matter that people don't understand this is happening. but if it does matter how do we do a better job of letting people know what's going on and why it's important? >> i think one problem is that the other side is equally paranoid. the moment you tie certain actions to a certain outcome, for political faction, we say we have engagement because we think they are strengthened. ui dramatically make the conservative establishment more concerned and they will do anything they can to stop it. on the other hand, is very difficult not to do it because a lot of people will be saying that you are legitimizing the government. so it is very complicated.

and difficult balance. but again many people who are in iran, talk to, they say there are number of steps that can be taken regardless of who is going to gain the benefit. ultimately, those steps will affect people's daily lives in iran. and will make the government less paranoid if they just don't talk about it. you know, how it will affect the green movement or how it's not going to affect the green movement. this is one issue. >> aside from the time when the search for common ground worked to bring the u.s. wrestling team to iran, and that any known as amount of media attention and frankly, we thought -- saw that out because we were hoping it would change the atmosphere and be a next step in official change.

but, frankly, as a practical matter, now for exchanges we really avoid the media. and it's too bad, but i'm not sure how mature difference it would make. i've had, you know, filmmakers come here not since the election, and i didn't put anything on our website. you have seen our website. the iran page sort of dropped off a few years ago because it could be problematic to them. if they receive some kind of permission to be able to come, but that permission might change by the time that they get back. and you will notice, let's see, international business program, that there were many, many, many, different exchanges and really important areas like earthquake survival, the terms of chemical gassing, all sorts of things. and those did not get media attention because our experience has been that it makes it more difficult to continue the work. and that's too bad, but it would be a full-time job, frankly, to try and curb the ship in that

way. in terms of the public opinion about iran and what not that i think that there are others that can use new media and other things to help to do that, and it's really about information, about learning more about the other. and that's a long-term process. this is where we are really being the result, 30 years of no contact and hostility. that's what it is bad, and it's not going to be overnight, to change it. >> you are starting a website. >> yes. it's been in operation since september, and if i could just plug it quickly. it's www.inside iran.org. and it's a website that is the material as much as possible is written by iranian scholars and activists to some degree from inside iran. spent what i hear you saying, especially youths on you, is in some ways the paradox here is it has to be below the radar.

okay. that makes a lot of sense. now in terms of the political debate here which is part of the discussion as well, part of what empowers these sorts of program, private and a, government funding. what do you say, any of you, what do you say to skeptics of programs, citizen department programs, et cetera, and the funding for them, who say, well prove it. proved this stuff work. because one of the problems, you have come back to several times, these are long-term benefits. and this is a problem for public funding in general which is you have funding cycles that are based on immediate returns, and get public diplomacy and citizen diplomacy are really fundamentally about long-term goals and aspirations and outcomes that are difficult to measure and difficult to measure in short term. so what do you say, any of you, to skeptics who say prove it,

prove it that these things actually work? >> i think that's a really legitimate point, especially because we have all agreed today, this is a crisis that needs an immediate -- that needs to be addressed in more immediate ways. but i was going to sort of suggest that -- i mean, i think even the political climate in iran, given the u.s. iranian relationship that may be the way to approach a exchanges is figure out what sector of the iranian population has interested in having an exchange, i mean, cultural issues aside, but for exam but if you look at positions in iran, physicians in iran have a real need for access to medical research that is being conducted in the united states, being conducted in europe. again, this is a huge problem. they can't trouble at that they don't have literature. so if you just look at positions i think that would be a one way

to have some sort of immediate effect if you're going to bring people out. another sector of the operation is the scholarly community. as you mentioned there is not a list that was published three months ago of 60 organizations, their foundations, their think tanks. some of them include the open society institute which of course is led by george and others. i can you that people now, that we contact are terrified if a scholar is invited to a conference. the first question is issue organization on the list. but there's a real need for people to be able to have scholarly exchanges. so i think that maybe in a very specific way, if certain professions, part of the population can be identified that would have a great benefit in these exchanges, that that has a more immediate result than things that are more ambiguous or broad.

>> i want to welcome people to come to the mic and asked a question if they have it. >> i am from the university of melbourne i want to draw everyone's attention to, in iran and among iranians it seems as though engagement is interpreted as between the citizenry and the government, not within other social institutions. she mentioned the family, for example. it's extremely important what she said that someone can be all for democracy outside the home and to come back home at night and the a teacher, the father has always been. the question is what -- and i know you are right, absolutely it is such a long-term thing, what can institutions such as search for common ground or think tanks in general, or universities, institutions do to change that dynamic inside -- in other words, bring back cultural

change if that's at all within anyone's purview? thank you. >> i would be very careful in terms of the organization that i work for to really distinguish between what could be considered as interference and what's engagement. and so that -- we are proceeding very, very cautiously, and going back to what is the aim of what it is we're trying to do, and it's really our task is to discover and implement ways, practical ways for people to have differences to come together. and that, based on their mutual humanity, et cetera. so i am careful to say that an organization like the one that i work for could do something about those sorts of things in iran. and one of the simple dynamics of exchanges is that many people in the civil society are given permission to participate are given permission by the government. and that's part of the

atmosphere. in terms of funding these sorts of initiatives and exchanges, we have been fortunate to have long-term visions. but they don't get the results that they used to have that is gaining more and more difficult to prove. so the question is very valid. so i will turn it on its head. so we don't engage? so we just ignore this whole societies, which before 1979, we had good relations with, trouble, but good. so we just ignore them? we isolate them? how is that going to work? does that work? >> just remember that the government has reported, alec is something around $5 billion to deal with this soft war, to identify, know which organizations do what, and how that's going to affect

diplomatic dynasty in iran spirit i think one important thing that's happened is related to what mohammed is saying is that the government has cast the net so wide now. i mean, the sophistication on the part of the regime cannot be underestimated. i mean, overestimated. if you call someone in iran, whether it is an activist or professor, two days later they could be arrested. i mean, this is how sophisticated they are at monitoring who speaks on the phone to people in the west, what did he know communication is. you know, we've had things report in the iranian press that, you know, business of the website i run, we have no idea how anyone found us out. i mean, it's just amazing that i don't know if they're reading e-mails on a regular basis.

it's quite funny how sophisticated the regime has become. >> unfortunate, we have only one more time for one question. >> forgive me if this was rates are here, sonya, at the beginning of your comments, but have any of you talk, appealed to the u.s. government to let more iranian journalists come to the united states and travel around the united states to set up bureaus in washington to get out of the 25-mile radius of the united nations where i think there are three iranian journalist and that's all they have got. it seemed to me that even though obviously there would be a lot of propaganda and the uintah glances of american reality in iranian state media and the way that you're not getting out, add up what to serving up the atmosphere. >> that's certainly something we bring up in conversations that we have. that and the 25-mile radius of u.n. officials. and i think the state which our relations are now have always been very emotional, but they really are now.

it such that even by giving one little thing, even abide that in one person come here, it would be likely were getting something too much for nothing. that's a very bad. [inaudible] >> very shortsighted. and i think having journalists come and see the congress would be a really important thing. >> want to make one final point, a point about academia has been brought up. one of the models that we see for any student in the worry is i.t. university and deal mac lectures online. is probably a way in which the academic community around the world could do something along that model, call it a floating university or something like that. i guess part of the cold war efforts as well. i want to wrap my first of all thinking our panelists and everybody that was here today, and all of you. you know, in reading lolita it

takes to create a relationship and once i keep the of the site invisible that they both suffer, and i think that's really an underlying theme of all we talked about today. thank you all very much for coming, and thank you. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] . . the u.s. senate returns from its two-week spring recess

today. they will gavel in two eastern for general speeches. and several other expiring federal programs. oklahoma senator tom coburn has been blocking the bill because not all the extensions are funded. senators will vote at 5:30 eastern on moving the bill forward. and tonight, on the communicators, reaction to the appeals court decision on fcc rules regarding net neutrality. the court said the federal agency does not have authority to regulate how internet service providers handle traffic over their networks. "the communicators" tonight 8:00 eastern on c-span2. >> my philosophy ask best when i think the answer might give me a little help deciding the case.

>> a look at the "national press club" here where dennis quaid will be speaking in a half hour on medical mistakes. mr. quaid was also our guest this morning on "washington journal.". a look at that discussion now while we wait for our live coverage of his speh at the press club. >> host: until 10:00 eastern this morning we're joined by actor, patient safety advocate, dennis quaid and dr. charles denham, chairman of the texas medical institute of technology here to talk about medical errors and patient safety. dennis quaid, probably a lot of folks saw your story on "60 minutes" a year or so ago. for purpose of this conversation for our viewers,

why don't you start us at that point. what got you initially interested in the issue of patient safety. >> guest: my wife and i, my wife kimberly and i we have two 2 1/2-year-old twins now just doing great. but on the 10th day of their lives they had to go into the hospital for, an infection that they had that required a round of antibiotics. they, during their stay they were injected twice with a blood inthiser called heparin. unfortunately they received two doses. 1,000 times the dose they were to receive. and it almost killed them. basically turned their blood to the consistency of water. >> host: heparin is a common drug? >> guest: it is one of the most commonly used drugs in hospitals to relieve clotting at the point of an iv. >> host: now there are obviously okay and doing well. but, at what point did you and your wife discover this, that this issue?

>> guest: well, it happened, the first time they were administered the overdose we were actually there in the room. no one at the hospital noticed until after the second overdose. was injected. and that was on a blood stick draw that, our daughter received. >> host: when it all played out, who was at fault here? >> guest: well, it was chain of events really of errors that occurred from the pharmacy, really to the point of manufacture of the heparin, to the pharmacy, to the nurse's station and finally to the bedside of our twins, checks were missed along the way and missed twice. and it's, totally preventable, that's the sad part about it. >> host: how long after the incident your twins got better did it come to you to think about, make this a

personal issue for you and your wife? >> guest: pretty much immediately. i remember being in the hospital with the twins after the 41-hour order deal that they had been through and, i remember thinking to myself, these little babies are 10 days old and they're going to change the world really in some way. that really started kimberly and i doing our research and starting a foundation, the quaid foundation. and, to, to try to make sure that this doesn't happen to someone else's kids or loved ones. >> host: i'll let dr. denham pick up the story from there. how did you come to work with the quaids? and tell us a little bit about your two organizations joining together here. what are you looking to do? >> guest: well, i have honor of working with a wonderful, wonderful teams of experts all over the country that develop the national standards or safe standards, safe practices for u.s. hospitals. in that work we are focused on, not the bad people but

the bad systems that predispose these things as dennis said. this is like swiss cheese. things can get through each one of these checks and balances. so in that work i wrote an article about the performance envelope and used the right stuff as an example, used their story as an example. and then, through dennis's father-in-law we got connected found out we were both pilots and we both had passion for safety and quality. dennis is actually an insider now. not an outsider. he is bringing awareness to the magnitude of the problem but also the magnitude of how much we can prevent and that's the story. >> host: what makes you an insider now? how has to sort of driven that path? >> guest: it is continuing education i will say that but never expected that i would read as many medical journals or learn as much as i have about medical safety before the incident with our twins. and, it's just, i figured out really my role in this

is really raise awareness because i am a public person and i'm glad to play that role. >> host: part of that you will be at the press club later today talking about this there. taking questions from reporters as well. and dr. denham as well. we have phone calls waiting. just to remind folks. 202-737-001 for republicans. and independents and others 20-202-60825. before we get to calls, number of problems, medical errors, compare to other industrieses are rates of errors higher? >> staggering. staggering. in 1989 a report declared there were as many as 100,000 preventable deaths equivalent of 10, 747s going down every week. when you add what the cdc reported couple years ago, almost 100,000 people die from preventable infections

we give patients in the health care system, that doubles to be 20, 747 jumbo jet liners going down every week but spread over 5700 hospitals and happens in the systems and it's invisible. >> guest: actually third leading cause of death in our country. >> host: how many people a year die from medical errors? >> guest: i would say 200,000? >> guest: got to be over 200,000. the documentary we're releasing and dennis is announcing, chasing zero, not just about the winners but the biggest story are the winners all over the country saving lives with ordinary things. that's, where we're so excited to have dennis humbly said as known person but his celebrity brings real awareness to the documentary. >> host: the documentary is coming up on discovery later this month? >> guest: april 24th it will air. >> host: we have calls waiting we'll get to them momentarily. one quick question, what is driving increase of medical errors?

number of people using the system? is it personnel? >> guest: great question. we're treating sicker and sicker patients faster and faster with more and more complex illnesses and support systems can't keep up with them. we've got good people, bad systems. that is where dennis, both of us are pilots. we believe ntsb approach to medical harm could be absolutely magnificent helping bring things to zero. zero is the number. now is the time we can do it. >> host: this thick book you brought along. i will take that and put on robotic camera. you're unveiling safe pracce. who is this publication intended for? >> guest: national quality forum as special designation by u.s. congress to develop consensus standards and federal government and all organizations can use. dennis will announce release of this year's version of over 500 page report. 500 experts contributing to it. synchronized across every quality organization in the country. there are basic things you

can do to save lives. we're so grateful for him helping to put wind in the sails of this set of standards that come out each year. >> host: we have calls waiting. silver spring, maryland. ann on the democrats line. go ahead. kale yes my primary question how we address the fact that the medical profession physicians do not regulate their own profession to protect patients? and my experience is i had very minor symptoms. i went for neurological testing. i developed very severe chronic symptoms after other doctors reviewed testing i found out this doctor, who is one of washingtonian's top doctors, one had been a very good doctor but over several years was very erratic in his performance and professional behavior. and, that, the testing he had done was totally excessive and totally consistent with my developing permanent muscle spasms which require all

sorts of physical therapy and medication which i may be on for the rest of my life. these doctors all knew this man's reputation, and yet he is still out there practicing. >> host: ann, we'll get a follow-up. any thoughts? >> guest: you know, this is why dennis and i so fervently believe that the aviation system is a great model because there's standards that have to be met. basically the health care system is a guild system. we've got a long way to go to transparency and standardization regarding care. very complex. much more complex than aviation. the scenario that was just described is one that is not uncommon. we really need to have transparency and standardization and new standards. not overregulate them. >> host: those sorts of scenarios more common, say something, sort of, sudden emergency incidents such as what happened to your twins? >> guest: well, over 100 accidents or, minor or major accidents happen in every

hospital in this country every day, really. they go unnoticed. and, chuck said before, that they're spread out over the entire country. so many hospitals. so the public never really hears about them. there needs to be a call to action for more transparency for hospitals to share information and, be more open about their mistakes like they are in the aviation industry. of course when an airplane goes down it makes national news and cries to do something about it and fix the problem. ntsb has been really great about that. same thing needs to happen in the medical industry. >> host: how willing was the hospital, i same this is in los angeles, how willing were they hospital, staff to work with you, to find out the cause of the problem? >> guest: well at the time, that it happened, we asked the -- requested records immediately and they were reluctant, they were

reluctant to give them to us. we actually got them on last day of our stay there. and, really as a patient we felt like we were dealing more with risk management, more with lawyers, liability issues than we were with, with medical personnel in care of our twins. that was very frustrating for us. i will say, in the end that, cedars stepped up to the plate and installed a lot of safety equipment and that, systems that have improved safety at cedars-sinai i think. >> host: let's go to marquette, michigan, stan is on our republican line. good morning. >> caller: good morning, gentlemen. >> host: go ahead, stan. >> caller: mr. quaid? >> guest: yes, sir. >> host: i watched you for many years, you and your father and appreciate the movies you've been in and what you stand for. i have some problems up here

in regards to the operation of a hospitals. my fiance used to be on a very addicted drug with opium base to it, oxycontin. she had waned herself off this. she has got a sciatic nerve problem with two disks that are separate her back, different ways. she had explained to them that she had waned herself off this very addictive drug. she was complimented by this doctor and then turned around given ultimatum. either you take this injection and prescription that was a much larger dosage of the oxycodone with morphine base. that was one incident that was very unnerving. when she went back in a second time, they would teller had -- tell her, there was nothing wrong with her back but gave her plenty information with reasons she was having problems in her back as she is.

i find that the hospitals are pretty much doing what they want to do and they will supersede what the primary caregiver has explained to the patient.bbeñ now, giving this type of drug to a person who weaned themself off it, i find to be very, very destructive in a person's health. >> host: stan, we got your point. we'll hear from dr. denham. >> guest: you bring up an excellent, excellent issue and pain management is clearly going to be another area of the safe practices sometime in the future because we basically have 50 million americans that are in chronic pain. it is lead disability in the country. number two reason why people go to see doctors. 40% of the cancer patients die with intrackable pain not taken care of. it is a huge problem in america. issue you bring up these are highly complex issues. we need to have standards and need to have a transparent methodology to kind of weigh the choices and have caregivers hand off

the information. a lot of time it is miscommunication between all the players because it is very complex. >> host: oregon, mike, good morning, democratic caller. >> caller: good morning. doctor, mr. quaid a privilege to speak with you this morning. hello? >> host: you're on the air. go ahead, sir. >> caller: i'm sorry. my story, my mother passed away january 20th last year and passed away precisely because, she was administered a blood thinner and, she swelled up like a balloon and i was, i later find out, my younger brother called me and told me that she was administered the amount of this stuff, whatever it may be for a person of about 250 pounds. she weighed 102. and, it's, i also found out something that you mentioned that the third highest rate

of mortality in this country, if you combine infectious disease along with misdiagnosis, you come up with the third highest rate. it's, incredible. i find it somewhat ironic she passed away the day president obama was elected president and became president. just a little too late in terms of health care. we are at this point we are, it's, i don't know. i don't know what to do. the guy who administered was a nurse at the hospital and he administered this stuff to her and it's, i still grief to this day. >>. >> host: mike, we're sorry for your loss. >> guest: we're very sorry for your loss. since we started the quaid foundation along with chuck we heard so many stories from so many people around this country who really

don't have a voice, to express their pain. and or informed to do that. -- forum to do that. i think that is part of what is wrong with the system. this is a way we can all band together. those of us who have been victims and advocates and have family members to try to get something done about this. >> host: john if you mentioned if it was heparin. he did say a blood thinner. >> guest: he said blood thinner. >> host: there was story on cnn that says they quote a pharmacist, senior pharmacist at massachusetts general inoston, the problem with heparin is vials of different concentrations, 10, 100, 1,000 units all look-alike. this is common problem. >> one is dark blue. >> guest: because of specifically, i believe because of, the quaid event and dennis's championship of this, that those packages have been changed.

which is really important. but the caller brings up a really key issue. in our hospitals today every patient, every day there is medicaid error but not all cause harm. one in 10 will have harm. that's where dennis and i in our dialogue using technologies like computerized physician order entry or prescriber order entry systems like we have in aviation could really prevent those. >> guest: yeah, the bottles, labeling may have been changed but the problem still has not been solved. in fact we've had several incidents since then, two infants died in corpus christi about a year ago. just, a week ago, an infant, child in nebraska died over the same confusion. we, wha we've, at thehat tried to do, we really advocate the advent of new technologies that are already available, like, bedside bar-coding, usi technologies that exist in

every grocery store and gas station when you purchase something, that will, can scan medication, scan the patient's bracelet. the nurse cans her i.d. as well. if there's, an error in the medication or the wrong patient, it will sound an alarm. >> host: here's boston. good morning to mark. >> caller: good morning, guys, thanks for taking my call. >> host: you bet. >> caller: couple points. first of all i think this really goes beyond politics. you know, the fact that either republican or democrat or independent on the call line --. >> host: mark, we used that just to separate the lines. but you're absolutely right. go ahead with your comment. >> caller: couple things. my grandmother passed away a few years ago. it was actually because of a overdose of coumadin, which is another blood thinner that put her in the hospital. while she was in the hospital, she was, excuse me, train passing by my car.

but while she was in the hospital, she, the, she couldn't really chew. her medication. they were giving her chewables. and the nurse was force teeding the chewables and helping her take the medication but she didn't make sure she swallowed all the medication. she ended up aspirating some of the medicine. and, it ended up causing pneumonia. she ended up passing away from pneumonia because she was so weak already. one of the things i really want to get across just some appreciation some really my profile figures are out there in the community doing work like this to help raise awareness for medical advocates. people, really, really need them. demand is so high for health care and medical care. having people there by your side to really make sure that things go well. >> host: mark, drive safely, there. dennis quaid? >> guest: really, i'm glad

to hear people's stories today. because, we do need raise awareness in this country because even, leading health care, people are really not aware of how big the problem is. and raising awareness, it is more than just knowing. statistics will hit the head but they don't stay with you. it is about really about hitting people's hearts. and touching people's hearts. pause that gets hands to act really. >> host: new orleans it next. susan, go ahead. >> caller: yes i'm calling from new orleans, louisiana. i'm a registered nurse with 35 years experience at the bedside. a couple comments. before i begin let me just say i'm very thankful that your children are doing well. but, i do have a few points and that is, that after the incident with your children occurred my hospital was very, very, quick to respond

to that. and they very careful in the labeling of the heparin that we use on my unit. i work on a very busy, 49-bed, postoperative surgical services unit. in the last quart of the year we gave over 120,000 medications. that is in the last four months of last year. let me just say that as a registered nurse, in nursing school we learned very quickly in the program that we have the five rights before we give medication. the right patient, the right drug, the right doseage, the right route of administration, and the right time. and that's absolutely the most important thing to remember before giving any medication. and so many errors would be prevented if the systems were in place, if we were not constantly being juggling five to six patients within a shift. >> host: susan, sounds like

it is in place in your hospital. >> caller: very much. my question is to mr. quaid, was this medication prescribed by the physician? >> guest: yes. it was. to my knowledge it was routine because of the, the point of entry of the iv, they were giving heparin to prevent clotting at entry point. >> host: commonly used for that. >> guest: saline solution. since then in the pediatric ward at cedars they're using saline as well. we're not here to denigrate care grifers, doctor, nurses, pharmacists. i revere them. i believe they're overwork and underappreciated and out there working without a safety net most of the time. and, you're absolutely right. it's a five rights which are basically a checklist. if it is used it will catch

the problem and it doesn't cost any money really. the cheapest thing we have. >> host: she talked about those rights. run through those again. why they're important. >> guest: the five rights are the right patient, the right drug, the right dose, the right route and the right time. what's really important though as a nurse and she talked about the workload is, typical nurse on a floor walks two to five miles. goes to the nursing station 200 times. goes to medication cabinet 100 times and is interrupted 80% of the time. the greatest nurse in the world can't possibly do everything right over moment without having systems to support them. that's why the documentary that we are releasing is about caregivers that really figured things out like at mayo clinic where they have share rounds, nurses check out in front of patient because they have a patient and family safety net. >> guest: caregivers like all of us, we make mistakes. called human error. if i make a mistake in my

job it is called take two. if a caregiver make as mistake it could mean somebody's life. that's why we're advocating technological backup for human error like in aviation industry like what they learned long ago. we, my wife and i toured a childrens' hospital in dallas where they had to introduce bedside bar-coding the year before and, talked to the nurses there who are using it, i said how do you feel about using it? she said, well, at first, tell you the truth didn't really like it until it caught me in a mistake. then i was very thankful we had had it. >> host: here is pittsburgh and we good morning to mike for dennis quaid and dr. charles denham. >> caller: yes. my question was, only works on me that is --. what are the true side-effects as far as --. >> host: mike, having a little trouble hearing you. try calling back.

we might get a better connection. chantilly, virginia, you are on. >> caller: can you hear me. >> host: mute your television and radio. >> caller: it is muted. good morning, america, mr. quaid, dr. denham. i have, you know, i certainly advocate the utilization of bedside bar-coding but about five years ago i was involved in a car accident and i was taken to one of the most prominent hospitals in the district and what happened was, after, receiving surgery and all that good stuff, i remember waking up in the morning, and just feeling very light-headed. and i had been administered heparin but i recall, lifting my bedsheets and being in a pool of my own blood. now, what ended up happening was, i had lost 75% of my blood because someone, excuse me, forgot to do a blood count. now, i don't know if i was

given too much heparin or if it is just based on human error. i eventually, spoken with the doctor who was supposed to do the blood count but, regardless, nonetheless i feel like i really haven't explored the, like courses of action, viewed my options, you know, -- >> a portion of this morning's "washington journal" on medical errors with dr. charles denham and actor and safety advocate dennis quaid who is about to speak at the "national press club". in 2007 his newborn twins mistakenly received a nearly fatal dose of a drug while in a hospital and he has help ad launch a new national network to alert the public and health professionals about serious medical errors and founded the foundation to raise awareness about the issue. introductions being made now. you're watching live coverage from the "national press club". . .

>> andrew schneider, reporter for kiplinger and chairman of

the national press club speakers committee. skipping of our speaker for the moment, melissa, executive producer of news look me, the vice chair of the speakers committee and the organizer of today's event. janet corrigan, president and ceo of the national quality forum and a guest of the speaker. linda cramer jennings, washington editor of glamour magazine, and a new member of the national press club. alison fitzgerald, reporter for bloomberg news. richard simon, correspondent for the gnash -- los angeles times at. [applause] >> our guest today is fresh off a production set in hawaii when he was building soul surfer. in the true story of 13 euros ing champion who lost her arm and a shark attack, dennis quaid plays the father. a 56 euro father of three in row life, he faces own

life-and-death experts in november 2007 when his newborn infants received a massive accidental overdose of the blood thinner heparin and nearly died. since then, quite has become a prominent advocate to patient safety. he launched "the quaid foundation" with his wife to focus attention on avoidable medical errors. he testified before congress for drug accounting and cowrote an article for journal patient safety. he speaks wind on improving standards of patient care telling his story from oprah to alan too generous to 60 minutes, to raise public awareness. on april 22 his documentary, chasing zero, winning the war on health care harm will premiere in france. it's slated for its u.s. release on april 24 on the discovery channel, but first in a patient educated cities. though he has no medical degree, he has played a doctor on the screen. you may remember his initiate doc holliday and afflict wider.

[laughter] >> he has portrayed the struggle heavyweights including astronaut gordon cooper in the right stuff, jerry lee lewis in great balls of fire, and sam houston -- [applause] >> we have some great balls or jerry lee lewis and. we can't determine which ones. also has played sam houston in the alamo. he has received critical acclaim for such films as the big easy, traffic, my personal favorite is breaking away. [applause] >> and most recently starred in legion, and g.i. joe, the rise of the cobra. [laughter] >> for his role in far from heaven quaid won best supporting actor awards from new york, chicago and online film critic. he won the independent spirit award for best supporting male actor and has received nominations for both golden globe and the screen actors guild. today's topic will be real health care reform, chasing zero

harm. and also to note as we introduce dennis quaid, he is a recent 56 year old with a birthday last friday. and i believe in the first in the history of the national press club, we have brought forth a national press club with candles being lit. what's the code for those candles? i'm the president here. national press club, come on down, birthday quaid -- cake i hope there's no quake, for dennis quaid. thank you and welcome to the national press club. [applause] ♪ ♪ ♪

[applause] >> please note that that song may not have been sunk by the working journalists in the audience. [laughter] >> please welcome in his quaid. [applause] >> thank you, alan, for that fine introduction. and also thank you for the sharp cookies, by the way. i hope everyone got one. i don't know if it refers to my latest movie or a lobbyist convention that was here last week. [laughter] >> but i played a lobbyist here, by the way. thank you so much. first i must explain the title of my presentation today, in the journey that brought me here i have found out to shocking truths. first, the staggering magnitude of health care harm that occurs in a country.

second, how much of that harm is absolutely preventable. the father of patient safety who could not be here today taught us that up to 100,000 deaths occur each year in this country due to health care harm. and making it the eighth leading cause of death. that was in 1999. that's the equivalent of more than 10, 747 jumbo jets full of americans going to each and every we. when you add infections into the mix, that people get and hospitals, it doubles that number. that means that now 20 jumbo jets are going down a week making health care harm the third leading cause of death in america. yet this epidemic is invisible. it had spread over thousands of hospitals and inhabits quietly and insidiously. the public is unaware and many of our health care leaders are unaware of this. that's the bad news. the good news is even more

shocking. in my journey i have found that america has the means to dramatically reduce regrettable hard to almost zero. however, the public policymakers, and most health care leaders are unaware of this, which i find absolutely amazing. so my mission today is to drive awareness, awareness of the shocking amount of harm that we have, that we can prevent, and my message is a call to action. i have found the role that i can play. and it is to partner with the best experts and drive awareness of we can do if we act now. i will succeed today if i enlist your help in the need to help us drive action through awareness. awareness of both the harm and the opportunity to save countless lives.

stories have the power. you are storytellers. we need you. we need you to tell the stories of success, not just their dramatic stories of harm. awareness is more than just knowing. it's about feeling. feeling the pain and suffering of the victims of health care harm, and their families. for their more than just statistics. the feeling of desperation from great stories of great role models who inspire us to action. real health care reform is impossible without dramatically cutting preventable harm. it will save lives, save money, and restore the sacred trust between patients and caregivers. zero harm is the number. and now is the time it. all the leading experts are teaching you this.

my story, the story that brought me here today, was the near catastrophic medication accident of our twins. until then i had heard my share of medical worst was, but they were mostly secondhand. and i myself had my portion of typical hospital stays. but i always had faith that i was in a safe place, safe with doctors and nurses and pharmacists. they knew what they are doing and they never made mistake. i had the confidence that i would live to see another day because, after all the reason i was in hospital to begin with wasn't life-threatening. but little did i know how dangerous any hospital can be. and let me tell you this right off, i'm not here to denigrate doctors, nurses, pharmacists, any caregivers that i review them. i really do. they have dedicate their lives to turn the sick and easing suffering. and they're overworked,

underappreciated. but they're also human. and all humans make mistakes. i have now learned that the overwhelming majority of health care harm is due to failure of the systems that support them. we don't have bad people. we have bad systems. our support systems have just not caught up with the complexity of care. the good news is, we can fix them. on the 10th day of life, our twins were admitted to hospital with infections requiring intravenous and ionic. now while my wife and i were in the room, a nurse, attention accommodate our children 1000 times the dosage of a dangerous blood thinner called heparin. unaware of what just happened, kimberly and i were exhausted, and our children appear to be safe, so we went home to get some rest. we had no way of knowing that could potentially label under

the legal quantity of heparin and a tiny body was turning to blood into the consistency of water. that night, incredibly, another injection, 1000 times the intended dose was minister to our precious children. at about 9:00 that night, my wife, kimberly was suddenly struck with a hammer blow of overwhelming threat. she became inconsolable and she was crying out with a mothers intuitive that our babies were in trouble. they are passing, i remember her saying. so i called the nurses station, and we were told that the twins were fine. but the twins were not fine. in fact they were fighting for their lives. they were bleeding out of every place they had been poked or prodded. and their now water than blood have the real possibility of hemorrhaging through a vein or artery, causing massive brain damage or 51 of their vital organs.

our babies could have died that night. and we would not have been there for them. and the next day, the next day was probably the most frightening day of kimberly's and my life becomes spent caring for our it and who were still bleeding profusely. and severely bruised of internal bleeding, they're both screaming in pain. and god only knows what they were feeling. at one point as the doctors try to plant, blood sport of 60 across the room and splattered on the wall. the twins lead all day, and although they were given an antidote for heparin their plea in lab tests remain off the chart all day and well into the night. kimberly and i did a lot of brain. and, finally, after 41 hours, they are coagulate levels dropped into the normal range. t.b. and z.g. had survived.

apparently with no damage. and that's the good news. how this happened? the answer became all too apparent after everything the doctors and nurses, we discovered that the similar labeling on the vials of high-dose and low-dose medication is what led to the overdose of our twins. further the same error happened in indianapolis the year before causing three tragic deaths and injuries to a number of children. i am pleased to report that the twins are doing fine. i firmly believe that this was due to a lot of praying by a lot of people who heard about our twins plight in the media, and i'm sure a lot of you here in this room where the cause of that. we can definitely feel that. and i really appreciate that. but i believe there was a reason -- [applause] >> thank you. i believe there was a reason that this near tragic incident

happened to us. through these precious children, and their story, was the opportunities to turn lemons into lemonade by helping prevent something similar happening to someone else's kids or loved ones. after the event, kimberly and i started the "the quaid foundation," and carefully began to learn about patient safety. along this journey i met dr. charles denham who introduced me to leading experts of safety, and helped us to understand that the real sweet spot, or safety envelope for high-performance care, is the intersection of three systems. leadership, say practices, and technology. when these support systems are functioning within the right organizational culture, we get great care, and we get safe care. so, if the job is to accelerate the development of great

leadership, adopted say practices, and implement technologies, as well as creating an organizational culture that will support these systems, how are we going to do this? and what role must i, and you, and the media play? well, what if we had consensus? around the practices that leaders could implement at all u.s. hospitals. well, we already do. the national quality forum has a special designation by the united states congress to develop measures, standards, and practices. and i'm honored to have the ceo, janet corrigan, at the head table sitting to my right. [applause] >> the say practices for better health care are being released today in fact by the internet as a blueprint over the years that these practices address the most

common areas of preventable harm, including medications, and sections, and testing. they include adoption of technologies like computerized, see the o.b. and a flight simulator to measure its effectiveness. they target harmful event the government calls hospital acquired infections that we understand are already built into the health care incentives. he needed action, however, will require courageous leadership. say practices are standardized methods with predictable results. all humans make mistakes. human error combined with systems failures causes the majority of harm to to medical accidents. i'm an actor that if i make a mistake, i have take two, or three or four, or 37. and believe me, i have been there. >> but if a caregiver makes a mistake, it may mean somebody's

life. hospital staff more often than not are working without a safety net working sometimes double shifts. and they are expected to make crucial decisions with clarity and judgment for every patient in their care. often without any backup except for maybe the overworked caregivers working beside them. practices like checklists reduce the possibility of error and harm. now, once you have engaged leaders and standardize practices, enormous power can be delivered through innovative technologies. health care needs more of what the airline industry figured out long ago. safety standard design, and technological backup for human factors related error. the innovative instruments and modern airplanes are essentially a safety net to aid a pilot in flying an airplane safely, even when conditions are zero visibility, and to alert him if he makes a mistake.

and even the pilots with the right stuff, personal careers reference there, know that mistakes happen when the operate aircraft outside of the safety performance envelope. the envelope is defined by their own human performance in the airplanes technologies. technologies, like a barcode systems, smart and fusion bombs, electronic medical records, automated infection tracking, bedside barcoding, and cboe are required saved option. but they can have a huge impact on safety. a national approach of getting zero health care harm will have to involve all stakeholders, and they are getting involved. doctor alan corfu sitting, leading national group clause group under blue cross blue

safety, pursuing programs to reduce essential on infectious. dr. howard koh, assistant secretary of health sitting to my left at the head table is pulling the leaders of the government together to dramatically reduce health care harm and prevent illness. and dr. white and his deputy assistant secretary sitting before me is when the charge on health care associated infections for the entire government. so i am at a weight point in my journey. we have merged aren't, in order that i can more effectively play my role of helping to write awareness of the opportunity to truly chase zero arm along with more than 3100 hospitals, 500 experts that work with them. it is time to make a call to action, to encourage policy makers, to tie the game to have

a say practices to help care reforms. challenge hospitalers to adopt them. at ask the public to demand them. on april 20, i will be speaking to leaders from around the world at a global patient safety some and france were we will premiere the document entitled chasing zero, putting their care on health care. david slotback, ceo of carat fusion, our leaders of the educational sponsors and they are here today as well. our documentary uses patients and caregivers stories to demonstrate that zero harm is within reach. and provides examples of chasing zero role models that will inspire and encourage others. we even have stories of some of

the unsung heroes of patient safety, like cleaning staff, who developed checklists to reduce infections and medical students from around the world who, through their check a box, stabilize program are already saving lives, even before they get there in the. after the documentary aired art discovery we will will give to every hospital board of directors in the country and they will become a continuing education program for caregivers. looking forward to the future, we envision engaging though some industries like aviation, interested in helping us accelerate the develop an of our leadership to say practices and technologies. to speed our learning curves. experts like john, who like many other experts believe we can learn a great deal about patient safety by applying the disciplines of safety in the aviation industry, such as the creation of the ntsb, national

transportation safety board. and applying say practices such as simulation and teamwork training as well as the use of technologies that protect us from human error. now, where we need your help, you in the media, is helping us tell stories, stories and unify the head and the hard. and put our leaders hands to work. and our article entitled story power, secret weapon, we address customers can have impact and activating the ended dave of our health care lives. which is fear. fear of failure. fear of malpractice fear of shame. they might indeed have a bigger problem than they realized. so my ask of you is to help us

tell not just the stories of harm, but the stories of great caregivers. and organizations who live in an that high-performance envelope of leadership, say practices, and technology. dedicated to save high-performance care. the great organizations of people who can help america push the envelope and make the zone of safety or bigger for all of us and our families will prove to be those who truly have the right stuff. and many of you are in this room today. and we thank god for your dedication. and thank you all for inviting me here to speak today. thank you. [applause] >> spirit and thank you, mr. quick. we were now beginning our question and answer period.

and our audience, we know they can sing but we want to make sure they can ask the questions. so feel free to write on your card and pass them all up. first question here, obviously next into what you're talking about today is the health care reform legislation that passed last month. and a question for you that came from our audience is in light of the passage of health care reform how does that relate to some of your goals in reducing medical errors? do you see some positive aspects and either things that still need to be come part of a follow-on that will help you? >> well, and a lot of what we are trying to do our shovel-ready, shovel-ready programs that really don't cost a thing. things like checklists, things like that. and some of that is also covered in the incentive money that, some of it is still to be released from last year. as far as the details of the

health care pro gun, i guess we'll see how all that place itself out. so we will see. >> to you see any issues with the regulatory structure in our health care system right now, ways and procedures that are brought forth by the government that may be creating problems with the issues you discuss? >> i don't know about the government, but what i have found, especially in the technologies that are out there that are available already is interoperability. it comes to things like barcoding and electronic record-keeping, there's copies out there, sort like the early days of data versus vhs, where one product will not work with another product. i think the government is a good way is able to get this link up and where it is all in are awful but at that will bring the cost of will and will training easier for everybody.

>> do you think the health care reform legislation will have any affect on the frequency of medical malpractice? >> once again, i think that will see itself played out. i'm certain that we are all hopeful. about the outcome. >> would you go to the cedars sinai hospital again, despite the event now, now that you're foundation has play? in short has your faith in medicine been restored? >> well, the day after the incident with the twins would have been a good day to go there to have your baby delivered. [laughter] >> put it that way. everyone was really on high alert. i think it woke up a lot of people, really. and hospitals around the country. and a lot of good is coming from a. i must say that i do applaud the cedars for stepping up to the plate.

they spent a lot of money to put it in electronic record-keeping and bedside barcoding. a lot of technology and training as a long ways of making it one of the premier hospitals, on the cutting edge. >> was sort of questions should families ask their doctors before treatment? >>nt a lot of question. in a little question, i think, no matter how trivial. don't be embarrassed to ask. , ask your doctor and always have someone there in the hospital with you if you happen to stay there. because they are your best caregiver, really. they are your advocate. you may be asleep when somebody comes somebody comes in to give him medication that you need someone there to ask. >> what my some of those important questions be?

>> well, just ask any nurse or doctor coming in, what they are doing, why they're doing it, and you know, what is this medication and just all the simple things to find out because we are consumers and we're also we are caregivers as well. we are patient. were also responsible for our own health care. and patients need to ask questions. >> having given your personal story in several different forums, people have been touched and moved by what they produce a. you are also in the genre as celebrity. you will see people come to washington, d.c., with various issues they want to promote. and i think their celebrity name to get attention. what are some of the challenges and pitfalls of being a celebrity speaking on behalf of cause and how do deait

>> yes, that is another celebrity come to be mr. smith goes to washington. because that's the pitfall. or was it tom hanks? well, what i found in the role that i can play i didn't plan on making this a cause. i remember being at the hospital with the twins and it was after the 41 hours of danger that they were in, they were out of the danger period. and i remembered thinking, they are 10 days old and they're going to change the world. so that's what propelled my wife and i, to get involved really. being a known person that's what i can use. and so i welcome that. there are so many people out there who have had worse incidents that we were lucky it had a happy ending.

but some people out there who don't have a voice for what happened. and that's what i was hoping i could do for other victims. >> that leads into our next question. this is a person who wrote i, too, nearly lost a twin baby shortly after birth due to misdiagnoses that she miraculous we survived. how should i engage a hospital on patient advocacy and safety? >> well, i -- you know, open up a dialogue with them. i would say it would be the best way. and dialogue needs to be open. there's hesitancy on both sides mistrust on both sides. i'm talking about patients and hospital. there's got to be avenues open. it's got to be more transparency of hospitals.

they have to have access, access to their medical records to access to information, and also feeling that someone cares, rather than someone is worrying about liability. that's what i was a. >> do you plan to share some day with the twins their story of survival? how we tell them and when we come? >> that's something that i haven't thought much about yet because they're just went to communicate. keeping up with them is -- [laughter] start having to is like having four. [laughter] >> it really is. but one of these days, you know, i guess we will tell them what happened to them. it's well documented that there

will be a lot to show them. and they should be proud of themselves for really what they have done at such an early age. [laughter] >> they really have changed the world already. >> question from the audience. just for clarification, and the work that you are doing with medical errors, are the changes and structures that you're working also dealing with assisted living centers and other place of medical care outside of the hospital's? >> well, certainly that falls under the umbrella of health care harm. it happens in all kinds of places. but we have been, my wife and i have been focusing on hospitals. really, what we focus on originally was when we saw the problem, what happened with our kids. which they were overdosed there and it happened at the bedside, although it originated back really at the drug manufacturer because of the mislabeling or

the similarity of the labels. but it was a chain of events that happened from there because of the labels, and the way they were similar. the pharmacy made a mistake. they stored it in the same been and they were taken out of there. the pharmacist and technicians put to the nurses station and from the nurses station it was into the room. and given to the kids. so what we focus on was originally bedside barcoding. because the nurse can walk in, scan the patient's bracelet and scan the medicine, the scanner id. and if there is a mixer, if there is some kind of come is this the wrong patient, wrong room, wrong something, wrong medication, there will be an alarm that goes off. so that's what we focused on to begin with. are you bringing your cost record two minutes of congress while you're here and who are your biggest supporters?

>> well, congressman has been a great supporter. when we were here. when we gave testimony before congress at that time. i feel like there's a lot of things that are wrong with health care that you need to be taken care of by the government, not just in spending money, but really bringing everybody together to form a consensus. as i mentioned before, worrying about interoperability of all of these different technologies that are out there. >> how would you propose a way to engage the younger population, a conscious effort to acknowledge and understand the health care problems existing in america today speak? well, that's a thing when you're young you don't think about those things because you feel like you're going to live forever. >> gotcha. [laughter]

>> but then we turned 56. [laughter] >> we start to see the end of the tunnel. [laughter] >> and, you know, but, you know, i think the first sign as you start to see your parents really getting older. and then the problems arise. also, what my wife and i found out after this incident and we have so many people coming up to us telling us their stories about what had happened to them or a loved one or a friend. and i think everybody out here knows someone or has a loved one or a friend or it's happened to you, that you have had some sort of medical error happened to you. >> of course along with the many question the health care policy and your own efforts there are several questions about

hollywood. following in transition to the first question is how does age affect the roles you are offered? [laughter] >> does hollywood have enough good part for men and women who may have turned 56 last friday? affect. >> yes. well, if they do the walls again i guess i will be saying goodnight grandpa. good night. actually, i find -- i'm having more fun with acting and movies more now than when i did when i was in my '20s and 30s. maybe i was trying to be something or something. but don't care anymore. [laughter] >> make a fool of myself. i just having fun. i do it because i haven't -- thank you i really have a fire in my belly for it, because so many people get jaded and blasé and board and just give up.

i really love it. that's why i still do it. >> looking at all the cameras clicking away as you speak, how do you learn to live with the celebrity scrutiny? are paparazzi excluding any photographers here today, out of control? >> out of control? when this are coming over the wall. actually, i'm pretty into. i have a very vibrant private life, believe it or not. and i really don't get all that much. and sometimes i really think that i am not congress, or michael jackson or someone of that type. it is kind of hard to to go someplace. and i do recognize, but people are people. in the most part people are nice. you know, it gives you a chance to meet people. you give me a chance to do this. >> medical drama is a popular

genre of storytelling and television and film. based on your own experience and your work on preventable medical errors what changes, if any, would you like to see in the wake health care and hospitals are depicted onscreen? >> that's a very good question. you know, i don't -- oh, yes, i did play doctor. but the bottom line is i have never played a doctor on television, or in the movies. but i don't know. usually, well, they just any movie on health care, and recently with harrison ford, i think it usually they don't do so well. they have gone the ways of westerns, it seems. but i think with documentaries and stories of real people, i think that really has the greatest impact. >> when you say that you haven't played a doctor on tv or screen,

yet having noted your dock or the present, is that because you don't consider doc out of a traditional doctor character or because you're denying wider? >> i don't think that's what he was a dentist. [laughter] >> among your historical figures, or current events actually, the roles are played, where president clinton and the special relation and you also played a character in an american dream. so if you -- so of those of you who have seen or not you, it was a take on president bush. what were the challenges of playing those two different characters? did they teach you anything about them as people as you are learning and studying the role of? >> i learned that i never really want to get into politics, put it that way. but that was actually a great

challenge just recently playing president clinton. i actually spent a weekend in the white house with them, 10 years ago. and kind of got to know him a little bit. so he offered me this will i do know why they would do that than it was written by the same guy who wrote frost nixon. it was a real challenge to do, but sometimes i think you did do the thing you're most afraid to do. >> there was a scene in a film and was shirley mcclain played a mother went into a frenzy and hospital and her daughter with canada wasn't getting the medicine. what would your comment beyond that sort of reaction in real life? seen in a film this is an audience question which charlie mcclain played a mother went into a frenzy in a hospital with her daughter -- >> that was very a prototype but because they got the job done. really quick.

and awoke everybody out. i think really that seem kind of spoke for anybody who has had to stay in hospital at some time. things are going right. >> health care questions. how does the drive for profit in the health care sector affect patient safety? >> the private sector? i would like to see more done in the private sector because, i mean, in the and that's the way is really going to work. it's not just the government handouts, but by making it a business that's profitable. and it makes sense, economically, for all involved. i mean, the best deals are deals where ever one is happy on both sides. to make things run more efficiently for the hospitals come to save money, and by saving lives which is really what it's all about, we also going to save money in the end. in all kinds of ways.

>> have you considered enlisting the assistance of a medical malpractice community in your cause? how can you work with folks were trying to changes to those sorts of rules and regulations into what you're trying to do from a lobbying standpoint in washington, d.c., speak with you mean changing the rules and regulations as far as -- making them tighter? i think that's, you, i'm not really a lawyer to speak to that. i mean, sometimes there's two sides to that issue. and to get politically involved than that, really rather focus on the positive side, improving patient safety. rather than back and forth between lawyers and insurance companies and litigation and all that. >> is that something that being an accident is something you feel more suited for? is that type of role, positive

role? >> well, i just -- mainly interested in speaking about in reference to what happened to our family. and in speaking out to, and rather than being confrontational, really looking for ways to bring people together. >> what have you learned about running a foundation from your expense running a foundation? [laughter] >> that i am all that not well-suited for running a foundation actually. [laughter] >> to tell you the truth, on a day-to-day basis i'd a great delegator. and i guess i'm a pretty good front man. and the day-to-day work of running a foundation, especially with my day job, and being a

father, and the rest of my life, that's why i am so glad to announce that "the quaid foundation" has emerged with the mit, texas institute of technology. dr. charles denham who has become a great friend as well as he is one of the great leaders and experts in patient safety in this country. and he runs a great organizati organization. and it's really engaged and can really do something. and so we are joining up with them because he is much better at running things that i am. >> would you consider making a movie about your own experts and medical error, the story of her twin's? >> no, i don't think so. is in some ways it's really -- it's really difficult to relive that. and i don't think i would want to spend two or three months,

you know, making a movie about it. i think the story is already powerful enough and it's out there. >> a film question. what's with research and preparation do you do when preparing to play a historical figure as distinct from preparing to put an entirely fictional character of? >> pretty good question. it's really different. for one thing, when playing an historical figure, especially someone who is alive, that's the person who is most difficult. i try to put myself in their shoes and tell it from their point of view. that's what i tried to do. tried to get at least kind of the look right, and what they sound like. except when they are known so well. but i really try to capture their spirit, rather than just

-- i try to capture the spirit as much as i can. >> do you have any interest or efforts, issues globally are outside the united states, dealing with medical errors or any other sort of feel? are there any known global issues in which you have an interest in? >> well, for the last 25 years i have been involved in an organization called the international hospital for children, and we were going -- we go down to places in central america and really all over. we were in africa a few years back, and we identify children who need medical attention that they cannot receive in their own country. so we bring them back here to the united states, doctors, surgeons, donated times and hospitals donate and we get to bed and taken back to their families. what their diplomacy is there than that? >> what advice would you have

for a young person, maybe your own children, who would want to s? well, actually my son is going to nyu next year. and he definitely want to be an actor. what do you know? i can't believe it. so you know, my advise to anyone would be the same i would have for myself, and for my own son, is i just want all my kids really to do the thing that they are passionate about. do something that they have fire in about about, really makes them happy that they just have to do. the worst thing as life is a job that you just don't care about. and so that would be my advice to make sure you really want it, success or not. >> looking at younger actors today, is a different or more difficult to break into acting as opposed to when you began?

>> you know, i would imagine it's just as hard today as it was back then. it's impossible is what it is, to break in, you know, and everybody starts adding certain point today. that's why i say you have to really want it. i really feel that the big reason for my success is i just won't go away. just stayed around. you're not chasing me out of here. you know, finally i look i'm a little older and maybe the parts have changed. maybe that's what happened. >> when you look at a figure such as a clint eastwood who is still doing starring roles into his '70s, is that something you can see for yourself? are you going to be sticking around for another generation's? >> i hope so. clint eastwood is the model, the role model, i mean, for everybody. who wouldn't want to be clint eastwood? [laughter] >> the great thing about acting as opposed to being an athlete

is you can do it in till you die. some people have dropped dead on the set. [laughter] >> so why did you choose to do the film soul surfer? was any way tied to your mission on medical errors speak is no, it wasn't. it was -- it was this last christmas i was home watching the today show, which i usually do in the morning with my little two year old son who happen to be at first it and bethany hamilton, bethany hamilton, the story about bethany hamilton that she is a surfer girl when she was 13 in hawaii, sheshark. out of the blue. she was a wonderful surfer but the way she handled that experience and the way her whole family handled that expense was amazing that it's an amazing story. she came back and she is now on the pro circuit of surfing and it's just an amazing story. of faith encourage and life.

and i'm sitting on the couch and tears are coming down my face. she is on the today so just talking about her book. than two days later they asked me to play her father. it was kind of a no-brainer. and then you get to be an ally for two months and getting paid. [laughter] >> that was my first island paradise location actually and might entire career. usually i'm over in eastern europe up to my chest in mud and it is to in the morning and it is unseasonably cold. [laughter] >> so it was great. >> aside from the weather, what do you look for in choosing a project to sign on? [laughter] >> that there would be -- really, when i get a script, you know, they send me the script and i read it, the only time i

get to be an odd experiment is the first time experience of that movie. and that's the way i really decide how -- wit takes me, how i feel. >> during her address today you had kind words for new support and media, which is not been universal among speakers of the national press club. [laughter] >> what complaints may you have about news me and what do you think they can do better in covering issues like your own or others'? >> well, you know we are on a 24 hour news cycle of course, and so there's not much time to spend on any given story really. and it's also the media is run by the marketplace. so much more than i even think it used to be. a couple of years ago. so that's the way things are. just the way it is. so we have to work within that. and i would like to feel a little more in depth coverage on

stories and really staying with them. from the beginning to the end. and i think there's also, because it's the appetite, we as americans have for gloom and doom. but everybody says they would like to see more positive stories out there. >> in your career you have played several roles, some of them have been mentioned that a famous people are still living. what kind of feedback, if any, do you get from the people you have played? >> well, i can say this, that when i was doing great balls of fire, jerry lee lewis was right over my right shoulder every day on the set. [laughter] >> you get it wrong, son. [laughter] >> and he was backing, too. [laughter] >> you didn't want to make him mad. but i like it with people i play her on the set. when i did the rookie jim morris is on the set every day.

i appreciate that it makes me feel better. and i was certain be nervous if someone was doing a movie about certain parts of my life as well. so it's good to have them there. reassure them. >> several bloggers have stated that you would be perfect for a biopic about donna edwards. interested? [laughter] >> that concludes today's luncheon. [laughter] [applause] >> call my agent. [laughter] >> i can't say how it feels just to have impromptu played by dennis played. i will give you my feedback later. [laughter] >> a couple more questions. dealing with health care reform and your effort before we go into our final parts of the

program. when you are looking at supporters for your efforts on capitol hill, our youth seeing this is a bipartisan effort? >> that's really what we're after. chuck and i agree with that. we are trying to be as independent as possible, as nonpartisan as possible. because it's not really a political issue. this is a human issue really that we're talking about. thanks to everybody. >> and where can you expand your support? what are you targeting to get your message to out of? >> everyone. we have been doing television shows, you know, have been out there. that's really my role is to be out there and really be the front man. to be a voice for patients, and so anywhere, anywhere we can get

a gig forasically. that's what we're doing. >> one of the questions was about your band and asking if you would sing a few bars for a. i don't know if you want to go that far, if that would expand the audience, perhaps you would want to consider. you have to pay me for that to. [laughter] >> and leading out that we're almost out of time. but before asking the last question we have a couple important matters to take care. first of all i would like to remind our audience of future speakers and give. will have janet napolitano, the second for the part of all massacred. she will be discussing to world aviation security system. on april 19 will have congressman sander levin, the new chairman of the house ways and means committee. and on april 30 we will have secretary ray mabus, the department of the navy discussing the navy. second, and this is the moment we've all been waiting for. we do not pay gas at the

national press club. as a journalistic form of professional organization, it is something that we try to keep that we appreciate those from hollywood who come without being paid because that's very refreshing for all of us out here and we appreciate your willingness to come and speak with us on your issued today. we do have a token of our appreciation. beyond the first ever birthday cake would now like to present you, the one, famous, only the national press club mug. [applause] >> fascinating. beautiful. thank you so much. it really has to been an honor to be here today. and i want everybody to have at least a finger full of this cake over here, okay? [laughter] >> but before we do that we do have our last question. and often we try to in our last question with something offbeat, something humans, something widely. i think we've had a lot of that

today. for the final question i would like to ask county have mentioned faith and prayer several times today throughout your address. and actually attended prayer to what you think may have saved your twins. danger is it it with your twins change the way you view your faith? >> well, i've always said, i think i've always had a strong faith. in god. i really do. i really do, no matter what your definition might be. i think we all experienced that. even eight years at times. but one thing that really woke me up to the power of prayer with what happened with the twins. because it really, it really does work. it really does. there's a lot of power in life we can all share. [applause] >> thank you for coming today.

>> we would also like to thank the national press club staff, including its library and its broadcast operations center for organizing today's event. for more information about joining or donate to the national press club and on how to acquire a copy of today's pro gun, please go to our website at www.press.org. thank you, and we are now adjourned. [applause[applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> we go live now to the u.s. senate where they are gabbling back in from a two-week spring recess. at 3:00 eastern they will turn to short-term extension of unemployment benefits. and several other expiring federal programs. oklahoma senator tom coburn has been blocking the bill because not all the extensions are funded. senators will vote at 5:30 p.m. eastern on moving the bill forward. we wil haveive senate coverage right here on c-span2. you have revealed your glory. among the nations. increase in our senators. the gifts of faith, hope, and perseverance, enabling them to

obtain what you promise. lord, infuse them. with a passion to do your will, so that this nation will fulfill your purposes in our world. deliver our lawmakers from discouraged thoughts, as they remember your mighty acts in our nation's history. pour eternity into these brief lives of ours, and open to us the gates of a new and deeper fellowship with you. today, we lift our prayers. for those who mourn in west

virginia and poland. we pray in your merciful name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance. 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., april 12, 2010. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable mark r. warner, a senator from the common of virginia, to perform the duties of the chair.

signed: robert cbyrdpresent pro tempore. the presiding officer: the majority leader. the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: g. thomas porteous jr. the presiding officer: without objection. pursuant to rule 9 of the rules

and procedures of the senate when sitting on impeachment trials, the secretary of the senate will now swear the sergeant at arms. the secretary: do you solemnly swear that the return made by you by the process issued on march 15, 2010 against g. thomas porteous jr. is truly made and that you have performed such service as therein described. so help you god? >> i do. i send to the desk the return of service i executed upon the service of the summons upon g. thomas porteous jr., friday, march 19, 2010, at 8:55 a.m. the presiding officer: the return of service will be spread upon the journal and printed in the record. the immediate is recognized. mr. reid: i ask that the secretary of the senate communicate to the house of representatives an attested copy of the answer of judge porteous. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: that that be affixed to the articles of impeachment. i further ask the answer be

referred to the impeachment trial -- referred to the impeachment trial committee on the articles against judge g. thomas porteous jr. which was established by the senate on march 17, 2010. i ask that the answer of the respondent, judge porteous, to the article of impeachment exhibited against him by the house of representatives be printed for the use of the senate sitting in the trial of said impeachment. the presiding officer: so ordered. mr. reid: mr. president, the senate will convene at 2:00 p.m. today. there will be a period of morning business until 3:00 p.m. with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees. at 3:00 p.m., the senate will resume the motion to proceed to h.r. 4851. the republican leader will control the time from 5:00 until 5:15. the majority leader will control the time from 5:15 until 5:30. at 5:30, the senate will proceed to a roll call vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed on h.r. 4851.

that will be the first vote of the day. at 3:30, we'll interrupt debate for a moment of silence to honor the coal miners killed in last week's explosion at upper big branch mine in west virginia. i now ask, mr. president, we now proceed to morning business as outlined. that the morning business will be in effect until 3:00 p.m. today. that -- in fact -- the presiding officer: without objection, the court of impeachment is adjourned. mr. reid: mr. president, let's make it until 3:30 today when the senate will observe a moment of silence in sol solidarity --, let's keep it until 3:00. okay. i now ask consent that morning business as the chair has already ordered be until 3:00 today and that senators be allowed to speak for up to ten minutes each prior to that time, and that at 30:00, the senate observe a moment of silence in solidarity with the people of west virginia regarding the mining accident. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, i extend my personal condolences

to those who suffered two tragedies while we were back home, one here in america and one halfway around the world. the mining tragedy in west virginia hit home for me. it brought back a lot of memories. mr. president, when i was less than a-week-old, my bad was working in a mine called chloride, arizona, just over the colorado river from searchlight. he and another man were sinking a shaft and in those days, you didn't have all the protections for customers, and they had drilled some holes -- seven to be exact -- and always when the holes were lit, both miners don't stay there. the rest leave and one lights the holes. carl myers was working with my dad and went up to the next level of the shaft and waited

until the holes were lit. my dad would come up and meet him and the holes would go off. what happened is one of the pieces of fuse ran, it was defective, and set off one of the holes prematurely. and it blew my dad's light out, one of the soles off his shoe. he was hurt, in a state of shock. what the miners did in those days in a shaft, they would have a sinking ladder about ten-feet long and they would take it up before the holes went off. they would climb out on that ladder. my dad, even though he was hurt, knew he had to get out of that mine because he knew there were six other holes burning. telewere covered with muck, and so he had to get out of there. he would put the ladder down and try to climb out, with you it kept falling over. and his mind that wasn't working well couldn't understand why that was, but the blast had blown one of the legs off the

ladder so it would tip over. mr. president, the man that was on the next level, knowing how many holes had been drilled, knew that only one had gone off, knew there were six more to go. in spite of that, came down and helped carry my dad who was much bigger than he was out of that mine. he got a medal for heroism. he was great up by the great journalist lowell thomas. i can remember as a boy my mother still picking rocks out of my dad's back as a result of that blast. so -- and the book i wrote about searchlight, i talk about a number of the deaths in the mines of searchlight. at the blossom, my dad worked quite a bit. one of my friends i grew up with, his dad was killed in that mine, a rock fell on him, my dad carried him out of the hole. so i have some knowledge about how people feel when these

mining accidents occur. as i said, it brought back a lot of memories, and i extend my condolences to all the people of west virginia, through the the governor, senator byrd, senator rockefeller. i sympathize greatly with the people of west virginia for their loss. i also extend condolences to the people of poland. a plane carrying 96 souls, parents, husbands, wives, and friends, carried the nation's president, its first lady, its deputy foreign minister, lawmakers, the military chief of staff and so many other military and civilian leaders. the tragedy, the loss is unthinkable, and america grieves alongside our friends in poland, especially when you understand where they were going and why they were going there. 20,000 poles had been killed by the russians even before war was declared by us on germany.

mr. president, i want to welcome back my colleagues. i know each of us cherishes the time we get to spend home and the face-to-face conversations we have with our neighbors and constituents. mr. president, prior to beginning my remarks, i just want to, because he is in the chamber, extend my appreciation to our chaplain, admiral black. he has been so concerned about my family as a result of the accident that occurred in the presiding officer's state. he has communicated with my wife personally. he has prayed for her personally and publicly in different groups, and it just indicates what a family we are here in the senate, and i personally appreciate the thoughts more

than one, personal conversations with chaplain black about my wife. last december, just minutes before the senate passed the health reform bill that president obama signed into law last month, my friend, the republican leader, predicted we would get an earful when we got home, and he was right. everywhere i went in nevada, the two big cities of reno and las vegas, elko, carson city, stagecoach to my hometown of searchlight, nevadans young and old, people came up to me and said thank you. numerous people, mr. president, without any exaggeration. one mother told me how grateful she was that she could finally cover her child's health health. her child has infantile juvenile diabetes. parents like her told me how grateful they were that they would be able to keep their kids on their insurance until they are 26 years old. out of work nevadans -- and

there are more than i would like to acknowledge, mr. president -- explained to me how grateful they were that finally they will be able to afford their own health care while they find a job, a full-time job. seniors, seniors individually and in groups told me how grateful they are now they will finally close -- not have to worry about whether or not they are going to split a pill or take a pill. that is, the doughnut hole has been filled. everyone, every senior citizen in america, every social security recipient understands what the doughnut hole was and isn't anymore. many small businesses told me that because the tax cuts this congress passed and our president signed into law because of the health care bill, this year they will be able to afford health insurance for the first time in their lives for their employees. 24,000 of them, small businesses in nevada. these people haven't been fooled

by the opposition strategy of misinformation. they aren't frightened by the campaign of fear and false cries of socialism. i know i'm not the only one who got an earful of thanks from constituents whose lives are changing for the better because of this historic reform. i also heard one other thing everywhere i went. this law shouldn't be repeesmed mr. president, a week ago this sunday i returned from salt lake city to las vegas and the front page of the "salt lake tribune" had a store andy i'm paraphrasing, said that those people in utah are no longer talking about repealing the bill. they're talking about trying to improve the bill. it is hard to talk about repealing the bill which gives such immediate benefits to the american people. it's difficult to try to have someone say, i'd like this bill

repealed because i don't agree with the $1.3 trillion that this legislation is going to reduce the debt of this country in the second 10 years, $142 billion in the first 10 years. i explain to people at home, mr. president, that if you have a fight in a ring, you have a referee. a referee there to be as fair as they can to be sure that it's a fair fight. in this health care debate, we had such an entity in the ring with us as we battled democrats and republicans. it was setup many years ago this referee. it's called the congressional budget office. not run by republicans or democrats. it's there to be fair. and that's their determination. this legislation over the first 10 years would sav save $142 billion, the second 10 years reduce the debt by a further $1.3 trillion. people all over america and

nevadans now have more control than ever over their health, more protection from insurance continues and more opportunity than ever before to live a healthy life. as it relates to the economy, mr. president, nevadans know that health reform is economic reform. it will save families money in the short run and save our country money in the long run. they also know we have to do more. we have to make more investments today to make our economy run better tomorrow. one of the best ways to do that is by creating jobs and green jobs has worked so well. jobs right here at home that can never be outsourced. jobs that strengthen our economic and national safety and securitiy. boulder city, nevada, is a city in nevada. it was built because of the dam, boulder dam, now hoover dam. it's a great, beautiful little city. they're the only city in nevada that has a growth ordinance. but they've also been very, very

farsighted and i extend my appreciation to the mayor and all of the city council. they've setup a zone where they're creating green jobs and lots of green jobs. i went there. it's between railroad pass and searchlight and part of what is boulder city. it is amazing, mr. president, what we saw there. for acre after acre, workers, men and women in their hard hats and orange vests were placing one million solar panels in place much one million in the -- place. one million in the dessert. that will produce enough electricity for 45,000 homes and be the largest plan of its -- plant of its type in the world. there may be one in spain that may be a tiny bit bigger, but

let's just assume that it isn't. as it huge plant. huge plan. and we have this going on all over nevada as a result of the economic recovery package and other tax incentives we've given people to build clean energy. clean energy jobs. that vast array in the middle of the desert, dotted by countless hardhats by people working very hard was truly an impressive sight. this happened -- at 5:30 there is an important vote for people struggling in america, we need to increase the projects like the solar plant in boulder. they deserve critical long-term investments and we have a long way to go. but there are additional things we can do right now, this afternoon at 5:30 to help the millions of hard-working nevadans and americans

struggling to find work. these are not dead beats, these are not bums, these are people out of work and been without are out of -- been out of work for a long time if we extend this unemployment benefit we can give the unemployed families the help they need to put food on the table or go to the doctor some on the other side flatly refuse to do so. to them it doesn't make any difference that they lost jobs through no fault of their own and it is an emergency not only for their families but for our country. many who oppose the extension opposed to give tax breaks to rich chief executive officers who shipped jobs overseas. now that their sent are trying to find -- constituents are trying to find jobs of their own, hope to give them the help they need and need it so critically. if republicans continue to block unemployment assistance, one million americans will lose that lifeline by the end of this month.

mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: while we were in recess, the people of west virginia experienced a very difficult mine safety experience. our neighbors in west virginia, like kentucky, are big coal producers, and we've had our share in the commonwealth of kentucky over the years of mining disasters and our hearts and prayers go out to our neighbors in west virginia as they attempt to recover from the latest tragedy in what is obviously a very dangerous profession, and that is the mining of coal. mr. president, we also witnessed

a great tragedy overseas, the death of the polish president, laclech kaczynski and his wife . this is a terrible tragedy to poland and a great loss to us as well. poland is a great friend to the united states and we send our heartfelt condolences and our expression of solidarity to the polish people and the family of the dead at this very difficult time. turning back to home now. i want to welcome everybody back. i hope everyone had a restful and productive break. my constituents have never been shy about sharing their views on what we're doing here in

washingtowashington. these past two weeks were certainly no different. to be blunt, kentuckians are concerned about the direction of our country. they're overwhelmingly opposed to the health spending bill, what it will cost and the process used to pass it. and, more generally, kentuckians and americans everywhere, are concerned about the consequences of the endless borrowing and spending here in washington. americans worry that we're on the cusp or maybe past the cusp of the debt crisis and they're frustrated. they don't understand how lawmakers in washington can ignore this looming disaster after just narrowly averting the last one. americans know that this is one crisis, no bailout -- crisis no bailout could ever prevent. we could borrow a trillion dollars to dig the country out of a mess that was created on

wall street. once the government maxes out its own credit card, there's no one to turn -- nowhere to turn except to the american people themselves. so the time to act is now. the debt this year alone is projected to be more tha than $1.4 trillion. social security rently started paying out more than it's taking in. interest payments alone on the national debt are approaching $1 trillion a year. interest rates on mortgages, student loans and small business loans are threatening to rise. there's no reason to think the problems we're seeing in europe won't strike here at home if we do nothing to reverse the current trends. those who continue to use the taxpayer credit card with reckless abandon threaten not only our chances of a quick recovery and the jobs it would create, but also the nation's long-term fiscal security. and a safety net that's been built up over the decades

precisely for moments like this. democrats can no longer hide behind the argument of good intentions when the results threaten our very stability as a nation. we must get a handle on the deficit and the debt. this is the issue that will focus our attention on in the weeks and months ahead. and over the coming weeks i assure you republicans will continue to give our colleagues across the aisle and our president the opportunity to live up to the president's commitment on february 13th, which was, now congress will have to pay for what it spends just like everybody else. americans will not tolerate another crisis of washington's making. another issue we'll be focused on, of course, is the supreme court. justice stevens' decision last week to retire from the court gives us another opportunity to discuss the proper role of our federal courts and our constitution. last year during the debate over

justice sotomayor's nomination saw the empathy standard for such appointments. at the entered of the debate most americans and judge sotomayor herself along with the president's own party rejected that standard an agreed with republicans that judges out to apply their own laws and not their own feelings an personal prefnses. -- preferences. we hope that thisside will picke with real-world experience and a demonstrated commitment to the rule of law. that's what americans expect from their judges whether it's small claims court or the supreme court. they do not expect us to select judges based upon who's side the judge is on as one democrat on the judiciary committee once suggested. once the president submits its nominees, senate republicans will diligently review his or

her record so the american people can be confident that they'll be able to fulfill the judicial oath, namely, to administer justice without respect to persons and to do right by the poor and by the rich. i'm hopeful that the -- at the end of the day i and other republicans will be convinced that the nominee will be able to do so. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous oer the leadership time is reserved. there will now be a period of morning business until 3:00 p.m. with the time equally divide and controlled between the two leaders or designees. mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: i join my colleagues in expressing the sorrows of the families of west virginia of the coal miners lost in that disaster. illinois is a coal mining state. through our history we've had terrible coal mining disasters and the loss of life. i hope we can not only bring

them constellation, but learn from this disaster. when we find that only a small -- for safety violations have been paid, it clearly calls for a much more aggressive approach by our federal government and the agencies entrusted with the responsibility of protecting the safety of these coal miners. we can do better. one of the saddest comments, but i'm afraid true comments, that came from this came from my colleague, senator rockefeller, who said these tragedies are likely to occur again no matter how much we do. congressman nick rayhol said that when it comes to coal miner safety, it is written in the blood of dead coal miners. let us do a better job of writing the laws and enforcing the laws so the men and women who work in this perilous trade have the protection of their government. secondly, i'll be speaking at

length in a later time but i wanted to join he's who expressed their sorrow over the president and first lady of poland and so many of the government leaders. it is said that there are more polish americans living in chicago, illinois, than in the city of warsu, poland. we have a strong polish population in and around the city of chicago. they have been through much in their lives. many came to this country to escape the who areos of world war ii. they have built their families, neighborhoods, churches, parishes, they have built the city of chicago and many others in our state. they are in grief and mourning as they gathered over the weekend at a polish cemetery to express their sorrow over the loss of their president an first lady -- and first lady. the people poland have been inspired by faith and family in times of adversity. i will more remarks to make on

that point in a moment. the republican leader said before we left, wait until you go home and listen to people about the health care reform. so i did. i the went all across illinois and i spent two weeks and i would ride into the teeth of the most conservative parts of illinois, held town meetings and by and large people had impressions of what the bill did, but didn't know the details of what the bill did and how it would change their lives. i talked to them about the fact that there are people working in the state of illinois, 1.4 million of them, without health insurance. these people and their children many times have lived a whole life without health insurance. on the senate floor, i spoke of a lady that i met in a hampton inn in marion, illinois. her name is judy. what a sweetheart. she is there every morning greeting everybody with a smile, and she's become my buddy.

we talk about southern illinois and what's going on. the last trip there, i talked to her about health care reform. she was worried about it. what's it going to do to me? mandate that i buy health insurance. she said i don't make a lot of money, senator. i said do you have health insurance? she said i've never had health insurance in my life. i'm a waitress. never had health insurance in her life. how old are you, judy? 59. never had health insurance? never, she said. when you saved up enough money, you went to the doctor and made tkofplt how's her -- made do. how percent her health -- how's her health, i asked her. she said i got high blood should go tkpwafrplt when it gets real bad, i get it checked out. i've got to do something about it. that's what she told me on the last trip. when i saw her on this trip, i almost didn't recognize her. she dropped 25 pounds and she looked pretty weak. she said my blood sugar's acting

up again. she said i've lost 25 pounds, but i never missed a day of work. i came in here every day. judy would be covered by this health care reform bill. she will have health insurance for the first time in her life under medicaid. she'll be able to be taken care of. she will have a doctor looking at her blood sugar to make sure she doesn't go blind or lose a limb. that's what this health care reform bill does. before we left town, i had one of my staff call a local doctor and ask him as a personal favor to see her, and he said he would. i thanked him so much for doing that, and i hope that he can help her along. as we left town, i went by carbondale, illinois, home of southern university visitor. there is a baseball coach there named danny. i've known him since he was six years old. great guy. probably in his 40 now.

two or three kids. he was diagnosed with melanoma years ago from a sun burn he got as baseball player, and it spread. he's been battling cancer ever since. he's had tumors removed, his lower jaw removed, and he's trying to hang on. and his doctor came up with a therapy for him arcs cancer therapy for him that works, that slows down the progress of the cancer. when they turned in the bill for the cancer therapy, the health insurance company said no. we don't cover that. well, it costs $14,000 a month. danny can't afford that. he's been in court in a battle with his health insurance company to get the drugs that his doctor wants to give him to save his life. sadly, that battle still goes on. the health insurance -- health reform bill that we passed will with give danny and his family and others like him a fighting chance against insurance companies. so when i hear the republican

leader come to the floor and tell us we're going to catch this firestorm of opposition, i think of these cases of these people and how if we did nothing their lives could not be as good. in fact, some of them may suffer as a result of the current system in the law. we're going to have a vote this afternoon for those who follow the senate, it's at vote about unemployment benefits. many of us believe we're in an economic emergency in this country with about 8 million people unemployed, another 6 million under long-term unemployment, almost 15 million americans unemployed, looking for work. and for some of them we have been extending unemployment benefits so they can get by. it's about $300 a week for families that have been going through this for a long time with unemployment that's lasted over a kwraoerbgs we know what they have been through. they lost their life savings, have nowhere to turn. on an emergency basis, we've

been extending unemployment benefits and health insurance coverage for the unemployed in this country. we tried to do it again before we left for this two-week easter break, and there was an objection from the republican side of the aisle. senator coburn of oklahoma has objected. what it means is as of one week ago, we started cutting off people from coverage for unemployment benefits in america because of the objection of one senator. how many people? over 200,000 lost their unemployment benefits across america the first week. another 200,000 will lose their benefits this week. by the end of the month, a million americans will lose their unemployment benefits because one senator objected and they don't want to bring this to a vote. if you want to know why a senator who is, like myself, drawing a paycheck, living a pretty comfortable life would want to cut off unemployment

benefits for those who are struggling, the argument was mentioned earlier by the republican leader. it's time to fight the deficit. let's fight the deficit when it comes to unemployment benefits in america. that's the stand that they're taking. interesting to me that many of these same senators thought nothing of an $800 billion bailout for the banks when they were in trouble that wasn't paid for. $800 billion for banks. oh, we've got to do that. but when it comes to helping the unemployed in this country, oh, that's going to break the bank. when are we ever going to learn? you know, i'm getting a little tired of being preached to by the other side of the aisle about fiscal conservativism. it was their president, the last president, who more than doubled the national debt in this country from $5 trillion to $12 trillion. it was under their watch that we engaged in two wars and didn't pay for any of it, added it to the national debt. it was under their twhaufp they

called for -- under their watch that they called for tax breaks for the wealthiest people in america in the midst of a war and added it to the debt. and now when we come to the floor and say give the unemployed in this country the basics of life to get by, they say can't afford it. you know, we got this deficit. when it came to the bank bailout, didn't hear a word about the bailout. when it came to paying for these wars -- which we didn't do -- we didn't hear these deficit hawks. when it came to a prescription drug benefit that cost $400 billion, they didn't pay for it. the list goes on. i look at my state and think 16,000 people in illinois lost their health insurance because one republican senator objected. 2,600 from his home state of oklahoma. and the number grows by the week. what are we going to do about this? they want to pay for this by taking the money out of programs that we're going to use to put people to work, taking the money away from projects that are

going to be built across america to put construction workers back to work. construction trades have one of the highest deployment rates in america, over 25%, and they're talking about cutting the money for the projects to pay for unemployment benefits. that's not going to bring us out of recession. it's going to create more unemployment in the process. that is what this debate is about. there are ways we can address this deficit and should. there is a presidential commission which i'm going to serve on with a number of republicans and democrats. it won't be easy. but in in the world are we going to fight this battle today on the backs of those who are unemployed and losing their benefits? it literally means thousands across america are going to have to do without. what do you do when you've exhausted your savings, you have no job, you're about to lose your home, and it's a real question about whether you can keep going down to the food pantry or soup kitchen? and if you don't think that's happening, check out your

hometown. that's exactly what's happening. the republican answer is cut off the benefits and tell them that we have to cut the projects to build the roads, to build the bridges, to make more unemployment in the construction trade sector in order to pay for this. that, to me, is not a good approach. it's not a humane approach. if we could just get enough compassion from the other side of the aisle for unemployed workers as we had for bank bailouts, we'd have a chance of feeding these people and keeping their families together during one of the worst economic turns we've seen in america. the vote later on today will need 60 votes in order to continue to move forward on unemployment benefits. we don't have those votes on this side of the aisle. we will need republican votes. the last time we dealt with this a month or so ago, a number of republicans stepped forward and helped us. i hope they'll do the same this afternoon. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senatorrom arizona.

mr. kyl:last week i traveled around arizona and heard from many constituents. arizonans have serious concerns about what's happening here in washington. they're worried about the direction in which our country has moved and about the kind of nation that their kids and grandkids will inherit. they're unhappy about the tremendous levels of spending and debt and about how new taxes and regulations threaten jobs and our economy. it's not an overstatement to say that people are outraged about what they perceive as irresponsible behavior in washington. many are frustrated because they feel like they've lost control of their government. today i want to focus on three specific concerns that i heard. they all relate to how taxes around regulations are impact -- taxes and regulations are impacting jobs in my home state. first is the health spending bill. if anyone thinks that the american people will have forgotten about this in a few

months, i can assure you they will not have. they're overwhelmingly opposed to this law and they're frustrated it was passed despite widespread opposition. they're upset about the high cost, new taxes and the manner in which it was passed. arizona's employers and the unemployed workers are both affected by its new taxes and mandates in the bill that will prevent hiring. how? well, many small business owners in arizona are wondering how they're supposeed to hire new employees when they're about to be slapped with a new payroll tax. and of course a payroll tax is a direct tax on hiring. arizona employers with more than 50 workers face a second problem. they'll face steep fines if they don't comply with the new mandate that they provide health insurance to all of their employees. it's another disincentive to create a job or even to retain current employees.

refrain, i heard from employers and other arizonans over and over again was you've got to repeal this bill, and i agree. the second concern i heard a lot about was the unemployment insurance and its impact on jobs. and i'll skuft in -- discuss in just a moment the concern the employers have about nature share about the -- their share about the expense of unemployment insurance. let me address the comment by my friend from illinois that we did not support extending unemployment benefits. that of course is not true. i voted for every extension of benefits, as have the majority of my colleagues. the question is: who should pay for the extension? now, my colleagues suggest it is not a question of who, but whether they should be paid for. it said over and over again the question is whether it should be paid for. well, mr. president, it's not a matter of whether. it will have to be paid for. that is to say we're borrowing

the money. we have to pay that money back. it's a question of whether we pay for it or we simply say put it on the tab for our kids and our grandkids to pay for it. so the question is to extend unemployment benefits again to folks alongside us who have the misfortune of having lost their job, until they can get another job, who's going to pay to extend their unemployment benefits? and it seems to me that that's an obligation of this generation. my kids and grandkids are going to have plenty to worry about in their generations. they'll probably face the prospect of some unemployment too, and they're probably going to have to extend unemployment benefits and somebody will have to pay for that. the question is who? are we going to make them pay not only what happens on their watch but also what happened on our watch that we weren't able to pay for? and that's the question. are we able to, to extend these

benefits for the period of time that we were talking about just before the recess was $9.5 billion. and i don't think that one could contend that somewhere in the federal budget we can't find $9.5 billion over the course of the year which could be used to pay for these benefits, if they are a top priority, then that's what should be used to pay for the benefits. it's a 30-day period of time. now, interestingly, during the debate before the easter recess, we actually had an agreement for about 45 minutes in this chamber where republicans and democrats alike agreed that to ensure that there would not be a hiatus or benefits would not be extended -- and, by the way, physicians would be reimbursed for their medicare, care they provide to medicare patients -- we agreed on a set of revenue measures that would pay for a week of these benefits so that

there would be no period of time that there would be a hiatus that they wouldn't be paid for. but somebody from the other side had to call the speaker of the house to make sure that, that that was okay with the house of representatives. i'm told that it was the speaker who said, no, we're not going to pay for the extension of unemployment benefits. we're not going to do that. so, mr. president, it's not a question of whether we're for extending unemployment benefits. it's not a question of whether they have to be paid for. it's a question of who pays for them. and for my money, if we can't find $9.5 billion somewhere in this government and say that it's a higher priority to extend these unemployment benefits and pay for it than whatever that money is used for, then we're not doing our job. my colleague from illinois suggested that republicans were responsible for taking us to war and not paying for it. now that needs to be responded to. this body voted to go to war.

and this body supports the troops who are fighting. and i assume that this body wants to pay them and to buy them the appropriate equipment. and that that's the top priority of our government under the constitution, the first obligation of government is to protect its citizens. that's number-one priority. we have to spend that money. and there are other priorities. but there comes a point when we have to be getting second priorities and say, okay, to go to war, we have to do that. that has to be paid for. to do this and this and this, that has to be paid for. but at a certain point in time, i think we're entitled to ask okay, now that we've run out of money, do we want to keep spending or do we find a way for this generation to pay for that spending? and that's what we're talking about with extending unemployment benefits. of course they need to be extended. of course we'll support that. the question will be: will my

colleagues on the other side of the aisle support finding the funds to offset the costs of that? and this is not without cost. the coalition of arizona business organizations reinforced this point in a recent letter to my office. here's what was pointed out. the arizona department of economic security estimates that my state will have to borrow $300 million to $400 million from the u.s. department of labor between 2010 and 2013 to keep the unemployment fund solvent so that they can continue to make payments to beneficiaries. and to make matters more difficult, arizona employers have already been hit with an average increase of 50% in unemployment insurance taxes. this increase has occurred at the very time that businesses are trying to recover. and of course it can delay economic recovery and more hiring for businesses, the more they have to pay. the message i got from the small businesses was if you want us to start hiring, then congress needs to waive the federal unemployment tax act penalties also known as futa.

this is a tax that currently averages $56 per employee but if arizona were to fail to repay the money that the state that is borrowed from the federal government, it could rise as high as $308 per employee. obviously, that does not portend well for hiring and it is tbhoot employers in my state of arizona need. the third and final concern receipts to lending. senator mccain and i met with representatives of some of arizona's smaller bankers the so-called community banks. they are being crushed because regulators have been forcing them to raise more capital than they're required to hold and that obviously undermines economic recovery because they have then less money to lend. in addition, regulatory guidelines, especially on commercial real estate lending, are hindering new loans as well as the refonsing of economiesing loans. and extending regulations are discouraging banks from working with borrowers who avoid foreclosure. so these banks are being forced to increase capital in an environment in which capital is

very scarce for community banks. it seems to me that a more sensible course would be having banks retain more capital when times are good, ease up on those requirements when times are bad. the effect of the bank regulators' actions is not just denial of loans to those who shouldn't get them -- and there are some who shouldn't be refinanced or financed -- but also to the most credit-worthy individuals and businesses. as a result, businesses can't invest and grow, which is of course exactly what they need to create jobs and improve our economy. mr. president, the bottom line is that a lot of things washington is doing have hurt small businesses. the engines of job creation. americans are not happy about this. jobs should be our number-one priority. congress has the tools to create a better environment for job creation and i'm not talking about labeling every spending bill that comes up as a jobs bill. it means listening to what job creators are saying, not punishing them with a tidalwave

of new taxes and new regulations. the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. nelson: mr. president, i ask consent to speak for 15 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. nelson: mr. president, the american people are saying, why can't those guys get together up there and get something done? they're saying, whatever happened to common sense? they say, people out of work, why can't you extend their unemployment benefits? all of this is what the vast majority of american people are saying, and yet we allowed over two weeks ago an unemployment compensation -- the unemployment compensation to cease for certain people who are hurting in this country. and it is important for us now

to temporarily extend this unemployment and the extension of the ability of someone who's out of work to continue their health insurance payments through what is known as the cobra program. these important programs expir expired, and we're going to have a vote today, and as is typical in the senate, we don't get to the vote today. we get to a motion to proceed, and we have to cut off debate with a motion to cut off debate called motion for cloture just to get to the motion to proceed to get to the bill. but that's what's taking place today. we'll get it done. we'll use the better part of this week going through all of this parliamentary fallder roll

-- falderal and when they call the final roll, we'll get it extended, but why can't we get together and why does one senator over two weeks ago hold up the whole works on something that is so obvious? folks are hurting in most of the country, and they certainly are in my state. we have over 40% of florida homeowners are under water in their mortgages and the banks are pulling back on the credit to small businesses. but when you get right down to it, the blame for failing to temporarily extend this i will yow massary help -- this

iliomosenary help, that keyne commonsense help to people who are hurting, we couldn't get it together through our parliamentary rules. our people are hurting and it is our responsibility to extend these programs, to provide some little pittance for people who can't get work, and they financially have a desperate need. and, unfortunately, for many americans these benefits are the only thing that is keeping food on the table, as they struggle to find a job and to make financial ends meet. and so i certainly hope that we're not going to let these programs lapse again.

there are encouraging signs in the economy, but it's going to be a long way, and unemployment always lags the recovery of other parts of the economy. and, therefore, we need to give some little measure of stability to these people, these poor families who are out of work, instead of us continuing to have this partisan gamesmanship that we've seen so often over the course of the last couple of months. now, mr. president, after this -- and we will get it done -- then we're going to take on financial reform. remember back the failure of lehman brothers and the near collapse of our financial system

and, as a result, the passage of $700 billion of taxpayer money to bail out wall street? back in the fall of 2008, the breakdown in our financial system fueled one of the worst economic downturns since the early part of the last century. the stock market plunged, the credit and capital markets fro froze, and real economic activity took a nosedive. well, while we're seeing some slight improvement in both the markets and the economy as a whole, too many people remain unemployed and underemployed. in my state of florida, the

unemployment rate has surpassed 12%. it's now the sixth highest in the country. and since that crisis began back in the fall of 2008, a lot has happened. we elected a new president, we passed of an economic recovery bill, we passed health insurance and health reform, we passed an enhanced home buyer tax credit, we've passed innumerable measures of tax relief for small businesses. but there's one thing that we have yet to do that is at the top of the list, and that is to try to help clean up wall street and our excesses in the financial smg. -- in the financial system. we owe it 0 our taxpayers so that they're not facing a $700

billion bailout in the future and never again to use that money to bail out reckless and freewheeling wall street bankers. our colleagues on the banking committee have put forth one proposal. it includes a new consumer financial watchdog. it also includes new rules for the regulation of derivatives, such as some of those things that are fancy names, "credit default swaps," which is really an insurance policy on losses that you would have in other investments. and listen to what one of the most rich people in the world, the sage of omaha, says -- warren buffet. he refers to to all of those vey

clever financial instruments as "financial weapons of mass destruction." that's warren buffet. if there's one lesson from that former goliath insurance company a.i.g., it's that we better get serious about regulating derivatives. and so, mr. president, i have offered a bill that i am lik i l likely offer once we get on the financial regulation as an amendment that includes new rules for liquidating large financial institutions when they become insolvent and tightening rules related to capital requirements, liquidity, and the use of leverage.

the banking committee has included most of these reforms, but when that legislation comes to the floor, we must strengthen it, improve the legislation to rein in the green that ran amok, that nearly brought down our entire financial system altogether. now, of course what we can expect, we're going to have a vast army of lobbyists that are going to descend to protect the various financial fiefdoms from the new transparency and accountability rules. i'm going to offer a number of amendments on the floor. i want to mention one today. the wall street compensation reform act --

this bill that i have already offered that i will offer as an amendment hopefully would restore some sanity and common sense to executive pay and their practices on wall street. the legislation is simple: it encourages large banks and financial institutions to adopt widely accepted compensation practices. banks that fail to adopt those standards would lose the benefit of certain tax deductions. they could no longer deduct the large compensation payments that they make to highly paid employees. i have read with astonishment the recent reports that wall street banks continue to pay

outlandish bonuses to undeserving executives in many of these institutions, and this is what gets your blood pressure going up. many of these institutions are still living on taxpayer-funded life support. in most business professions, executive pay will follow performance. managers and executives usually are rewarded for creating lasting value. unsuccessful managers and executives are shown the door. but apparently these basic, commonsense principles have been lost on a lot of the wall street firms. this year, wall street bonuses were in the range of

$150 billion. 18 months after the fall of lehman brothers, it's back to business as usual for the major banks. and we've been here before. we had the same debate last spring when a.i.g. paid those absurd bonuses to the financial traders that managed one major accomplishment: they drove their company into the ground. and although we had lots of legislation introduced, congress again failed to act. the army of lobbyists descended to make sure that was the case. and, mr. president, here we are again. now, i dare say that there's almost a unanimous recognition that poorly crafted executive

pay practices at major financial institutions contributed to the near collapse of the financial system would ultimately bring -- what ultimately brought about the $750 billion taxpayer-funded bailout. the general counsel of the federal reserve board has testified that compensation practices in the banking sector were a contributing cause to the crisis. in january, the federal deposit insurance corporation found th that -- quote -- "excessive and imprudent risk taking remains a contributing factor in the financial institution failures and losses to the deposit insurance fund. insurance -end of quote.current, mr. president, encourage excessive risk taking because

short-term gains are heavily rewarded even if they are unsustainable. and the negative consequences of severe losses in a company are often externalized and shifted to the shareholders or to the public. the federal safety net for financial institutions encourages traders and executives to take unnecessary risk, and the most obvious example is the $700 billion wall street bailout. executives that should have left without their shirts instead left with golden parachutes. real and meaningful financial reform must include changes to the existing compensation culture in the finance industry.

and, oh, are we going to get resistance as we put forward this idea. under the amendment that i'm going to offer, major banks and financial institutions can only deduct their large executive compensation payments if the pay complies with rules that focus on rewarding long-term performance. the principles were developed by the financial stability board, the council of their own major central banks. the federal reserve was instrumental in developing these compensation principles. and under the amendment that i will offer, tax deductions for major banks and financial institutions are going to be conditioned on the following: that compensation over $1 million has to be performance

based, and that at least half of the performance-based compensation must vest over an extended period of five years or more. this is going to tie compensation not only to performance but to long-term performance. another part of this amendment will be that for executives at public companies, at least half of the performance-based compensation must be paid in employer stock. and also in the amendment, compensation agreements for top executives must include a claw-back provision that retracts the deferred compensation in the event of unethical misconduct.

and also in the amendment, compensation agreements must prohibit employees from engaging in personal hedging strategies, such as compensation insurance, that undermines the very risk alignment principles. this amendment creates a new and meaningful executive compensation disclosure requirement in order to empower the company's shareholders and the company's investors to hold banks accountable for what they pay their senior executives. the special interests certainly are going to argue that congress should not get involved in compensation decisions. they're going to say the private marketplace knows best. they're going to argue that if

congress passes measures like this, wall street is going to pack up its bags and move to greener pastures abroad. unfortunately, right now what the market knows is that big short-term gains lead to big bonuses and big losses lead to taxpayer-funded bailouts. enough of this. we're going to have the opportunity to take real steps to reform compensation practices. and it's my hope, perhaps naively so, that the united states senate would unanimously approve this concept. it won't be unanimous but i believe that we can get 60 votes to break a filibuster, and i

think we can pass it. the american taxpayers' funds are at stake. mr. president, i yield the floor and would suggest the absce o a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call: the presiding officer: the majotyeader. without objection. under the previous order there will now be a moment of silence in solidarity with the people of west virginia on the loss of the miners in the massey energy mine disaster last week.

the presiding officer: the clerk will call the quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. coburn: i ask that the quorum call be dispensed wit objection. morning business is closed, the senate will proceed to the motion t proceed to h.r. 4851. the clerk: motion to proceed to h.r. 4851, a motion to extend certain programs and for other purposes. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. coburn: thank you. it's been two weeks since we

last spoke on the floor on this issue and there's a lot that's been written in the press and a lot of things that have been said. and i'll reiterate what i said earlier in that debate before we took an inappropriate spring break, and that's the fact that everybody thinks, those that are -- thinks that those who are unemployed should be getting an unemployment check. that's not a partisan issue. it's a fact that we want to support those who need help right now. the real question, however, is what will we do to make sure that that effort is an effort that has some real meaning behind it and that there's not just hollow words. you know, the debate around here becomes partisan and labels get

applied and -- and i would admit i'm partisan, but not from a party standpoint. i'm partisan for our children. and the question isn't whether we should make sure that we the unemployment benefits are there. the question isn't whether people can get health insurance and -- and -- under cobra. the question isn't whether we ought to do the right thing for those that are depending on us. the question is: is where do we get the money? it's really simple. we have two options. one option says time-out. this is so important that it

doesn't matter where we get the money, we've got to supply it. the other option is -- and, by the way, the first option, belies the fact that we have any waste in the federal government. i don't think we could do a poll that would come so close to unanimity as a poll if we asked people if the federal government is efficient and effective. i doubt we can get anybody on the ledger side of saying yes on that. the real question becomes: do we have the goodwill and presence of mind to do this in a way that doesn't jeopardize our children? you see, we're not just fighting about unemployment benefits. we're not debating the issue of unemployment benefits. we're debating the issue of whether or not we take from those that come after us and

give to those today. many times i've used this poster of this young lady. and her name is madeliene. and madeliene was caught here in d.c. wearing this poster. and i have gone over the numbers. when she wore the poster her debt was $38,085. her debt now is over $45,000. we have competing priorities. we have the priority of making sure that we help those that need our help in a time of economic decline. and then we have the priority of makmaking sure that we have not mortgaged opportunity and

freedom for children such as madeliene. who will fight for the madelienes? who will stand up for the grandchildren and say we can find $9.2 billion out of an almost $4 trillion budget and pay for it and not charge it to the madelienes of the world. because that's what we're doing when we declare something an emergency. and i'd also make the point, we passed a nine-month extension for many of these programs, and it was paid for. in other words, we didn't add to the debt when we passed the bill that would extend this for nine months. the senate did its work. that bill hadn't come back for us because the congress is unlikely to pass it with the pay

fors in it and several would have it for the health care bill that passed. who will protect the madelienes of the world? since the beginning of this year and the famed passage after statute called paygo, which say that's we will no longer create new spending without cutting the spending somewhere else, we've spent $120 billion of madeliene's future and every madeliene that's out there, every 3-year-old and 4-year-old that's out there. and we've done it by waiving the new statute that says you've got to pay as you go. you know, congress and senate specifically, we increased our budget 5.6% this year in a year where true costs were down we increased our own budget. and, yet, we refused to go and

look at the hard choices that are necessary for us to make a future for the madelienes of this world. what happens if we continue this? what happens if we continue to say we'll borrow future instead of making the tough choices now? well, i'll tell you what happens. as madeliene's future, her opportunities for prosperity are mortgaged. we tend to think in the short run. and what the vision of our founders had us thinking in the long term. so where do we fin find $9.2 billion? if i get an opportunity i'm going to offer five separate amendments that will pay for this. and i would wager that ordinary

a person would -- a person would not miss this. we could -- they have at least $50 billion worth of waste in the defense department. but, no, we won't go there. we've got $700 billion in unobligated balances of which well over 20% has been sitting there for two years. that's $140 billion. we could pay por this thing for a year -- pay for this thing for a year, but we won't go there. we've got ineffective spending in the stimulus bill that hadn't been rolled out yet that i would put forward as a greater priority than what the money intended left in the stimulus bill is for. but we're not going to go there. what we're going to do -- and we will pass a motion to proceed today to this bill. but what we're going to do is we're going to take the easy, soft road of not paying for it.

we can't continue to do that. last year -- and we will continue this year -- of every penny that the federal government spent, we borrowed 43% of it. so 43 cents out of every dollar that the federal government spent last year, we borrowed. we ended up with a real deficit of close to $1.6 trillion by the time you get out of the counting -- indicating gimmicks that washington uses, that's what we added to the madelienes of the world. and we're going to do that again this year. as a matter of fact, last month's deficit, the february deficit, was the highest on record ever for the federal government. so we're going to have an excessive $1.4 trillion, probably a $1.6 trillion deficit this year and we're going to add another $9.2 billion with this

bill. how's it fair? how is it right that in this country that we can't do two right things much we can only do one right and one wrong. i would pause it that stealing money from our kids' future and mortgaging their fruit sewer morally -- future is morally wrong. i would pause it that helping people who need help on unemployment benefits is morally right. why can we not do both? we ought to be able to do both. i sent a letter, and i'd like to ask for it to be entered into the record, to the minority leader as well as the majority leader when this bill first came up. and i'm going to read it because i think it's important to understand the thinking on why we should pay for this. realizing that we did pass a

nine hch month extension -- nine-month extension that was paid for and realizing that because the house hasn't acted, we don't have an obligation to protect the madelienes of world. i would like to be consulted on any unanimous consent agreements regarding h.r. 4851, the continuing extension act of 2010 would extend federal programs for one month. no one is arguing that no one unemployed should not have their unemployment payments extended. congress is refusing a way to find the offset, th the $9.15 billion cost which cuts -- with cuts to less important federal spending. time and time again, congress intentionally waits until the last minute to consider important legislation then declares the billions of dollars in foreseeable costs as emergency spending in order to avoid having to find a way to

pay for the bill's price tag. in the last six months, congress has passed four major extension bills. h.r. 4851 will be the fifth such bill. the total cost of these bills is over $30 billion. additionally, over the last year, congress has increased funding totaling $64.9 billion for the highway and unemployment insurance trust funds without any offsets whatsoever. the shortsightedness sticks taxpayers with billions of dollars in additional debt and treats the unemployed, doctors and medicare patients, hard-working men and women who help make our roads and bridges safe, and others relying on federal funds as pawns in congress's borrowing and spending sprees. when the previous last-minute one-month extension was brought up days before the funding, authority for numerous programs, including employment insurance trust fund which expired in july of 2010, a united states senator was attacked for objecting to attack the bill without any

debate or amendments because the bill was unpaid for and added $10 billion to our nation's debt. in other words, there was something wrong with senator bunning raising the question of whether or not we ought to pay for it. as always, those who prefer to borrow to avoid making the tough budget decisions won out and the taxpayers were stuck with an additional $10 billion in debt. the madeleines of the world. congress has continually resisted the need to act like every family in the united states of america and to budget and live within its means. our debt today stands at over $12.6 trillion. the 2010 deficit is projected to be at a minimum $1.3 trillion and we're borrowing 43 cents on every dollar we spend, yet congress continues to increase spending without any correlating spending cuts. congress's inability to prioritize and manage national

needs results in real consequences for americans, whether it be furloughs, market uncertainty that leads to lower investment and job losses, or americans being saddled with higher debt and taxes. if congress keeps approving temporary extension bills throughout the calendar year without finding offsets, congress will have added an additional $120 billion to our national debt. additionally, the senate has already approved more than $120 billion in new federal spending not yet offset even though it passed paygo legislation over the -- over one month ago claiming to prohibit such activity. in the house, chairman of appropriations committee, david obey, has indicated some new spending needs to be offset with unused, unobligated funds. chairman obey suggested rescinding $362 million in reserve stimulus funds for the women's, infant and children's nutrition program, $112 million from a commerce department program designed to provide

coupons to households designed to help them buy digital to analog converter boxes. $103 million from usda rural development programs and $44 million from the transportation department's consumer assistance recycle and save program. to offset the costs of a different spending bill. the senate should likewise find a way to offset this one-month extension bill and create a sustainable precedent. the senate could start with federal unobligated balances. according to the white house, in fiscal year 2011, 33% of all federal funds were unused and obligated. the total dollar amount of these unobligated balances was estimated at $703 billion. rescinding only discretionary funding that has been available for more than two years would result in $100 billion in offsetable costs. the senate could also tap into $228 billion in unobligated stimulus funds, as chairman obey has suggested. at the very least, congress

should reconsider transferring the almost $100 billion -- correction, $100 million budget increase it approved for itself in the 2010 to offset the cost of additional spending. congress should not be increasing its budget when our economy shrunk by 2.4% and inflation was less than 1%. i've also detailed through numerous oversight hearings, reports and legislation how the federal government wastes more than $300 billion every year. i've suggested hundreds of offsets to new spending, including consolidating duplicative programs and eliminating federal programs that address simply parochial concernsment we all think our americans in need of financial assistance are worth the $9 billion cost, but do we think our children and grandchildren are worth paying for these costs upfront rather than passing the costs to them? thank you for protecting my

rights regarding this legislation." i ask unanimous consent that this be entered as part of the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. coburn: so what are we going to do? we have before us a need. it's a good need. it's something we ought to do. we're going to continue to spend 43 cents out of every dollar that we spend this year we're going to borrow. we're going to put the madeleines of this world in the position that by 2020, this number isn't going to be $45,0 $45,000. it's going to be $95,000. that's where she's going to be. that's every man, woman and

child in terms of what they owe in terms of the direct national debt. can we continue on this pace? we hear that we'll fix it later. later isn't good enough for the madeleines of this world. later is today. now is the time for us to do the very hard work. it's not easy to come with spending offsets. it's not easy to not increase the national debt. it is very easy to simply put the credit card into the machine and say because they're out of sight and out of mind -- the madeleines of the world -- we'll just charge it to them. and that's what's being proposed here. and if you oppose that, all of a sudden you don't care about the

people that are unemployed. i can't tell you how many times i've heard that in the last two weeks. that it's obstruction that you want to pay for it. should we be working hard to secure the future of the children such as madeleine? you know, we're told that over the next nine years, we're going to borrow an additional $9.8 $9.8 trillion based on the budget projections that are out there. of that $9.8 trillion, almost half of it is money we're going to borrow and turn around to pay interest on what we already owe. that's eerily close to those of us who get in trouble with credit cards. we go get another credit card, borrow the max on it to pay off the other credit cards and then

we get in trouble with that one and then we get another one, and then pretty soon we can't pay anything. the chinese now own over $900 billion of our bonds. the russians, $800 billion. have we considered the fact that our problems in terms of our foreign policy with iran and our ability to put sharp, tough sanctions on somebody that wants to use and develop nuclear weapons could possibly be inhibited by the fact that two of the people opposing those strong, tough sanctions own a lot of our bonds and that we're dependent on them? or could it also be that week before last, treasury auction, when it was very soft because the chinese didn't participate, that that's a warning bow across -- a warning shot across our bow?

we're in waters that this country has never seen before. and with this bill, if we pass this bill and we continue to pass more bills not having made the tough choices, we are steaming towards a catastrophe. and what will that look like? it's not that we can't fix the problem. it's not like we couldn't go and find $9.2 billion out of a nearly $4 trillion budget. it's that we refuse to. it's not that it's impossible. we refuse to. we refuse to do the same things that families across this country do every day. and that's make a choice about priorities. you know, my office just last

week, with the help of the congressional research service and the g.a.o., identified 70 duplicate programs on nutrition across three federal departmen departments. so we now have 70 programs for food and nutrition across three departments with thousands upon thousands of federal employees, thousands upon thousands of pages of bureaucratic gobbledygook and regulations, and i would propose that probably we ought to have one good program on food and nutrition. we don't address that. the authorizing committees don't. the appropriating committees don't. we have 105 programs that encourage people to go into math, science, technology and engineering across six different agencies. 105 programs.

there is not one agency that does not have considerable waste in it, and there's probably not one american that wouldn't think that we couldn't cut 1% or 2% or 3% from every agency and drive efficiency. but we won't do that. and the real question is: why won't we? we'll beat people up because they won't agree to spend madeleine's money and her future, but we won't agree to trim the waste, the fat, duplication and the fraud out of the federal government. it's no wonder the public has such a poor image of congress. because we're actually not doing what they're asking us to do. you know, it would be different if there wasn't waste in the federal government, if

everything was fine-tuned, effective and efficient, you could make an argument for borrowing this money. but nobody that i know of believes the federal government is efficient and effective throughout its myriad of departments and agencies. and if the majority might feel that way, that it's not, why would we not do the hard work of paying for this bill? what does it mean to borrow $9.2 billion this month and $10 billion last month and $10 million before and the three months, $120 billion that we passed in the first three months of this second session of the 111th congress? what's it mean? it means that we don't think we have to play by the same rules as the rest of the american public. we have a tilted sense of

reality. there's no obligation on us to eliminate waste to provide a good for those people that are depending on us. and so we'll go forward this evening on a motion to proceed to this bill unpaid for, charged to the madeleines of this world. and all you have to do is take $9.2 billion -- it's not much in washingtonspeak. it's twice the size of oklahoma's budget for a year -- and we'll charge it, the credit card, it our kids. but ultimately what we're doing is stealing a college education from our kids. we're stealing a job opportunity

from our kids. we're stealing the ability for our kids to own a home and to provide for their children what was provided for them. you see, the heritage that we have that built this country was one of sacrifice. or that we make decisions that require us to make sacrifice to create opportunity. when you turn that upside down, the american experiment fails. when we steal opportunity from the future so we can benefit for today, we eliminate the genius that made this country great. it's time we reversed that. it's not really a partisan issue. i know the press is going to say that. you know, it's partisan for our future. it's partisan for our kids.

and we can do both. we can find $9 moi 2 billion that -- we can find $9.2 billion that isn't spend on cobra insurance or flood insurance or fixing the s.g.r. pho a short period of time. we can do that. but we will won't. -- but we won't. because we're in the habit of not making hard choices. we're in the habit of doing the least best thing rather than the best thing. and the best thing for our budget, the best thing for our future, the best thing for our children's future is for us to say x, y, and z are not as important as uninsurance benefits, are not as important

as cobra best benefits, are not as important as fixing the s.g.r. for a short period of time. when will we muscle up the courage to start making those kinds of decisions? we can't continue doing what we're doing. we can't go to $20 trillion worth of debt. over 100% of our g.d.p. at the late we're going, in 2010 we will have $23 trillion worth of debt. $24 trillion. at 6% interest, that's $1.5 trillion a year in interest payments. we can't make it. we cannot handle that. and the reality will only come home when it's too late.

senator reid, when we passed the paygo, said that it was a new start. said that we're going to open our billfold, if the money is there, we'll be able to spend it. but we won't spend money that's in this our billgold, to paraphrase his quote. well, this bill goes to an empty billfold. the money is not there. so we can either increase our debt, which will make life for the madeleines of this world tougher, or we can actually take on some tough decision making as a body in the senate and actually eliminate lower-priority programs.

will that have some impact on some folks? yeah. we could actually take a 1 1%-across-the-board cut and come up with $30 billion. easily. americans know we could get 1% out of the federal agencies. we're not going to do that either. the question is, when will we start acting in the responsible role that we're charged with? when will we start thinking with a long-term perspective about what's going to happen to our country if in fact we don't start making the hard choices now? no matter how much scorn, no matter how much derisive -- how

many derisive statements are made, the madeleines of the world are worth it. when we sat and relaxed and think that this is not as big a problem as we described, we fall into the same trap as every other republic in history, and they all collapsed. no republic has survived more than 250 years. and they all -- they all collapsed for the same reason. they all collapsed ultimately because they lost control of their fiscal policy, fiscal policy -- taxes, spending, priorities. so we have a choice in front of us, and this isn't the first time we're going to have this choice, and it won't be the

last. but a question i think the american people ought to be asking is, when is the congress going to start acting in a responsible manner? when are they going to start following the guidelines that every other prudent financial decision-maker makes whether telecommunication the head of a household -- whether it be the head of a household, a major westerner, a small business, a small nonprofit. they all live within a budget. and what they do is they say, here's the most important priority and here's the least, and they go down the line. and when the money runs out, they either generate efficiency to allow that money to be more effective and more efficient in how it's spent, or they eliminate the lower-priority items. it would be a wonderful search for people to go on thomas.gov to find out the number of programs that have been eliminated versus the number of

programs that have been created in the last two years. i guarantee you they'll outnumber it 200 or 300 to 1. in judiciary committee this week, we're going to have two bills up that duplicate existing programs. and i'll have the same fight in the judiciary committee, and i'll lose, and we'll extend new programs that are doing the same thing other programs are doing, and yet i'll lose the battle, and we'll create new programs to do the same thing that we already have government programs doing. and why is that? because you cannot manage what you do not measure. and we do put metrics on hardly anything in the federal government programs. and conveniently so, therefore, we can say, well, we can't know whether they're efficient or not. the time for our comfort with where we find ourselves financially is over.

the american people already understand that. 72% in a recent poll said their number-one issue is debt and spending. they already get it. they're wondering when we're going to catch up with them. they're for supporting unemployment insurance benefits but not charging it to their children. they're for us toi making the hd choices. so as we go forward, the hope would be that we would get out of the short-term thinking that we find ourselves in and start looking down the road to what's coming. i've been quoted say, i think we have less than five years to fix our ship. i think that's probably generous. i don't think there's one problem in front of our country that we can't fix.

however, if we ignore the realities of our financial situation, if the elected leaders in this country fail to make priority decisions, which means you're going to offend some of the supporters of the lower-priority programs, then we're not going to solve the problems that are in front of us. if our focus is parochial only -- in other words, only the concerns with our own state rather than that of our nation as a whole -- we're not going fitch the problems thr in -- we're not going to fitch the problems that are in front of us. i have five grandchildren and i often think, thinking forward, what'll things be like for them? abdz i think backwards when i was 17, 18, going to college for the first year, the tremendous vision -- horizon i saw in front

of me. i could go to school. i had parents that could afford to pay for my children college. and it was wherever i wanted to go, whatever i wntsed to do was out there. that's a limited ability today. is it going to be a possibility for the madeleines of the world? if you think forward, if you take everybody that's 25 years of age and younger in this country and go forward 20 years, here's where they'll be: that group 45 and younger will be responsible for $1,113,000 wonch debt and unfunded liabilities -- worth of debt and unfunded liabilities. every one of them. if we're on the same course that we're on today. take 6% on that, and you'll see

that they're going to have to come up with about $67,000 a year just to pay the interest costs on that defnlt that's before they pay income taxes. that's before they pay rent or pay a mortgage. that's before they pay for a car or car payment of that's before we put food on the table. that's before they clothe their kids and themselves. that's before they goif a charity or their church. we're stealing the american dream every fipple w time we fae cognizant before we change course. so the debate is about when are we going to change course? when are we going to start recognizing the need to live within our means? we're going to hear that we've always done it this way, that we

passed three other short-term extensions understand that we called them emergencies -- and that we called them emergencies so that we could not have to pay for them. i would say, it is the time we not always do it the way we've always done it because the way we've always done it has gouts $12.6 trillion in debt, and -- has got us $12.6 trillion in debt and is send us out to sea without a rudder and without enough fuel oil to get back to shore. my hope is that our debate will focus on what the real problems are in our country. the real long-term problems, because you really solve short-term problems when you start attacking the long-term problems, when we really start to make the decisions. and i say to my colleague from montana, as head of the finance committee, he knows what would happen if we sent a signal that

we were going to get tough about our budget. he knows what would happen to bond rates. he knows what would happen to our ability to lead in the world, if we all of a sudden became cognizant and acting in a way that was fiscally responsible. investment would come flowing back into this country, bond yields would go down be, not up, the cost of our debt would go down. it would be a home run every way we look at it. and it would be a home run for the madeleines, and it would be a home run for those that are unemployed. if you read the financial news, you've been seeing what's happening to greece. greece got rescued just in the last week, partly through the i.m.f., but mainly the money is going to come from germany and france. and they're going to get to borrow for a short pire period f

time at 5%. i would put out, that there's no germ or france to bail us out. there's not anybody that's going 0 come bail america out. and it's highly doubtful greece has the political will to do what it has to to get out of its own problems. the question is, in two or three years, are they going to be saying the same thing about our country? do we have the political will to dig out of the hole that we in fact have put ourselves in? when i say "we," i am neat talking about the american public. i am talking about the congress of the united states. you can't blame it on any president. you can't blame it on the courts. the blame nor our financial situation -- the blame for our financial situation lies solely with the u.s. congress, whether it is the lack of oversight of financial firms, of freddie mac and fannie mae, whether it is

the sack of oversight of the s.e.c., whether it is the tremendous amount of waste, fraud, and abuse in the federal budget, $300 billion at least year, it lies with us. we're going to hear lot of reasons why we should pass this and just pass the charges on to our kids. my hope is that the american people reject that. because when they accept that we just charge it to our kids, what they're going to do is condition us to continue to do the same, continuing to spend the future opportunities of our children and grandchildren. our heritage is much greater than that. our kids and grandkids are worth much more than that. let it not be said of this congress that we failed to act in a time when now is when the tough get going, and we make the hard decisions about not increasing the debt,

streamlining the government, eliminating some of the $300 billion worth of waste, fraud, abuse and duplication that's in the federal government. and with that, i yield the floor. mr. bcus: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. baucus: mr. president, we are starting to come out of the worst recession since the great depression. a little more than a year ago, in the fourth quarter of 2008, the economy declined at an annual rate of more than 5%. a year later the fourth quarter of 2009, the gross domestic product grew at an annual rate of nearly 6%. last month manufacturing activity increased at the fastest rate in five and a half years. last month the service sector expanded at the fastest the rate in more than two years.

and last month the economy added 162,000 jobs. the economy has taken its first steps toward recovery. the economists say that part of the reason why the economy is starting to come back is what we did here. one of the first things that president obama did in office was to press for bold action to prevent another great depression. what did he do? one of the first bills that congress enacted in the new administration was the recovery act. economists say that it's working. the nonpartisan congressional budget office says that in the fourth quarter of 2009, the recovery act increased the number of full-time equivalent jobs by between 1.4 million and 3 million jobs. and the congressional budget office also estimates that the real gross domestic product was .5% to 3.5% in the fourth

quarter than it would have been without the recovery act. so there are some encouraging signs. but we still face major challenges in the economy. there's still work to do creating jobs. the unemployment rate stands at 9.7%, almost a tenth of the labor force is unemployed. more than 15 million americans out of work. first-time claims for unemployment benefits rose the week before last. businesses are still laying off workers. and companies remain tentative in hiring new employees. the economists call unemployment a lagging indicator. employers can be slow to rehire when business begins to pick up. the congressional budget office expects that unemployment rate to remain above 8% until 2012. c.b.o. does not expect unemployment to reach what they call its natural state of 5% until 2016.

c.b.o. does not expect the gap between actual output and potential output will close until the end of 2014. that's why we need to pass a temporary extension of unemployment benefits. jobless benefits are a powerful way to bolster demand during times of high unemployment. households receiving unemployment benefits spend their additional benefits right away. that spurs demand for goods and services. that boosts production and that leads businesses to hire more employees. the congressional budget office looked at different ways that we can help the economy to grow, and the c.b.o. says that extending additional unemployment benefits would have one of the largest effects on economic output on employment per dollar spent. and because benefits are often spent quickly, extending unemployment benefits will promote a timely boost to the economy.

a temporary extension will also provide immediate assistance to millions of americans struggling to feed their families and pay the bills. according to officials in my home state of montana, if we do not pass this extension when thousands of montanans could lose their unemployment benefits, we'll have significant difficulties. thousands is a significant number when you consider the population of my state. an extension of unemployment benefits is essential but it's not enough. also consider unemployment insurance reforms that could help create more jobs. in that vein, i plan to hold a hearing in the finance committee on wednesday to explore ways to use tphouplt insurance. -- unemployment insurance. states and experts have a lost ideas, ideas about how it can save and create more jobs and wednesday they will discuss commonsense innovations with a panel of experts while also addressing the challenge of state solvency. right now it's essential that we

pass a temporary extension of unemployment benefits. an extension will help workers to get by as they search or retrain for a new job. an extension will also provide a much-needed boost to the economy. and so, let us help the families who are struggling in this difficult economic time. let us help to spur demand and economic growth, and let us vote to invoke cloture on this vital legislation. i suggt the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. mr. dorgan: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be vacated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. dorgan: mr. president, we're going to have a cloture vote this evening at 5:30. it's about a subject that's very important, and yet i have been listening to the floor today and during the discussion about saving our country, about the issue of large federal budget

deficits and the things that threaten our country's future, and i wanted to talk a little about some of those issues because i have been reading a book recently, quite an interesting book called "too big to fail," and i was listening this afternoon to some of the debate here thinking about too big to fail and too small to matter. an interesting dichotomy. too big to fail. that's talking about the biggest institutions in this country, the largest financial institutions in america, too big to fail. so they run themselves into serious trouble. they get the benefit of no-fault capitalism. we're told, well, if they fail, it will be a disaster for america's economy and therefore we'll have the taxpayer pony up up $700 billion to make sure they don't fail -- i'm talking about the people at the top. the question is what about the people at the bottom? what about the people that work for a living who like their jobs, who want to have a better

future for themselves and their children, but who discovered that as you sail into this economic storm, while the people at the top get a big old parachute and they are lifted gently to the ground or allowed to get gently grounded, the folks at the bottom, they are just pushed off a cliff. you run into this serious economic trouble and a whole lot of people lose their jobs. we have had millions and millions of people lose their jobs. we estimate somewhere around 17 million americans woke up this morning without a job, and they went looking today, as they do every day, but they haven't found a job. they, their spouse, their children, they are all victims of this economy. and so then the question is the difference between too big to fail, those institutions, by the way, which for some of our colleagues, they couldn't be quick enough to get the pillow and the aspirin, say can we help

you, is there any way we can be of help to you? there is $700 billion on the too big to fail aristide. but on the too small to matter side, we have folks who lost their jobs. we have folks who say you're just out of luck. we don't have the ability or willingness to deal with you. you know, i taught a little economics a couple of years in college. we always understand that just the basic lessons of economics are simple enough. when you run into a very severe recession or depression, but let's talk about recession, a deep recession -- in this case, the deepest since the great depression, the government's revenues dry up. we have lost somewhere around around $400 billion a year in revenue. the stabilizers, economic stabilizers that are required in place in the recession would be unemployment insurance, food stamps and those kinds of things to try to help people out, help them through some difficult periods. i'm talking about now helping

people at the bottom of the economic ladder. those things automatically go up. so the revenue goes down, that goes up and your deficit balloons. there is no question about that. everybody understands that. i understand why the deficit has gone out of sight. i also understand it's a very serious problem for our country, but i think we should all understand that we should not do the things that would move us right back into a recession. the economic stabilizers and the expenditure on them is very important in order to get us out of this problem and in order to help those at the bottom of the economic ladder who can't help themselves. what bothers me some is we have got people coming to the floor of the senate saying i'm the champion to try to reduce the federal budget deficit, i'm the person that's going to solve this. well, i would say to those folks where were you, where have you been? it's been a decade and you weren't around. i recall nearly ten years ago when president bush came into office and he said, you know, we have a budget surplus. yes, they did. the first budget surplus in

three decades under the last year of president clinton's presidency. a budget surplus at the federal level, the first one. and by the way, that result interested a series of fiscal policy judgments that were made beginning in 1993. i voted for it. it passed by one vote in the senate. passed by one vote in the u.s. house and senators such as -- i guess i will name him because he was proud of it, senator phil gramm from texas, stood up and said you pass this, you will bankrupt the country. it didn't bankrupt the country. it led us out of the problems we were in to a budget surplus in the year 2000. president george bush came to town and said you know what? we have got this budget surplus and it looks like we're going to have budget surpluses for the next ten years. let's give very large tax cuts to people, but the largest tax cuts to the highest income people in america. well, i stood on this floor and i said i don't support that. what if we don't have these

surpluses for ten years? these are just economic projections by economists that can't remember their phone numbers for three days and they are telling us what's going to happen in three, five, and ten years. let's be a little conservative. president bush and his colleagues on the floor of the united states said katie bar the door, we're pushing this. they had the votes and they passed it. all of a sudden, we substantially cut the revenue that was coming into the federal budget deficit. and then what happened? well, then we had a recession almost immediately. then we were hit with 9/11, a terrorist attack in this country. then we were at war in afghanistan and then we went to war in iraq. and year after year after year, the president brought to this congress proposals for emergency spending for the war because this president said that -- i'm talking about president george w. bush, we don't intend to pay for a penny of it. every single penny for the war is going to be on an emergency basis put on top of the federal budget debt. i didn't hear those folks who

said they will be between us and catastrophe then to come to the floor and say this doesn't make any sense. i said why don't we pay for some of this? the president said if you try to pay for this, i'll veto the bill. there we were for eight years spending money we didn't have on a war we probably shouldn't have fought, borrowing every single penny of it. now, the folks who speak the loudest these days about these issues are the ones who decided all that made a lot of sense. cut the government's revenue, fight a war without paying for any of it -- by the way, many of them ten years ago when we voted on the floor of this united states senate to repeal the restrictions that were put in place after the great depression to protect our country, they were the ones who voted for the repeal, who say you know what? let's let the big financial

companies create holding companies. and you can put them all together. you can put real estate and securities and banks, investment banks, fdic-insured banks, put them all in one big old holding company. it will be just fine. i was on the floor of the senate saying this won't be just fine. it will be a catastrophe. i said ten years ago -- i didn't know for sure, but i said i think within ten years, we're going to see big taxpayer bailouts if we do this. some of the same people on the floor of the senate back then were saying look, let's create these big financial behe had moths so we -- behemoths so we can compete. it will be good. then the president george w. bush brought in regulators who boasted they were willing to be willfully blind for almost a decade. it doesn't matter what you do. you can do it. we won't watch. there is a new sheriff in town and we are business friendly. so at all of these agencies where you were supposed to have regulators who make sure the free market worked, regulators that were the referees to blow

the whistle with a striped shirt to call the foul when the free market is the victim of a foul, they were not around. they were just in a relationship relationship -- in a rip van winkle sleep for nearly a decade. meanwhile, wall street went out to play. they created credit default swaps, synthetic credit default swaps, c.d.o.'s. i mean, it's unbelievable. and the circumstances that developed, the subprime scandal, the creation of these exotic financial instruments, the development of substantial more lending approved by regulatory agencies, all of this set us up for an unbelievable fall. and some of the same people who were cheerleading for these very activities are now telling us they're going to protect america. and you know whr they are going to make their last stand? their last stand on these deficit issues is to deal with the poor people by saying now,

you can't get that unemployment extension, that unemployment insurance. by the way, unemployment insurance is something that people pay for in their paychecks. unemployment insurance is something we pay for in our paychecks. extending it during a recession is certainly the thing to do. it's something we have always done, and yet this is the last stand. what about making the last stand when it comes to bailing out wall street? how about making the last stand a couple of weeks from now when we have wall street reform on the floor of the united states senate, when we have a real fight about trying to do reform that's necessary on wall street. you know, in 2008, in 2008, the financial firms on wall street -- i'm just talking about the wall street firms now, the biggest financial firms lost lost $36 billion and paid paid $18 billion in bonuses. now, i have an m.b.a., i went to business school, graduate

school. there is nowhere they teach in graduate school that if you go out and lose lose $35 billion, $36 billion, you ought to expect to be able to pay $17 billion or or $18 billion in bonuses to those who helped you do it. yet that's exactly the kind of carnival that existed in this country at the top of the financial food chain. so we're going to have a big fight about that in a couple of weeks. how do you plug the holes? how do you really solve this problem of wall street reform? and we are going to have a lot of votes. it will be interesting to see whether those who now speak the loudest about being able to protect the american taxpayer, standing up on the issue of debt and deficits, whether those are the people who are going to join us in really taking the action to try to make sure this can't happen again. because you talk about what has contributeed to this country's debt and deficit, the largest contribution by far are the supportive votes of those who were friends of wall street and in the last ten years have given them every single opportunity to do what they have done, and that

is create a casino-like economy to have fdic-insured banks trading on their own proprietary accounts. they may just as well have a blackjack table in the lobby. i mean, it's unbelievable to fuse together inherently risky investment banks with fdic-insured banks, and having both of them, instead of providing the kinds of things banks used to provide, and that is doing lending, having both of them trading on securities in their own proprietary accounts in order to make big fees and big money. it's unbelievable to me. so the question is who will stand up for this country's economic interest? who will really stand up for this country's economic interest? spending? spending on someone who is out of work in a deep recession, is that really where you want to make your last stand? let me help you with a couple of other suggestions. how about making a last stand in asking people to pay taxes to the federal government that

ought to owe the federal government. people who made last year ove over $3.6 billion, one person. now my calculation says that's a $300 million a month paycheck. so when that person comes home and the spouse says, hone, how are we doing? every single day he can say we're doing really well. $10 million we earned today. even better than that he can now say, and, by the way, we pay the lowest income tax rate in america. we pay 15% income tax rate. almost no one else can do that. people who work with their hands for a living can't do that. people that work hard all day -- they pay income tax rates far higher than 15%. we've got some of the biggest income earners paying 15% tax rates on carried interest. so i say to my friends, you want to do something about the federal budget deficit, join me. let's get rid of that nonsense.

i wish they would join me on the floor of the senate the dozens of times i've been here, the tax dodgers who avoid paying taxes by creating slams. i showed the picket -- shams. i showed the pictures. you wouldn't want to touch them or feel -- american banks buy a sewer system in a german city and then they lease it back to the city so the city keeps using the sewer system and the bank gets to write off a sewer system in a german city to reduce its american tax obligation. they want all the benefits of being american, but they don't want the responsibility of paying taxes. so i say to somebody who comes to the floor of the senate and wants to reduce the federal budget deficit, how about joining knee getting rid of these things. or perhaps you could join me on the floor when i showed the picketture of the ugland house, a four-story white building on church street in the cayman

islands. when i showed the photograph, and, by the way, it was an enterprising piece of reporting by a man i believe of david evans from bloomberg news who went to the cayman islands, he found a four-story building on church street that was the home to 4,027 corporations. they don't all fit in a four-story building. it was a legal dodge by companies in order to funnel money through an address, through a mailbox to avoid paying income taxes to america. since the 12,048 corporations use that house, it has grown to 16,000 corporate addresses in that house as i understand it. i say to my friends who are here talking about dealing with budget deficits, how about helping me on that. how about closing those loop homes. they are unbelievably ridiculous

loopholes that allow some of the people and companies that allow people to pay almost no income tax to the federal government. now, that's the tax side. i could talk forever about that, but i won't. but i would say if we got a little help on that we would reduce the budget. on the spending side, i held 20 hearings on spending dealing with the contracting in the war in iraq and afganistan. there's a place in iraq, and if somebody gets there, i suggest you drive by and take a look at it, it's american's taxpayers there. it's a prison, we paid for it and built it. we tried to build it. i think we spent $20 million to $30 million for the first contractor and fired the contractor and brought in another one. when the other one was finished, the money's gone, there is a prison that is sitting on the grounds of iraq that the iraqi government said that they didn't

want and will never use. it doesn't even look like a finished building. it's huge. tens of millions of dollars were spent just poured down a hole in the desert. i held 20 hearings on the most unbelievable waste and fraud and abuse on contracting work -- war contracting in iraq that i think occurred in the history of our country. there's an area of spending i think we can tackle. we ought to tackle. there are so many areas for us to decide to do something about and, yet, the last stand here on the floor of the united states senate on a monday is to say, you know what? we've -- we've rachetted up all of the strength, muscle an courage to say that we don't think those at the bottom of the economic ladder, those who have lost their jobs, those who are out of work, those who feel hope less an helpless, those whose families are also victimized, we don't think they ought to get unemployment insurance extended.

we'll put conditions on it to delay it and delay it. the same people who rushed to the altar to say can we give $700 billion to thing biggest financial firms in the country that ran this country smack into a financial ditch. it's not that we don't have a serious financial burden, we do. my point is there's some johnny come lately in this chamber from people who have never come to the floor on these issues in the last decade and now believe this budget deficit problem began to emerge on january 1st of a year ago. well, that is not the case. that just is not the case. this budget deficit problem that we have, and it is serious, results in significant part because this country ran into a very serious economic recession and it was not some natural disaster like a flood, a fire, or a tornado that came that we

couldn't do anything about. this was mannedmade and i -- manmade and i warned about it 10 years ago and those warnings were largely ignored. choices and policies, bad choices and bad policies have brought us to this position. now it's required of us, it seems to me, to make good choices. it seems to me that one of the good choices would be to recognize our responsibility to those at the bottom of the economic ladder. the folks that have -- millions and millions of them that have lost their job in this recession, didn't do anything wrong. they weren't -- they weren't underperformers at work. they just were swept away by a very substantial recession, and they paid for unemployment insurance in their paychecks. we all do. my hope is that we'll get some cooperation on this vote today, the 5:30 vote, it's a vote by

which an effort to extend unemployment insurance for those who are the most vulnerable in this country, that vote has been blocked, so we have a cloture petition and it ripens today, a vote at 50:00. my hope is -- 5:30. my hope is that we can at least do that and move aid head. there are -- move ahead. there are plenty of us who are anxious to work on reducing the federal budget. this government needs to tighten its belt in a wide range of areas. and we need to tackle the spending side and do it seriously. but it is not the only side. there are a whole series of folks not paying taxes that they should pay. there are some of the biggest corporations in the country that are avoiding tax that's they should be paying and we ought to bring in the revenue that we are required to bring in. ask some po awhat everybody else -- ask some to pay what everybody else is paying. all of that in my judgment, can help us address this very

serious economic problem. but let me just look forward again in two weeks to say on the floor of the senate if this is the last stand by those who are worried about the federal budget deficit, that is, trying to make those at the bottom of the economic ladder, the most vulnerable of americans wait an wonder if they're going to get help from this congress, if that's their last stand, i would say to them in two weeks from now when we take on wall street reform and decide to do the things that are necessary to fix what causeed this economic problem, fix what caused a substantial portion of the financial budget deficits and fix what caused the deepest recession we've been in since the great depression, if we don't get some help in two weeks, and, by the way in the bill that came out of the banking committee is a good first start. i think it needs to be strengthened in what number of areas. even that bill didn't get any republican support. not one. not one vote in the banking committee because there are a lot of people here who support

making sure that -- that we're not too aggressive in trying to deal with the wall street folks an wall street interests. but i'll tell you if we're not aggressive enough to make sure we close the loopholes here and make sure that we tighten the reins so the american people have some confidence this isn't going to happen again, we will rue the day, in my judgment, if we end with a result that doesn't measure up in the minds of the american people. so, mr. president, again, my point is to suggest we have a very serious, unsustainable budget deficit, no question about that. it ought not be surprising to anybody in this chamber meefg alonchairman movingalong for a e revenues drying up and the expenditures increasing. that's not surprising. but we need to come together and work together to find ways to not only get the taxes paid that

are owed by -- at the same time reducing the federal budget deficit through those means, tightening our belt an doing the things that are necessary to move away from a decade irresponsibility. if you're going to fight a war, you're going to send men and women off to work but don't have the courage to pay for it along the way. it's unbelievable to me. i have been to so many sendoffs and we're prepared to take people away from their families and children and houses, i was in kosovo last week visiting the troops. they're away from home for a year. they've got courage. when their country asks, they go. when they're called, they don't ask why. shouldn't this congress have the same courage to say if we're going to send people to war, we're going to pay for it, we're going to ask the american people to pay for the cost of that war? that's another significant part of this debate and discussion

about how to deal with the federal budget deficit. mr. president, i yield the floor. i make a point of order that a quorum is not present. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: