neh? >> not necessary at all, dana. the cultural agencies aren't very different how congress works, and congress is an ever-changing institution. and the times are ever-changing. and so there are a lot of hills and valleys that are yet to be seen. i think everybody knows we are in difficult times, and to dealing with issues that are truly unprecedented. i mean, whether we think of ourselves as first generation history of the world that has to do with the capacity to destroy the planet to nuclear weaponry, whether it be the other end of the spectrum, geopolitically with the new implosive power of terrorism. . .

wrenches of increased globalism at the same time people are looking for localist solutions to almost everything. and they're having this tension between globalism and localism. and then you're having new economic phenomenon that we have found to have been able to advance economic activity around the world. and at the same time we found we've been able to contract it. we're in a contracted two years. we're having to learn to deal with.

>> now, coming, you know, out of a couple of years actually in higher education, where you, you know, were at two of the leading institutions in the united states, are you bringing specific goals to the neh right now? are there three or four things that you would really like to accomplish against whatever odds? >> well, first when you look -- and a lot of people don't understand very well these two -- what we call endowments, the arts and the humanities. and let me make a distinction because it isn't often made. the arts are all about supporting the creative processes particularly living arts. and the humanities are all about perspective, history, philosophy, literature, and related disciplines. and each operates uniquely with basically only two other institutions in america. and almost none around the world. the two in america being the national institutes of health, and national science foundation.

where we allocate federal funds based on peer review. and so we bring the best and the brightest in america in various fields to assess projects or grants or scholarship. of one kind or another. and so when you ask about goals, one is to preserve the institution as it's come in to being. and has developed a rather wonderful track record. but beyond that, they are challenges of the time. and so i've laid forth two that i consider to be initiatives that aren't exactly goals but there's a hard, kind of thin line between a goal and an initiative. one i called bridging cultures where we're looking at putting a greater emphasis on what it is that makes a people a people. and then what it is that makes people differentiated. and we're a society that has a wondrous national culture.

but we are also a mosaic of subcultures. so understanding ourselves is very important. and then we're looking at a world in which there are a huge number of cultures. some widely disparate. and most of these cultures have many subcultures too. one of the great questions is, can we understand better? and one might say does that matter? well, i sometimes suggest that it's always hard to put numbers on programs and their importance. but one can say almost definitively and that there is a huge cost of not understanding other cultures. and by huge, it's how you interrelate with the world commercially as well as whether you have a war and peace. and you asked me about congress, i will tell you one of the things that i find absolutely astonishing is that the united states of america was involved in a war in the persian gulf.

the first gulf war under the first president bush. but as we led up to the second war that we didn't know was coming, i don't think there were very many members of congress that had the foggiest idea that there's a difference between sunni and shia. and i don't think there were that many in the united states government that did. and what that means is that we as a country have to think more. and then if you go internally, we have become in many ways a much richer culture in terms of people from more and more lands that have come here. and people that interrelate with their past experience with the american experience. and they do it it differently in alabama than they do in new jersey and definitely yet in iowa. and so every -- every year we see differentiations of a different kind. and this is -- we could look at wonderful or we can say, golly

gee, people that are different we don't like. and there's that instinct in all of us on both sides. and so what it is that you try to get people to think more positively about each other. and i will tell you as someone who has traveled this country talking about this concept of civility, it is astonishing what the new american rhetoric is. and we have people that are saying to other people, you're a communist, you're a fascist, or maybe both at the same time. [laughter] >> we have other people using words we have not used in american vocabulary for a century. the word "secession" is rife in america. the word "nullification" is starting to be uttered. and so from the humanities point of view, i'm saying we've got to understand our own history. and we have to understand our own philosophy.

now history and philosophy conjoin. and if we don't, our society is going to have a very hard time hanging together. >> now, have you initiated any programs that are either for broader international exchange or deeper understanding of those principles and experiences in american history that would help build that civility? >> well, we do have a number of things working internationally. some with traditional countries we'll be announcing in the near future. small exchanges with italy. with a major program with china. but much of our research goes very esoterically. we've done work with museums in afghanistan. we've done work with aspects of

chinese culture. there are new fields of research. one that didn't exist ten years ago called the digital humanities. and we have just done a series of exploration with grant opportunities for -- what we call bridging disciplines. where we're having people apply for grants from more than one discipline, from more than one university from more than one country with a mandate from another each other. we are working with the british equivalent of the neh as well as the national science foundation to do kinds of research of a very different nature. >> now, if you, you know, go to educational organizations, historical organizations, organizations in the humanities or the arts and you ask them what they want from the neh or the nea, i think unanimously

they will say more money. and this is -- that they want the money more than the ideas or the strategies or whatever. the u.s. is entering -- the u.s. government is entering an extremely tough period of budgetary demands and budgetary restraints. what is your perspective you know once against having seen the agency side and the congressional side of the prospects for the culture of agencies right now, you know, facing these new economic realities? >> well, first let me just say a comment about money in the sense of -- money is something you transfer for a purpose. and one of the fabulous aspects of the united states is we transfer money for individuals to do things around the country. in other words, the national endowment of the arts and the humanities are not institutions that in and of themselves are

producing great art and great humanities projects. they are precipitating the great american citizens to do great art and great humanities research. and great humanities translation of research to the public itself. now, from a money perspective, there's a macroeconomic dilemma that faces every discipline of any kind in every community of every kind. that is in the last few years we've seen at a minimum a 20% erosion in the real wealth of the united states of america. and of the average american family. and that is -- could be a little higher than 20%. that means every governmental agency in every governmental unit from a city to a county to a state to the federal government has less to draw upon just as the american family has

less to draw upon. and so we're looking at a federal government that has announced the discipline of a freeze in domestic level spending for a three-year period. and that is something we in the humanities and the arts will have to cope with. i must say by perspective the peek year for the -- both of these endowments was the year 1979. and we're at about 37% in inflation adjustment terms from where we were then. and so there's been a slippage over time. this president has committed to maintaining the endowments. the congress has been committed in the same way. where we go in the future is anybody's guess. but it's within the context of very difficult times. now having said that about the endowments, we are a small part of the american art scene and humanity scene.

i was visited this week in what i consider to be a rather stunning circumstance -- president sarkozy of france to find out how america does its culture. that is the french are looking at how we do things. [laughter] >> i made it very clear to him that in the united states, how we operated in levels of government and types of institutions -- but we're principally in the arts and humanities a private citizen-oriented circumstance. many in europe -- many european countries are much more governmentalized in both of these disciplines. and that doesn't mean one system is necessarily better or worse than another. it's how these societies fit with their traditions and cultures and whatever. but if you take the humanities. at every level there's great restraint. state governments are now

pulling back their support for higher university. the average state university used get a third of its budgets and now it's far less than that. if you take within university communities the humanity subjects are being downplayed relative to other subjects that are considered to be more job-centric. although the interesting thing is when you survey corporate leaders in america, they want more and more people educated in the arts and humanities. they also want them to study business but they first want them to have a background in other cultures. other languages. in the capacity to think. and in terms of dealing with the world, the arts and humanities really are unique in the sense of allowing people to, a, learn some perspective, and, b, how to think humanity.

>> when you look at the business and corporate community look for new top hires. the top complaints are can't write, can't read which are essentially skills you learn from the humanities or one hopes you learn in the humanities. if i could ask you a question that comes out of what you just said. when you look at these state universities which are under absolute budget pressure and then pressure within those universities to penalize the humanities budget of disproportionately to other fields, does the neh have a public role in terms of articulating the rationale for the humanities? >> well, it is hard to say with regard to a specific university. one has to be very careful. but in terms of the role itself of the humanities, absolutely. and sometimes in higher education today now people are looking at what departments lose the least amount of money or make money.

and there's a reason to think those things through. but education is supposed to be education. and there's supposed to be a cost to it. and if you give incentives to go in one direction and you don't in another, it really matters to where people are going to land. and so i am speaking very strongly to the humanities community that we have to stand up and make it clear that our particular disciplines matter. they matter a great deal. and if the american university community wants to back off of teaching the humanities, it's going to be a real cost to american society. in a very unfortunate circumstance. >> when i was chairman of the national endowment for the arts, really about two months after i took the job, i had to deal with the first of what became a recurring issue, which was a state was in the process of

taking its arts council out of existence. and i had the very fun task of talking to governors and lieutenant governors and majority and minority leaders about the fact that we would withhold federal funds if -- you know, if they, you know, got rid of their -- of their arts agency. do you see any similar trend happening in terms of the state humanities? >> first by background, and the arts has the same phenomenon. there is a state humanities council in all 50 states as well as in the territories that we control. and so that they are organized like a state department. we have embassies in each of the states. the distinction being that, a, we turn internally and b, in the state department washington

sends a directive the ambassador snaps too. when we suggest something, we're in danger of receiving a yawn. but you never know. [laughter] >> but what i'm saying is our state consuls are independent institutions. i'm joking about a yawn because they are really good. and it is astonishing what work the state humanities consuls do. and those in washington are unaware. they do programs throughout their states that fit their states. people talk differently in south carolina than they do in iowa. and programs are tailored differently. and they're wonderful what the state humanities consuls do. and for example, they'll have programs in literature, programs in history in which they reach out to the smallest towns in the state and to odd places. we have a program in oregon by the state council sul. -- consul. it's called think and drink.

we have programs that are in barber shops in illinois. it's really a fabulous outreach under the assumption -- and this is a bit of an exaggeration, but it's not good enough to have a monk contemplating in a cave if no one can hear the thoughts. and so somehow you have to get a public engaged in such a way that the great books of our time -- the great thoughts of our time can be translated in a public venue. and that's what the consuls do. and they do it extremely well. now having said that, every state consul that i know of is looking at a smaller budget than last year. and so it's coming from the states and they receive about half their resources from the national office. and so there is pressure out there.

>> american museums have a very complicated relationship with the cultural agencies because the nea funds one type of program. the institute of museum and library services funds another type of program. the neh funds a different type of program and they receive insurance from the federal council. these museums have gone through this enormous period of expansion during the last 20 years. they in many cases doubled, you know, their exhibition spaces. they increased their staffs. and many of them are undergoing really, really drastic financial pressure right now. do you have any perspective in terms of the dealings you've had so far with museums and any ideas from the neh? >> well, you define the dilemma. there's hardly a museum in america that isn't under some budget pressure. and many under very intense. and we have vastly more museums in america than the american people really think about.

it's a little bit -- like my state no one has exactly counted it. we're a state of 40,000 ponds. and museums across this country are like ponds. they're everywhere. and it's wonderful. but it's also in difficult economic times hard to keep up. but it tells you because of the variety of them. people really want to have something to do with their county's history. with some sort of -- in some cases there's a brand-new museum and i recommend people see it in columbia, south carolina, that's largely art from switzerland. and if you like jakimini, it's not bad. [laughter] >> i mean, these are new things happening in this country all the time. i am very, very worried about the state of museums because if

you just visualize a museum, right away you think of something hard to heat and air condition. and the cost of energy is driving them nuts. and it's one of the reasons by the way we have programs -- not only preservation of paper but programs that relate to how people can go in new ways to heat and air condition. >> well, when you said the difficulty of heating and air conditioning, chase rion who runs the national building museum who probably has the largest lobby in the world, i think was nodding his head. absolutely. >> before we open the round table for up for questions for our guests, i wanted to ask you one question. and then also i know there's a person that you want to honor or mention after that. you are wearing. -- i don't think our camera can pick it up. it says civility.

i know this has become a kind of personal campaign for you. as any h chair. would you like to say a little bit more about it. you mentioned a little bit earlier. >> well, all i will say is -- if americans don't pay attention to civil discourse or difficulties -- i used to joke that i discovered the fourth newtonion law. and by that i mean, if any of you've studied physics, for every action there's an equal action and the fourth law i call social physics. in social physics reaction can be greater than action. and so i called dana bum and he's likely to call me something larger. if i ignore him, that's not going to advance relations. and then you can enlarge that to international affairs. if i call finley's country evil, what's finley going to respond?

is he going to reform or is he going to snap back? there are aspects of this that happen all the time. i might just say and i'll just conclude with this that i think it's to be topical of the month. it's important for the supreme court of the united states to protect uncivil speech. but it's important for the public to filter it. but it's also important for the supreme court of the united states not to allow corporate speech to drown out citizen views. i am one of the that thinks it's a matter of civility. when a court rules we're going to have an american political system that's going to have an enlarged role for corporate citizens. and what we have to have is a political system in which

citizens can speak their views with great vigor. in fact, argumentation is a social good. and you can't block tyranny or dogmatism without argumentation. but how you argue is a civil concern. and we're going to have to think this through from a legal system as well as from a circumstance of individual citizens talking to each other. >> and that's also the power of culture. >> absolutely. >> if culture breaks down, you know, laws themselves, you know, really can't entirely fill the gap. now, chairman leach, i know that there's -- one of our guest at the round table today that you want to say a few words about. >> well, i just wanted to recognize albert small. and the reason i do is albert has just won the national humanities medal and couldn't come to the ceremony without ted

sorenson. and he deserves to be noted. and albert, you have been one -- [applause] >> albert stands out uniquely as one of the great benefactors of the humanities. he has put together one of the greatest intellectual collections that i have known of in american history, including several of the original declarations of independence which are words we're very proud of and given them to the university of virginia where there's a center named for albert. and i thank you, albert. >> with, you know, that brief statement, i would like to open up the table, you know, for questions. do we have any of our members? if you ask a question, i think we need to wait either, b, at a mic or wait for one of the

traveling mics. and can you introduce yourself and mention your organization. do we have an opening question? >> i'm with the hudson institute. i'm very interested in your civility campaign. i'm a fan of promoting civility. one thing i often note is that it contributes to a lack of civility in a sense when your team makes the argument it's fine. but when the other team doesn't, let's say the filibuster. when the republicans are in the majority they think the filibuster is terrible and the democrats are the majority. they switch sides depending on where they stand. and so i think that contributes to the lack of civility. i'm interested on your thoughts where the break down of civility came from and what we can do to fix it? >> well, first, i mean, american has always had issues. walt woodman said we had an athletic democracy. by that he meant things were

rather rugged. we debated immigration back in the 19th century quite vigorously. we debated slavery in thinking of fundamental things and we had a little more violence. after all the vice president the united states shot dead the secretary of the treasury. that's very similar. what's different today is i think new communications technology, the profoundness of the issues of the day and some debilitating aspects of american politics. and a lot of this relates -- to me very intriguingly. we think of issues. our founders were probably of all generations people other than maybe the fifth century b.c. that talked about not just the rights of man but the nature of man. and they looked at people with all their foibles, et cetera. and that's why we developed this system of all these checks and

balances in government. but i think the nature of politics is something that deserves a lot of attention. and i like the words, although it's using a little different meaning of whitman about athletic democracy. if you think of our culture, there are very few things innately american that's competitive than sports. in almost all kinds. but in very intriguingly in athletics we're seeing this new basketball tournament coming out again this year. but the teams are all taught to work like mad, to work together and to respect the opposition. and you don't see that to anything like the degree in american politics. and so my modest suggestion is kind of a cultural one. can we bring politics up to sports? [laughter]

>> and that is a very interesting thought. now, the issues are a bit different. and possibly quite deeper. but i think -- i mean, we have -- i mean, finley was a journalist for a while. but as you know, many people -- and i would put myself in this category turn to the sports page before we turn to the news page. and there's a reason for it. and the other aspect of sports, it implies all these wonderful local loyalties. i mean, we all have our team. and how terrific that is. and we also again respect the others. now if you can teach respect, i think we'd be a long way down the line. >> thanks, related to tevi's

question i wanted to ask you more particularly the role you saw and the civility and the humanities and how the humanities can be used to increase civility and why you think faculty politics are so noted for their nastiness? [laughter] >> well, first, an aspect that i consider a minor aspect of humanities as well as civility are things like etiquette. but the real aspect that is civility is whether one is interested in the other person, the other society. the other circumstance. and so it's engagement. it's respectful engagement. ...

>> at a time, again if you go back into philosophy, the conceptualizations of the common good, the greatest good and the greatest number. the largest concepts now are not being thought through very much. people are thinking can the republicans win next week? can the democrats prevail? what does that mean? that doesn't mean can we do something good for the country. i mean, it's a very different conceptualization. and then the unstated aspects of

politics are pretty heavily oriented with the iowa, and sometimes you pick it up with people's manners of speech, actions. but it's deeply invested. >> bob litt? >> bob litt, ceo of a americans for the arts. i would like to start off by saying congratulations, and complimenting the new chairman for his stellar voting record in congress in support of the arts and humanities over 30 years, just always there. but my question is about the image and the value proposition of the humanities today. i think that sometimes the image and the concept of the humanities is not as well understood as the actual humanities themselves and how they are used at a couple of

examples. in my work i get to go to a different american city every week. and as i go to the cities i see people like mayors is leaning in providence, references culture policy by using historical data about the industrial revolution in that city. and i see somebody like the mayor in honolulu talk about religion and its bases for their cultural policy. and many, many others like that around the country. those things are the humanities, but very few people ever speak about the humanities. and so i think there's a disconnect with the citizenry in general. and i actually think that's the case of the arts, too, where people sometimes talk about in our research, not necessarily ballyhooing the arts as much as they value jazz, or getting museums, as if there is no connection between those two things that saunters if you observe this and if there's something about the concept of the humanities and the arts from a visibility and a value

proposition that you would suggest. >> well, what i think are trying to say is that there is kind of the conceptualization that the arts are artsy. and that somehow has an implication that both of the leaders him and non-strength, and actually the arts are about culture and they are about bringing out the most in american society. humanities are about depth. and in the world which is muscular, sometimes people under estimate does. i can visualize the united states army being lee used unless there was a great deal of cultural understanding of where it's going to be used for. and i think people have to

realize that they matter a lot. now, in our society, and frankly, every society, there is an element of anti-intellectualism. and sometimes intellectuals are anti-other intellectuals. >> never. >> of course never. and certainly there is no rivalries in academia, but the fact is, just as you say, psychologically there is something that isn't presented in the right way. and how you turn arts and humanities into a muscular set of terms is very intriguing. now that doesn't mean it should be exactly the same, but how you

can have a strong society without strong arts and society i don't know. >> sharon? >> i'm with national washington opera. i think in addition to the concept of sort of the high and low and relevancy, sorry, there is the issue of borders and i'm constantly telling my staff that the whole public doesn't see the cultural borders between high and low, or in our case opera or in musical theater, or even pop music, the way we have generally treated them. and so in making a difference, we go to the actual experience.

and the see any kind of initiatives in terms of addressing sort of this maybe miscommunication or disconnect with a large percentage? i remember beverly sills being asked about being on broadway. and immediately she said well, it's not an operatic experience, but it could be a very exciting theatrical a spirit. and i thought, you know, she didn't just put down that persons, the relevancy of their experience. >> well, the word borders has many implications, and certainly borders between art disciplines are very interesting and breaking down. the chinese have a multi-millennium tradition of painting poetry. one of my favorite movements,

post also and brock, was robert delaunay when he started a movement autism which was intended to be involved music with painting. which is an interesting conceptualization. but there are lots of overlaps. i know just as a young person, one of the great other kinds of borders, i was a student of russian and a group of young kids pledged only to speak russian, and traveling through russia. and in a little town, in georgia, and russia, one sunday there in this group of kids that were singing and elvis presley album. and i went up to them and, speaking russia, i soon found

they couldn't speak a word of english. but they could sing elvis. [laughter] >> and was a former president who wrote a book on the importance of jazz in the second russian revolution. that is, the revolution that toppled communism, suggesting that jazz was the first in the nation of real freedom of some russian. and that it had a phenomenal ramification in movements towards political freedom. and so he had the transmigration of music to politics. i think these aspects of the creative mind working in hugely different ways on different people at different times in different environments, all of which is fabulous.

>> albert small? >> this is, gym, probably a little more basic than some of the other discussions, but i'm concerned about the youth of our country. they are the ones who have to decide whether the humanities and arts are going to thrive, and in the future. every newspaper in the country has a sports section every day, and only one paper that has a cultural section every day, the "new york times." there is a big disparity between sports overall in the country and culture. and every time i turn the television on icy sports. on the weekends you see sports. and there's so much money involved and the professional sports that it dominates a lot of things. and i don't know the answer to

it, but i'm just poising the question because everybody here gets a newspaper every day, everyday the sports section is right in there. and i think the young people of the country, that's where their heads are. it's not us in this room, it's the young people that shoulder and carry the burden to thrive in the arts and humanities. >> thank you, and i appreciate that perspective about the youth. my sense though is, i wouldn't write it off too quickly. i mean, as was mentioned by shane, music is a pretty driving thing in american society. and the youth are really into it in many different ways. the things that i'm concerned about are really all that more of the humanities side.

because history is no longer as fashionable as it once was. the discipline isn't there. and there are lots of things that are not being studied today. and these indicators that we all hate indicators, but about youth not knowing when the civil war occurred. they are really dramatically significant. and so how do you have a of perspective? it's really worrisome. and the other thing is that, that's new and absolutely new, and i used to as a member of congress give lectures the seventh and eighth graders are and i would start out by saying everyone has heard, every era has ever said, you have to learn from your mistakes. but we are in a world that we have to be smart enough to learn from the mistakes of others. and for a kid, if you don't see

what drugs do to someone else, you're going to be quite vulnerable to try them. you cannot afford to learn from your own mistakes. and likewise, if you take society, it is true we have an experiment with hiroshima and doctor sake, but we can't afford to learn from another major nuclear exchange. because there might not anyone to learn from. again, so that if something's we have to be enough to know we are a little different than any other generation. and to me that means it is more important to study the humanities, to think through the arts and to participate in the arts endeavors. and i worry a lot that school systems throughout the country are giving less attention to some of these subjects.

>> just to follow-up on that, as you know, no child left behind, that's the basic foothold that the congress has in elementary and secondary school education. as a matter of public policy, if you are in congress what would you like -- how would you use the opportunity, the reauthorization of that bill to deal with some of the problems that you are discussing today? >> well first, i would like to stress i am a little beyond the presumption of advising another member of congress. i do my best not to. and so all i can tell you is that i think we have no choice but to put massive new attention

at the youngest levels of education and america today. and it's back to this question, and all of these studies that have ever been done, if you can't read by the age of 10, you have not as a bit more chance, but like a kid of 15 times greater chance of ending up in jail. and i think we really have to recognize that we have to start at the beginning. and then we also have to acknowledge that there are some things society have done better than we might suspect. community colleges are something no society ever had. we need them for a variety of reasons. one, four catch up. 14 cost. but also for ways of organizing into education built into the work environment. and then at the higher academic levels, i just hope that the people ruggedized that the most

fun disciplines are the one they can keep up for ever. that seems to me, english is a great major, but if you go to universities around the country, the largest major is increasingly business administration, which has relevance and i don't deny that. and then at your more elite institutions, the biggest measures, department of economics. and so everyone is looking in a kind of direction that seems to be tied to job. and die, you know, respect that a great deal. i think one is really missing the big picture. if universities don't kind of recalculate what education is all about.

>> dorothy kaczynski. it's all about education, and maybe a query about whether where our best africans and arts and humanities that i had the privilege of being part of a one day american art museum directors junket to capitol hill, but to the department of education. and i was stunned by how little our colleagues and the professionals at the department of education knew about what, from my perspective as a museum professional over decades, has been a reinvention of what a museum is expected to do as we have done the heavy lifting as our public school systems has waned in its robustness. and i thought, my goodness, we are obviously not doing a very

good job of communicating the role that museums and libraries and other cultural institutions play. because they really didn't know all about the educational endeavors. and i would welcome so much any thought that you have about how we can be better advocates. >> well, there's no secret to advocacy. it's very straightforward, and it's very educated. now, one of the things everybody in the arts communities have in common is they are rather educated people. they know how to committed gay. so my sense is you work at that. and then you look at the aspects of american history. as you may know, my wife did a small book for the jacobs collection. one of the things that sticks out in my mind in this book was a picture of a young african-american in harlem named

jacob lawrence. and he is pictured at a summer program that was part of a federal program. and he is in a class, and what just stunned me was all of these kids in this class were wearing ties. in my image of an artist doesn't wear a tie. and yet, this was a matter of total pride. and so when you think of sports, you are thinking about, among other things, afterschool activities. and i think we have really missed the boat in the afterschool activity issue, on both the arts and humanities. and what can be done to keep people in his afterschool. and in the summers. and i think those are the kinds of programs when we think about. and so for example, everybody

knows that our summer programs for basketball in this country. and that's terrific. i'm all for it. but why should there also be some summer school programs and sculpture? may be reading history. i mean, and maybe that's a way of picking up on that our school year is shorter than some school years. of other countries in the world. but i think we're going to have to think about these things. >> sidney lawrence. >> i'm sidney lawrence. and you may? i'm sidney lawrence. i am an artist wearing a tie. [laughter] >> good, good. >> i actually am on your wall i think. nevermind that i'm also an art critic. and my question has to do with

first i was going to ask whether, what you thought about film in terms of the humanities and also the arts a little bit, but then i was thinking about and i want to know how you find, how you might think the one things the kids do do with it could be reached is through the broad screen culture that we have now, all the things that people in the hands and look at at home, as was going to the movies and renting dvds. do you have any ideas about how that might help humanities, the muscle of humanity get into people's brains? and also, are you funding a things like that? >> well, we do film. in fact, one of my surprises was just how many films we had done. and i am, in fact, looking at whether not some of these zones can be translated into other languages that can be sent abroad. these are films from archives.

but i do think those are pretty fabulously creative. there are extremes, as you know. we just had a film that cost half a billion dollars. and it's, by the way, in my view a bridge in cultural's movie about bridging cultures in the future. but it might be cheaper to buy a book about the pope a nation worth it and you might give similar lessons of a similar kind. but films are absolutely extraordinary in their power, and the reach, and the creativity. and it's astonishing how young people are doing war. and i mean great school people are now making movies. and where this goes is going to be just sensational for the future. and i'm told, we do know have

3-d tvs. and so this is a film world. and i wish we were more. that is coming resources in some ways, but i will tell you, i was giving a speech about a month ago. and i like to pride myself to write my own speeches did but i ask the department, or my agency, to come up with a paragraph for me on all the numbers of all we have done in total over the past. and this paragraph came back, and it was perfectly written, except i look at it and refused to use the paragraph because i wanted to try -- i was surprised how small the number's war. so when you say do we do films? yes, we do. when you say do we make much of a mark? no. but we do the best we can with limited resources.

>> i think we have time for one more question. jonathan? >> when you talk about the cultures to understand each other globally, i thought well, here is clear an area of common interest between the state department and neh. when you talk about the need to educate young people in reflective capacity, i thought well, here's an opportunity for a partnership with the department of education and neh. and i have seen sometimes these kinds o of partnerships institutionalize at the national endowment of the arts has a partnership and it is standard administration. i wonder what you see long-term strategic partnerships for neh either within the federal government or with public interest groups? >> well, we do work with other agencies. the three we historically work

most with in terms of dollar interrelationships are the library of congress, the museum and library services, and the national science foundation. but with also don't projects with the department of education, and we certainly worked with the department of state. now, state is not a great reservoir for resources. they are pretty tightly run ship. but clearly how we interrelate with other institutions and work together is one way of using capacities of each, or two or three in different ways. i think we're going to have to do more of that. >> jim, before we close, you are here surrounded by some of the nation's leaders in the arts cultures, humanities and

education. there are many, many more people on education and the internet. you know, are there any parting words that you would like to make, are actually, any advice you might want to offer in this time of economic challenge and spiritual confusion? >> let me say two things. everybody in this town knows, an economist one with arms so that they don't say on one end or the other, but as much as there are difficulties, if you were to take the arts and humanities, the united states of america, by a quantic measure, leads the world. and there is no one close. and so in some ways, the real challenge is that we continue this. and there is real prospect that the competition out there is going to make that very hard. and so one of the great

circumstances is how do not flood them? as a society. the national endowment for the humanities is one very small institution, but it is an emblematic one, and i hope we're able to preserve it in the way it is. but the bigger issue always is where we are as a society itself. again, america is facing these challenges that are severe economic here they are severe international, and they are really testing to our people. and this is a test we have got to rise above, and i will tell you, i just went -- i just visited one of the finest humanities programs with ever held fund, a small exhibit in new york at the new york historical society on lincoln and the new york. and i never really thought that

lincoln had much of a presence in new york. and ends up that matter a great deal and a whole host of ways. some of these pectoral circumstances of a group called the copperheads, who were forced slavery, against lincoln to control the militia of the state of new york. a group called brooklyn's suffer -- soporific. these are really incredible terms that were absolutely in the north holding ideas that you would think would be 16th 16th century. and then contrasted with an unbelievably enlightened leader and enlightened leadership around the country. and lincoln helped lead this country, but the country helped lead lincoln.

and that's the way we are today. we've got these challenges, and the question is whether the really great instincts our country are going to come out, and if they don't we are in trouble. if they do, watch out, world. this place is going to take off. >> thank you, chairman, jim leach for coming. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> live now to the senate floor and members opened the day with an hour of general speeches. before returning to work on a bill that extends unemployment benefits and health insurance subsidies for jobless workers. majority leader reid is carly working out and do it with republicans on how to proceed with the legislation and final passage vote could happen before the end of the week. live now to the floor of the u.s. senate here on c-span2. 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, aprl 13, 2010, to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable jeanne shaheen, a senator from the stae of new hampshire, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: robert c. byrd, presidet pro tempore. mr. reid: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: today in the senate there will be a period morning business for an hour. senators will be allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes each. majority will control the first 30 minutes and the republicans will control the final 30 minutes.

following that, morning business, the senate will proceed to h.r. 4851, the extension act. we'll recess from 12:30 until 2:15 p.m. today for our caucus luncheon. by previous consent agreement, at 2:15 all postcloture time will be yielded back and the senate will adopt the motion to proceed. the bill will then be open to amendments an senators should expect roll call votes this afternoon. -- and senators should expect roll call votes this afternoon. madam president, i'm told s. 3194 is at the desk and due for a second reading is that true? the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. 3194, a bill to provide collective bargaining rights for public safety officers employed by states or their political sub divisions. mr. reid: i would object to any further proceedings with regard

to this bill at this time. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the bill will be placed on the calendar. mr. reid: things were very hectic at -- when the health care legislation passed and at the end of that work period, i acknowledged the contributions of several staff members to helping congress pass health care reform. most significant policy legislation in a long, long time. there were many valuable players on this time that it was inevitable that -- in the haste of things that perhaps i would forget someone who was very important. i did that ex te and tried to gl over of my staff and left off one of the key players in my staff who worked so hard, a man named bruce king. he worked in the senate's health care, especially as it related

to senate reconciliation. more importantly, he's a good person, fine human being. the american public is fortunate that people as talented and as selfless as he has chosen public service. bruce came to my office after serving as senior role for two distinguished senators, senator lautenberg and ko kor corzine. he attended the prestigious london school of being a dem -- economics. his academic background is sengs yes, ma'am. he was one of the first people i hired when i became democratic leader. it is one of the best decisions i made for the people of nevada. he is easy to work with and very bright. his staff meets well on many issues in the last six years. he did an especially exceptional

job on the reconciliation bill. reconciliation is perhaps the most complicated process the senate can undertake. thanks to bruce and the staff of the senate budget committee, we produced a senate reconciliation bill that helped millions of americans and remained consistent with arcane and complex senate rules. i want to publicly acknowledge bruce and thank him for all he's done on health care reform and countless other issues for the people of nevada and the people of america. mr. mcconnell: madam president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: madam president, a lot of smart people have thought about how to prevent a repeat of the kind of financial crisis that we saw in the fall of 2008. we've heard plenty of ideas. but if there's one thing

americans agree on when it comes to financial reform, it's that it's absolutely certain they agree on this: never again -- never again should taxpayers be expected to bail out wall street from its own mistakes. we cannot allow endless taxpayer funded bailouts for big wall street banks. that's why we must not pass the financial reform bill that's about to hit the floor. the fact is this bill wouldn't solve the problems that led to the financial crisis. it would make them worse. the american people have been telling us for nearly two years, any solution must do one thing -- one thing, it must put an end to taxpayer funded bailouts for wall street banks. put an end to taxpayer funded bailouts for wall street banks. this bill not only allows for taxpayer funded bailouts for wall street banks, it is

institutionalizes them. let me say that again. this bill not only allows -- not only allows for taxpayer funded bailouts for wall street banks, it actually institutionalizes them. the bill gives the federal reserve enhanced emergency lending authority that is far too open to abuse. it also gives the federal deposit insurance corporation and the treasury broad authority over troubled financial institutions without requiring them to assume real responsibility for their mistakes. in other words, it gives the government a backdoor mechanism for propping up failing or failed institutions. a new $50 billion fund would also be setup as a backstop for financial emergencies. but no one honestly thinks -- no one honestly thinks $50 billion would be enough to cover the kind of crises we're talking about. during the last crisis, a.i.g.

alone received more than three times that from the taxpayers. three times that. moreover the mere existence of this fund will ensure that it gets used. the mere existence of the fund will make sure that it gets use. and once it's used up taxpayers will be asked to cover the balance. this is precisely -- reprice sigh -- precisely the wrong approach. far from protecting consumers frl wall street excess, this bill would provide endless protection -- endless protection for the biggest banks on wall street. this bill would provide endless protection for the biggest banks on wall street. it also directs the fed to oversee 35 to 50 of the biggest firms, replicating on an even larger scale the same distortions that plague the housing market and helped trigger a massive bubble we'll be suffering from for years.

so imagine this: if you thought freddie and fannie were dangerous, how about 35 to 50 of them? everyone agrees on the need to protect taxpayers from being on the hook for future wall street bailouts, but this bill would all but guarantee that the pattern continues. we need to end the worst abuses on wall street without forcing the taxpayer to pick up the tab. in the worst abuses on wall street without forcing the taxpayer to pick up the tab. that's what republicans will be fighting for in this debate. the taxpayers have paid enough already. the taxpayers have paid enough already. we're not going to expose them to even more pain down the road. the way to solve this problem is to let the people who made the

mistakes pay for them. the way to solve the problem is to let the people who made the mistakes pay for them. we won't solve this problem until the biggest banks are allowed to fail. floor. the presiding officer: the leadership type is reserved. under the previous order there will now be a period of morning business for one hour with senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees with the majority controlling the first half and the republicans controlling the final half.

the senator from illinois. mr. durbin madam president, i ask consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: madam president, pending before the united states senate is the question of whether or not we are going to extend unemployment compensation to the unemployed across our nation. it is an issue which recurse in the senate with some frequency and it baffles me why we continue to argue over this question. we have eight million people actively unemployed and of those six million long-term unemployed people. we know that many of them have lost their jobs because of this recession through no fault of their own. if my colleagues have taken the time, as i have, to meet with them, they know that they're in desperate straits. there are approximately four or five unemployed people in america for every available job. when i sit down and listen to their stories of how they're applying online for job after

job after job, and a great week for them if one or two potential employers even follow through with an e-mail of inquiry about their background, it is a frustrating, fearful existence and it's one that has made no -- is made no easier by the actions of the united states senate. we have been lurching from month to month creating uncertainty as to whether we're going to send these people a check to live on, a basic unemployment benefit check of some $300 a month. consider how any of us could survive and even some with families with that meager amount of money. and the argument is made on the other side of the aisle by many, you know, when you give people $300 a week, $1,200 a month, it just makes them lays yism they stop looking for jobs. i wonder how many in this chamber could live on $300 a week for everything, for rent, utilities.

maybe a mortgage payment. school clothing, kids' shoes, food, the basics. and don't forget that most of these people when they lost their jobs, lost their health insurance. so they live not only in fear of not finding a job, but in fear that tomorrow morning a diagnose or an -- diagnosis or accident could devastate everything that they ever saved for in their lives. yet, every four weeks or five weeks, we go through this drill on the floor of the united states senate about whether or not we're going to help these people. and, you know, some on the other side of the aisle say this is all about the deficit, you moment we've got to get -- you know. we've got to get serious about this deficit. and here's our opportunity, unemployment benefits for those across america, this is where unemployment benefits for those across america, this is where we'll make our stand,,,,,,,,,,,,

but mother nature has

her -- has a mind of her mind. the rhode island state flag is a sign of hope. as i see this flag flying high amidst the devastation blow, i'm reminded of the generosity and indeed hope which accompanied the troubling and sad, difficult events of recent weeks. the flooding destroyed homes, closed businesses and ended jobs, but the people of rhode island have stood up remarkably well. spirits are strong, but the job

of rebuilding roads, bridges, sewage treatment plants, public facilities, homes, and businesses is a colossal and daunting task for a state 27 months into severe recession. so now we in rhode island need help from our federal government to fulfill that hope and to help us rebuild. just as congress was quick to respond in the wake of hurricane katrina in 2005 and following the flooding in iowa and north dakota in 2008 and 2009, i ask my colleagues to work with senior senator jack reed and myself to bring needed assistance to rhode island as quickly as possible. i thank the chair and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. kyl: thank you, madam president. may i be advised when i've spoken for seven minutes. the presiding officer: yes. mr. kyl: thank you very much. madam president, i wanted to talk a little bit about the

judicial confirmation process given the fact that president obama will soon be nominating someone for the united states supreme court to replace the retiring justice stevens. there is a lot written about this, and i think it would be useful from my standpoint to clarify on how i view this and how my colleagues do on both sides of the aisle. the question of a filibuster arises. and i think that the best way to put into context what folks mean when they talk about judicial activism as potentially bringing about a filibuster is to at least describe what -- what i think about that. and i think all of us in the senate, whether we have supported a filibuster or not, would agree that all else being equal, it is not something that we should do for judicial nomination, especially for supreme court nomination. there's not been a successful filibuster of a supreme court nomination, thankfully, despite the fact that the last two

nominees, especially the last nominee to the court by president bush, there was an attempt to filibuster and even then senator obama, now president obama participated in that attempt. so what would cause senators to not just vote against a nominee, but actually go so far as to try to prevent the nominee from receiving a vote up or down? i think there's this concept of extraordinary circumstance that evolved about four years ago when the so-called gang of 14, seven republicans and seven democrats, agreed that it would not be appropriate to filibuster a judicial nominee except in extraordinary circumstances. and that's where that phrase extraordinary circumstance comes about. and there are a lot of members of the senate who believe that one of those extraordinary circumstances could be a situation where a nominee is particularly activist in the

sense that it would appear that he or she goes on to the bench with preconceived notions about specific kind of societal issues or questions that may come before the court and a bias of resolving those matters one way or another as opposed to simply taking the facts of each ce and reading the law to see what the precedence of the court are, what the statute is if there's a law involved and deciding the case on the merits of that specific case irrespective of the judge's views about the question from a political or philosophical standpoint. and there are a couple of recent examples that i wanted to bring to my colleagues' attention that i think illustrate the kind of activism at least that i and some of my colleagues would object to. the chairman of the judiciary

committee, the senator from vermont, was quoted in "politico" that states it well. senator leahy is quoted as saying this, that -- that he -- that he thinks one of the questions to the potential nominees is going to be this -- quote -- "do you share our concern about the fact that the court always seems to side with the big corporate interests against the average american? " end of quote. aside from the fact that i think that's not always a fact, that the court doesn't always side with big corporate interests against the average american, that's obviously a very politically charged statement. the question is should we ask a potential judicial nominee is it really appropriate to ask the nominee whether or not that nominee is going to side with big corporate interests or whether some other kind of

interest in the litigation, the nominee would want to side with that interest? well, i think it's appropriate to ask whether the nominee has biases one way or the other that would preclude him or her from deciding a specific case on the merits of that case as opposed to from a general philosophical standpoint that the nominee would be on the side of big corporate interests or always against the big corporate interests. when chief justice roberts was before our committee, he was asked a question like this, a question about whether he thinks it would be appropriate to rule for the big guy or the little guy, and i think he said it correctly. he said if the law supports the big guy, then the big guy should win the case. if the law supports the little guy, then the little guy should win the case. you don't go on the bench with the idea that i'm always going to rule against the big guy, or commenting on senator leahy's statement here, i'm going to rule against big corporate interests.

that presented a dilemma, by the way, where you have corporation a suing corporation b. i don't know how you're going to resolve that if you're going to vote against big corporate interests. the point is to go on the bench witht attitude would be wrong. the big corporation might have the right law and facts in a particular case. in another case, the person suing or being sued by the big corporate interests might have the law and the facts on their side. that should be the determination of how the case comes out, not your preconceived notions, for example, your intention to always rule against -- quote -- big corporate interests. here's another example. one of my colleagues on the judiciary committee on a television program said that he wanted to see a nominee who would be hard on executive power. now, we have three branches of government -- the executive, the legislative, and the judiciary. and the constitution sets up a delicate balance among those three branches of government, and there's a constant tension between the powers eckarted by

the branches and against -- powers exerted by the branches and against the branches. those tensions result in litigation sometimes. sometimes there is a claim that the executive is taking too much power unto himself. that charge was made against virtually every president that in my memory has ever served. it's certainly being made against the president today. but you don't go in -- you don't go onto the bench with the notion that if a case ever comes before me involving a contest of whether the executive has the power to do something versus the legislature, for example, i'm going to rule against the executive. i'm going to be hard on executive power. that would be wrong. you don't even know what the facts of the case are and what the precedence might be relate to go those particular facts. the presiding officer: the senator has used seven minutes. mr. kyl: thank you, madam president, i appreciate it. i will just conclude on this particular example.

you want a judge who is going to be on the court to say i understand the balance of power. i understand -- i have read the law and i understand the precedents that relate to this particular kind of fact pattern. and based on the law and based on these facts, in this particular case, i believe that either the executive should have the power or not, but i don't come to that conclusion based upon a preconceived political ideological notion that we need to rein in executive power, any more than i believe we should rein in legislative or judicial power. this is what a lot of us mean when we talk about judicial activists. it is the difference between someone who comes to the court with firmly held philosophical beliefs that would cause that individual to be more predisposed to rule on the basis of those beliefs than on the facts of the case or the law in any particular situation. and so when my colleagues on the

democratic side say they're looking for a nominee will have a penchant for ruling in a particular way in particular cases, you will see objections from people like me who will say no, that's wrong, that's activism, that's basic decisions on ideology rather than what the law is. and i will just conclude by saying this. the president has it fully within his power to nominate a candidate for supreme court justice who generally has been seen as deciding cases based on their merits rather than from an ideological perspective, but to the extent that the president chooses someone who has been very active politically and expressed strong political views or who from the bench has seemingly made decisions based upon a preconceived ideological notion rather than on the basis of the facts and law to come

before him or her. in that situation then, you would tempt opposition and potentially even filibuster depending upon how serious the situation was or how straightforward was -- extraordinary it was to cite the particular phrase. so, madam president, i hope that sort of sets the groundwork here for our evaluation of the president's nominee and for public understanding of the circumstances under which some of us would oppose the nominee and under which perhaps even in an extraordinary situation a filibuster would result. i certainly hope that isn't the case, that that doesn't happen. i'm sure the president realizes that if he nominates someone who does come clearly to the -- to the attention of the senate from the perspective of evenhanded justice, that that nominee will be treated fairly, that the process could move much more quickly, and that the outcome can be much more favorable.

the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: madam president, this week, president obama is scheduled to visit the kennedy space center in florida, and many americans expect the president to explain his vision for human space flight in the decades ahead, and i would say that this vision is long overdue. one year after celebrating its 50th anniversary, as well as the 40th anniversary of the first moon landing, the white house has proposed a budget that will force nasa to abandon its historic role in space exploration. the administration has stated its intention to terminate nasa's constellation program, our nation's flagship endeavor to return americans to the moon and beyond. after $9 billion invested over seven years, the president would

leave nasa adrift and without a mission. i hope the president will announce that he has thought better of that initial decision, and this morning i'd like to take just a few minutes explaining why i think he should do so. texas is proud to be -- of our close connection with nasa's human space flight program, and we recognize how it has helped transform the greater houston area into a high-tech leader. johnson space center has helped send astronauts into space for nearly four decades. we would love for the president to visit the johnson space center and see how we have helped our astronauts complete their missions and return home safely. we remember that the region endured -- we remember that the region endured several years of challenges following the termination of the apollo program in 1974, and we saw some of the brightest minds at the johnson space center end their careers. and the future of the entire industry seemed uncertain.

nasa administrator charles bolden was recently quoted as saying -- "with all due respect to everyone who opposes the budget" -- in other words, the cut of the constellation program -- "he said a very serious and real concern is the jobs." now, he was correct in one way. the cancellation of the constellation combined with the retirement of the space shuttle could cost the region as many as 7,000 direct jobs, according to the bay area houston economic partnership. with all due respect to general bolden, texas support for human space flight is not merely based on parochial concerns. we understand that the local economic impact would be nothing compared to the strategic opportunity costs for the united states of america. for one thing, the end of the constellation program will increase our dependence on russia to transport americans to the international space station, a space station built with billions of american taxpayer

dollars. earlier this month, nasa signed a contract for $335 million with russia that will cost our country nearly $56 million per seat on russian spacecraft or about $8 million more per seat than what nasa paid in 2007, so we're literally having to depend on russia to transport american astronauts to the international space station. and many americans are already concerned about this arrangement already. many americans suspect that the russians will raise the price once the shuttle program is enacted because we are completely dependent, we'll be completely dependent on them to transport our astronauts. indeed, the head of the russian space agency recently stated his eagerness to renegotiate costs to access the international space station following the retirement of the space shuttle. soon russia will not be the only nation to surpass the united

states in human space flight. the governments of china and india have also accelerated their investments. all of these nations are investing in human space flight not only because they want their flags to be first on mars but also because they know those investments will generate a good return. innovations that will help humans survive and thrive in space will likely create many spinoff technologies in the 21st century, as we saw decades ago during the space age. if we do not incubate these life-supporting technologies here in america, our children will have no choice but to import them from other countries. astronaut jim lovell of apollo xiii put it this way. he said the end of the constellation program -- quote -- will have catastrophic consequences on our ability to explore space and the spinoffs we get from space technology, close quote. he said they haven't thought through, talking about the administration's proposed cut in

the constellation program, he said they haven't thought through the consequences, and i think that's correct. now, the white house has said it believes that the private sector can play a larger role in space exploration, and i'd say they're right, to a point. we certainly want to encourage private investment in public-private partnerships in the development of space technologies. we want to help nasa become an even better partner with aerospace entrepreneurs. leveraging the potential of the private sector is no less an imperative in space exploration than it is in other fields of innovation, but nasa cannot pass the baton of human space flight to a runner that is still trying on its shoes. the private sector requires years of further development before it can send a human being to the moon or compete with america's international rivals. the aerospace safety advisory panel, a group of independent experts created by congress, reported in january that no manufacturer of commercial orbital transportation services is currently qualified for human

ratings requirements, despite some claims and beliefs to the contrary. the panel is warned to abandon the constellation program for an alternative without demonstrated capability or proven superiority is unwise and probably not cost-effective. nasa was assigned the constellation mission for the same reason it took on apollo. it remains the only entity in the country capable of getting the job done. so what should president obama say when he visits the kennedy space center this week? i'd like to offer just a few thoughts. first, i would hope that president obama would recognize the tremendous uncertainty that his administration has created by proposing to end the constellation program without identifying a viable alternative. second, he should make clear that congress has the last word on the constellation program, which we do, and that nasa will follow the current law during this fiscal year and every year that congress continues to fund the program. third, i would hope he would

articulate a clear vision for the future of human space flight in our country and that that vision would include a clear exploration mission, a time line, goals, and a destination. and i would hope his vision would include a new commitment to the constellation program which remains america's best bet to ensure america's continued leadership in human space exploration. and fourth, i would hope that he would make a budget request that will fund this vision and that it will carefully be aligned with this exploration plan. madam president, just yesterday, a number of american heroes made clear what a vision for american space flight should look like. more than two dozen former astronauts and flight directors, as well as a former nasa administrator, wrote an open letter to the president. they wrote in part -- "america's greatness lies in her people. she will always have men and women willing to ride rockets into the heavens. america's challenge is to match

their bravery and acceptance of risk with specific plans and goals worthy of their commitment. nasa must continue to be at the fronteers of human space exploration in order to develop the technology and set the standards of excellence that will enable commercial space ventures to eventually succeed." i hope president obama listens to those words. i hope the president listens to congress which has given broad bipartisan support to the constellation program over many years. and i hope he listens to the millions of americans who understand that human space flight represents our nation's future, not merely its past. madam president, i yield the floor. mrs. hutchison: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mrs. hutchison: madam president, president obama is going to travel to florida where many expect him to discuss the adverse reaction to his proposed budget for nasa and possible alternative options for the future of america's manned space

exploration capability. i know that members of the nasa family and everyone living in communities that directly support the space program from maryland to utah to florida to alabama to louisiana and texas are, at the very least, uncertain about the president's budget proposal and how it would affect america's leadership role in space exploration. i share those kerntion but every american should share those -- those concerns, but every american should share those concerns. because it will determine our role in science, space, research, exploration, and so much that will determine our future economically and in security. mr. president, i hope the president has heard the concerns that have been raised since the budget was proposed and that he will take the opportunity to meet with the individuals who have worked hard to keep america in the forefront of space exploration for the last four decades.

i also hope that the president will recognize that he has an opportunity to reach on a truly bipartisan basis for a new plan for nasa's future that prioritizes scientific research, protects our $100 billion investment in the international space station and ensures that america retains independent, human space flight capability. last month i introduced legislation that would provide such a framework, identical companion legislation has been introduced in the house of representatives by suzanne cosmoss, a democrat from florida, bill posey, a republican from -- mossey, a republican from senator and it is cosponsored by the george lemieux. this could be the starting point for the president's proposal and

the views of many in congress. but, mr. president, we may miss this opportunity to work together to build on america's legacy of space leadership unless the administration looks at its current approach and makes some alterations. the budget proposal put forward by the administration has created an unnecessary choice between the president's plans for increased research and development and the necessary transition to the next generation of technology on the one hand and maintaining a viable space station and an american human space flight capability over the next few years on the other. we can do both. let me be clear. -- clear why i believe the president should make his visit to florida the beginning of a renewed discussion on the country's civil space prament. i believe -- program. i believe that the president's advisers in reaching for a bold, new direction for nasa failed to

take into account some very important realities of our space program. the decision made in 2004 to discontinue the shuttle program at the end of 2010 was based on an international space station service end date of 2015. two years ago this congress, in an overwhelming bipartisan vote, enacted the nasa authorization bill of 2008, which stated that the space station should be kept in service until at least the year 2020. in the bill we also required nasa to ensure that the capability to continue shuttle flights in support of the space station should be preserved for a period of time to give the new administration a chance to consider its plan for nasa.

the obama administration ordered a full review of u.s. human space flight plans as part of its 2010 budget request and eventually deferred a final proposal this will the 2011 budget request. one of the important points made by the review committee chaired by the eminently qualified norm augustine was that the space station should be extended until 2020, which congress has said is the policy of our country. the president's proposal accepts the recommendation, which is consistent with the 2008 bill, and which i believe is vital to making full use of the scientific research capacity that is only just now being made available with the completion of the space station assembly. however, i remind my colleagues that the space station was designed and built with the idea that the shuttle would be

available to keep it supplied and maintained and to be able to bring large replacement or spare parts up should they be needed in order to keep the space station functioning. the parts and equipment being flown on the last three remaining shuttle flights were selected from over 1,400 total items based on what would be needed for the station to be extended until 2015. so, mr. president, while i commend the decision to extend the life of the station until 2020, flying the remaining shuttles scheduled for this year before completing an analysis of this station's need based on a 2020 service date would surely be a mistake. we need to determine the parts and equipment needed to extend the nation's life -- the station's life and ensure the capability to deliver them to the station. if we were to end the shuttle

program, as scheduled this year, we would be dependent o on the russian vehicle and other possible cargo vehicles which lack the capability that the shuttle provides. let me remind all of those who are interested in the costs that using the soyouz costs ove over $50 million per person. probably a minimum of six per year -- well, six for over a two-year period, so at least three per year, would be abou about $150 million a year. now, this is $150 million that we could be using to extend america's capabilities for its crew vehicle that we are -- have on the drawing boards, the constellation program, we could be putting that money to our use rather than paying the russian

souyz for using their vehicle. the president's proposal fails to recognize this, thereby, endangering our ability to sustain the station until 2020. my legislation would address this deficiency by keeping the shuttles as an option at a reduced rate of two flights per year, but only until it can be determined that the station has parts an equipment on hand -- and equipment on hand to keep functioning until 2020 in the absence of the shuttle's capability. the president's proposal still relies on an emerging space capability to develop the launch and crew capability to replace the shuttle. mr. president, i support the development of a commercial capability, but as a supplement to a nasa capability and with the development proving out of a cargo capability. we should take the first step in commercial development before committing our entire national

human space flight effort to launch systems that would be another generation beyond the cargo capabilities currently being developed. i remind my colleagues that much of the business case for commercial system is based on the assumption of a viable space station. if the risk to station survive ability presented by the president's proposal is not addressed, the case for investment in a commercial sector may weaken and the development of these capabilities may not even materialize. if this happens, america would have no long-term space flight capability and would need to rely completely on other nations for access to space. and if an -- if a technical issue results in the russian soyouz for any period of time, the american space station would

be deorbited for months. taking that level of risk is entirely unacceptable for a nation of our history of space leadership. a nation with our heritage of stretching beyond the possible and reaching for the heavens deserves more. we need an approach that ensures the sustain 80 yif the station -- sustainability of the station and reduces the gap in our nation's ability to reach space. my legislation would address these issues by allowing for the extension of shuttle, if needed, for stations sustainability and authorizing the accelerated development of a nasa owned replacement to the shuttle such as a shuttle derived designed using existing systems and capabilities and the current contractor workforce and which might be available in time to shorten our reliance on other nations for access to space

after the shuttle is retired. all of this can be done while allowing for the change in nasa's long-term mission and the increase in scientific research and technology funding envisioned in the president's proposal. simply moving -- and this, mr. president, is how we can do it within a budget that does not increase spending. we can move the remaining shuttle flights scheduled nor year into 2011 and 2012 adding the backup flight already prepared as a contingency would provide enough flexibility to complete the analysis of nation needs and guaranteed a cargo capability for an additional two years. it is possible to accomplish even this modest, but critical goal, while holding the line on spending at the level in the president's budget.

that is key, mr. president, that we can do this within the president's only budget and, yet, extend our capabilities to have our control over the shuttles that would provide the space station what it needs to continue as we assess the needs to go on until 2020. the principles necessary to bridge the gap between the president and members of congress have been set forward by my legislation that has also been introduced in the house. all that is needed to align these principles with the president's goals and existing budget realities is a willingness to make the effort and take the same risks that have been hallmarks of our nation's commitment to space exploration. the bipartisan foundation is there to make a cooperative effort. i stand ready to work with the president to bridge the

differences between his budget proposal and the views of many in our nation and many in congress that the proposal places too much faith in unproven private sector alternatives to a that' nasa mad replacement for the space shuttle and does not address the critical need to ensure the full and complete utilization and return on the investment in the international space station. for the sake of our nation's space program and future generations of space pioneers, i hope when the president returns from his trip to florida, he will accept my invitation to work together on a comprehensive space flight pro po posal that is -- proposal that is worthy of our nation and one that i think all of us who have worked on this issue for years -- i'm the ranking member of the commerce committee. i have been the chairman of the space subcommittee. i know we can do this. senator nelson from florida,

senator lemieux from florida no this issue so well. we can do this if the president will work with us to come forward with a plan that is budget responsible and also has the capability to extend our shuttles and make sure that we utilize the investment that we have already made in the space station. thank you, mr. president, and i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire is recognized. mr. gregg: i ask unanimous consent to proceed as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. gregg: mr. president, i wanted to rise to talk about one of the major issues we're about to take up in the senate and which has been discussed at considerable length throughout this country and especially here in washington over the past two years as we've dealt with the financial crisis, and that is the issue of fiscal reform and financial reform.

the country went through a traumatic experience of inordinate proportions. we were on the verge in the fall of 2008 of having our entire financial industry implode. not only the big financial systems in new york city and around the country, but main street america was clearly at risk and had the potential to suffer massive damage. that cataclysmic event didn't occur because we as a congress, the administration of president bush and president obama stood up and took some very bold and aggressive action in the area of coming in and stabilizing the financial industry of this country. as a result, we did not have the type of events which were predicted. some had said that if the

financial institutions had been allowed to unravel, we would have been into another depression-like period. there was one secretary of the treasury projecting unemployment might have gone as high as 25%. obviously, we have been still through a difficult time. the recession has caused great harm. americans have been under tremendous financial stress, but the damage that might have occurred has been muted to some degree by the actions that we took. and now we're getting the money back, the tarp money that was paid out, getting it back with interest from the banking industry, at least. we're not getting it back from the automobile industry or from a.i.g., but from the general banking industry that received those funds, we're getting it back with interest and we're going to actually make some money for the stock -- the american taxpayer who basically became stockholders in the various entities that we had to support. but the question, of course, still remains how do we avoid this type of an event occurring

again? that involves a lot of different actions that should be taken because the causes of this event were multiple. one of the causes was clearly that the federal reserve kept interest rates too low for too long, made money too readily available. another clear cause was the congress' own decision. throughout the 1990's and into the period of the early part of this decade, to basically force or promote and in some instances essentially force lending for the purposes of buying homes when the people who are buying the homes didn't have the wherewithal to support the obligation they were undertaking and the homes in many instances didn't have the value that they were assessed at and there was an assumption of appreciation that would occur that never occurred. the third cause was just plain old-fashioned horrible and sometimes illegal underwriting where essentially people were putting out loans in a manner which was totally inappropriate, and then those loans were being

see cure advertised. i have always -- securitized. i have always described it as an inverted pyramid. possibly the person that gave the loan was just interested in the service fees, -- in the origination fees of making the loan, not the actual obligations of the loan. then the loan ended up being securatized out through the market. so you had all sorts of counterparty liability and multiple structure built on top of this one loan down here that basically didn't have either the asset value or the capacity of the individual to pay it back. and that was just systemic event that was a function of bad underwriting. so what can we do to correct this? well, one thing we can do, obviously, is reform our financial structure in this country. it clearly wasn't up to the regulatory needs that were necessary, and there was clearly

a lot of activity occurring in the financial markets that were wrong and inappropriate. and so there is this huge discussion going on right now and there is a bill that -- bills that made their way through the house. there has been a proposal from the administration, at least in outline form. we have a proposal from senator dodd and specifics that have been brought forward in the banking committee. and there is going to be a major attempt to reorganize our financial institutions. i think as we go down this path, we have to be thoughtful and constructive. you know, there is this fervor of populism sweeping across our nation today on this issue. unfortunately, the fires have been fanned by the white house and a lot of other people in a very inappropriate way because populism really isn't a good way to try to address something as complex as this type of issue. it's sort of like a beach ball bouncing down the beach that has been pawt up in the wind.

that's the way this financial reform effort seems to be going forward. not a whole lot of thought behind it. just a lot of energy and talk thrown out on the table with a lot of ideas that are maybe politically attractive but in the end probably will do more harm than good. our goal basically should be three things here. one, we should reform the systems. we need to put in place to the extent -- the fullest extent we can changes in the way we regulate the financial structure so that we avoid a future systemic event. now, it's pretty hard to project what the next systemic event will be, but we at least know what the last one was and we should be able to correct those problems, and we can anticipate to some degree what the next events may be and we should try to do that. secondly, we should recognize that we are in a competitive world, that the things we do here in the united states to structure our financial system

are going to determine whether or not the united states remains competitive of other nations which have sophisticated financial systems, and it's very important in doing this that we not push offshore american jobs and american capital because it becomes too owner us -- too onerous to manage capital and create jobs here in the united states in the financial sector. we, in fact, should have as one of our goals -- the first goal being as i mentioned addressing systemic risk. we should have as our second goal the desire to make america the best place in the world and the soundest place in the world to create capital and credit so that the engine that drives our economy -- remember, our economy is driven not by the government. i hate to disagree with the president. i know he says that the more you grow government, the more prosperity you get and he is certainly trying to prove it. that's not what drives our economy. what drives our economy are entrepreneurs, people willing to

take risks, initiatives by americans to create jobs. but you can't do that in our culture unless you have credit, and you can't do it unless you can get capital. one of the great geniuses of our system which has made us so much more competitive than the rest of the world is that we have always been a place where capital and credit has been readily available to responsible people and to risk takers, and we need to keep that atmosphere. we should actually -- when we're finished with this process, have a regulatory regime which addresses the issue of systemic risk and at the same time says to the world bring your capital here, this is the best place, this is the best place to make a loan and create entrepreneurial -- and underwrite entrepreneurial spirit. and the third thing, of course -- and this is tied to the second one -- is we need to remember that this is about main street. it's about making sure that on main street in america, people have the wherewithal to take that risk, to get that -- and to

get that job and to buy that house. but did they have it in a context of a sound banking system and one that is a supportive and strong banking system and financial system, not one that has been forced to retract as a result of excessive regulations being put upon it from here in washington. and so if we approach this in a thoughtful way, in a pragmatic and constructive way, rather than in this populist fervor way where we say everybody on wall street is evil and everybody in banking is evil and everybody who makes loans is evil -- which seems to be the philosophy around here, the theme around here -- if we take a more constructive and thoughtful way, we will actually end up with a much stronger and better nation. you know, often these periods of populist fervor -- and, of course, we have had a lot of

them in this country. huey long, william jennings bryant, the list is pretty long. those folks' ideas usually end up cutting off their nose to spite their face. that's what happens. you end up with these ideas which sound good, have a nice phrase to them, but in the end it undermines the ability to do what the basic purpose is, which is to make america more prosperous, create more opportunity for americans and to create more jobs. now, this is not an issue that needs to be partisan either. we have a lot of big, complex questions here to address, but with the exception of one, as far as i can tell, none of them have any partisan flavor to them with any significance. the first one, of course, is what do you do about too big to fail? well, first off, it shouldn't exist. there should be no business in this country which is too big to fail.

basically, any company, any business which makes bad decisions should not have some implied guarantee that it is going to be bailed out by the federal government or the american taxpayer. if you make a bad decision and you put your financial house at risk, your stock hoeders should pay the price. your secured bondholders should pay the price. the american taxpayer should not pay the price. and i think there is agreement on that. and on our side of the aisle, we have some really good ideas on how you end too big to fail. and as a very practical matter, they are better ideas than have been put out by anybody else so far, i think. but they're not -- they're not partisan ideas. they're just good, sound policies on how you accomplish this. and it could be done very much. in fact, the best ideas around here have been put forward in a bipartisan way by senator warner

from virginia, senator corker from tennessee. that's the first issue, and it doesn't need to be partisan. we should be able to reach a comprehensive agreement on that. secondly, of course, is how do you manage risk? how do you structure our regulatory regime so that they see a risk coming and can take action? i think there is consensus on that on both sides of the aisle. basically, you're going to set up some form of risk counsel where you bring the key regulators in and you make sure there is communication. you try to end the stovepipes. try to crossfertilize the information and you don't allow arbitraging regulators so that people don't go out and hire the -- go for the cheapest -- the weakest regulator. not much difference of opinion on that, so we can reach agreement on that. the third issue, of course, that's huge here is the question of derivatives. derivatives are very complex. there is no simple answer to this question.

in this issue, when you look at the detailed language, that's what had the impact. what's the purpose of derivatives? they are basically to give the market liquidity, to make sure that you have got the ability to put out the credit, to make sure that when some business in america needs to protect itself from some downside risk that it sees coming at it, it has the capacity to go in the market and buy that type of protection, that type of insurance. they are extremely important instruments for the purposes of basically being the insurance and the oil that makes the american machinery of entrepreneurship and job creation work. big companies and littler companies, but especially big companies need these -- these instruments, and they need to have them readily available, and in a way and in a form that makes them usable, makes them usable.

well, i have been working with senator reed here from rhode island for a number of months our staffs have been working, and on almost all the technical issue of how you make the derivatives markets stronger, better, more sound. basically, you're going to try to get more liquidity, more transparency. on almost all the issues, we have a pretty good agreement, pretty good sense of where we can go. if we continue to work on it, hopefully we could reach a complete agreement. we have to touch on the issue here of the question of mandated exchange treatment of derivatives, but that can be resolved, i hope. as a very practical matter, it's not a partisan question. it's simply a question of how you do it best. that's the approach we should take. lastly -- well, then you have the issue of regulatory structure, who should regulate what, and that's really a question of how best you line up the regulators to make sure that there isn't a regulatory arbitrage where people shop for the best regulator.

i happen to believe the fed needs to be a major player in our regulatory structure. i think the fed has shown itself to have the depth and the professionalism and the resources to regulate effectively, and i think i would hope that we would end up with a structure that would recognize that fact. there will have to be some -- but i think there is a general agreement on structure here that can be reached. so, again, i think we can reach an understanding. on the one issue where we have got significant differences is on the issue of consumer protection and how you deal with that. our side, most of the folks on our side strongly believe that you cannot separate consumer protection for safety and soundness. the regulators who have the responsibility for safety and soundness should have the responsibility for consumer protection, and it should be at the same level so that there is no question that the consumer receives the same type of attention and the same type of support that the regulators put in to try to make sure that the bank that the consumer gets their loan from is both safe and

sound. but when you separate the two and you set up a freestanding, autonomous consumer agency, you have created some issues on the issue of safety and soundness. the purpose is to make our financial system stronger, not weaker. and a separate independent consumer agency would potential -- with potentially a political agenda or a social justice agenda which has nothing to do with safety and soundness could easily undermine the safety and soundness of the banking industry, especially the community banks, remember. these are the folks on the main street, by essentially creating an atmosphere where loans have to be made to people not based on safety and soundness, but based on a social or political agenda of the -- whoever runs the consumer agency that's independent and autonomous. it makes no sense. this is an issue i think can be resolved. there are good issues put together by senator shelby. at one point we almost had an agreement with senator shelby

and senator reid. the only thing that appears to stand between us getting a bipartisan comprehensive bill -- the only thing that seems to be standing there that's stopping that progress is this political issue. the fact that the administration has two paths it can take. it can take a path where we can reach a comprehensive, thoughtful, constructive bill that basically does what we need to do in the area of protecting the financial structure of this country from systematic risk and make sure we're the most competitive financial markets in the world and protects main street and makes main street viable and allows people to get loans on main street. it can pursue a bill like that or it can pursue a political bill carrying the banner of pop

populism forward. it may win short-term political points. i don't think they do actually. in the long term, the effect that can have on americans who need credit to buy houses or send their kids to college or create a business and create jobs, it will be dramatically chilling to be kind. you will see a lot of the institutions which compete in this nation having to go overseas. you'll see a lot of companies looking who need to use derivatives in order to make their products sellable and make sure they're not hit with unexpected cost increase or events which are out of their control. unable to buy those instruments or obtain those instruments here in the united states so they'll have to go overseas. you'll see credit markets where consumers will end up paying higher interest rates because they're basically paying for people who aren't paying back their loans at a much higher

rate and so the good performers end up paying for the bad performers which inevitably costing the good performers a much more -- much more in the way of their credit. these -- these are the results of a populist tact. and they're not good results in my opinion, and they aren't constructive and they're so unnecessary. because we really have within our gasp the capacity to reach an agreement pretty much across the board on all the major issues that affect the question of financial stability and try to address what happened in late 2008 in a constructive way. and so i'm hopeful -- i'm hopeful that will be the course that's taken, that we do have a -- a consensus approach here rather than a confrontational approach and we have an approach which understands that our first obligation is not to get votes, not to win a political fight,

not to have a jinglestic political saying that resonates at election time, but, rather, to make america stronger, more economically sound, more vibrant and a place where creating a job where when you want to create a job, you have the capacity to get the credit to do it. that should be our goal. and i hope that we'll pursue this regulatory reform effort in that manner. and, mr. president, i yield the floor and make a point of order that a quorum is not present. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia is recognized. mr. rockefeller: i ask unanimous consent that the order of the quorum call be rescinded. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. rockefeller: mr. president, as the presiding officer would well understand from his own experience, west virginia is mourning the loss of 29 brave

miners who died last week, most of whom never knew what hit them. when a devastating explosion tore through the upper big branch mine in west virginia, and it's brought the whole state to a dead halt. even though it may never be possible to fully grasp the magnitude of this tragedy -- and it is that, it's huge -- or to ease the pain of this devastating loss, we in west virginia believe strongly in the power of prayer and in the grace of god, and that's been really important this week and in the weeks to come. we hold onto it, that feeling. we offer it to one another and to the families, friends, and fellow miners who are grieving.

we revere our miners, mr. president, the men and women who put their lives on the line every single day to provide for their families and bring light and heat to millions. they live in obscurity, they work underground. nobody knows much about it around the rest of the country, but it's heroic living. and they make this country work. we offer a heartfelt thanks to the rescue workers who risked their own lives. our rescue teams, like the entire west virginia community, never gave up hope and continued

to forge ahead in their mission. they understand that when they volunteered for this dangerous work, they knew that at some point they would be called on to put their own lives on the line. that's what a rescue worker is all about, pushing the edges, how much methane, how far can you get in, how much dust, what can you see, does he have enough oxygen, or she? and they did so selflessly and fearlessly, and they have, as you can imagine, my deepest respect. mr. president, even in one of our darkest hours, america has seen the very best of west virginia. binding together, drawing solace from each other with tears and with mutual love, this is who we

are. this is appalachia. it is the sense of oneness, always against so many odds. the odds are always stacked against us. maybe that's why i'm so proud to represent them. always fighting uphill. others not knowing much about you, not necessarily paying a lot of attention to you, but strong, good people. so it's this sense of oneness, really, that sets us apart in my mind and why i'm so proud to be a west virginian. we are all too familiar with this agony. i know the presiding officer is. we have been here before with

sago, with aricoma, and when you're worst fears are realized as they were in this terrible tragedy, we know we must find a way through the searing pain and the loss because that's the way it is in our appalachia. central appalachia. everybody understands that mining has always been risky, but you know it can be made safer by people who want to make it safer. that will often start with the person who is in charge of the company. safety is about a company doing the right thing, mr. president. safety is also about a state and federal government stepping in and toughening up our laws where that needs to be done. and it is about providing the resources and the people to

enforce those laws. let me give you an example. currently, the federal mine safety and health review commission has 14 administrative law judges. if this year's budget request is enacted, they will have 18. they will go from 14 to 18. now, those 18 -- and right now those 14 administrative law judges together face a backlog of more than 16,000 cases containing 82,000 violations. it's incomprehensible to me. it's ridiculous, but it's true and it's unacceptable. in the aftermath of sago, i was

proud to co-author the miner act along with senator byrd, senator kennedy and senator mike enzi from wyoming. this was, in fact, the only significant federal mine legislation at a federal level since 1977, which meant that we had gone 30 years without passing significant mine safety legislation. that doesn't tell the whole story, but it certainly tells some part of the story. the bill was not perfect but it did tackle the core problems that we faced at sago, which was a very different kind of mine. it was a very rural mine, a much smaller mine than this huge mine in raleigh county, west virginia. because of this bill, now we require that mines will have