guide miners out in an emergency. you have an explosion, there is dust everywhere, can't see anything, so you put in a -- sort of like a handrail and you just hold onto it and you just follow that because you can't see where you're going, and that will lead you to the shaft where perhaps an elevator, if it's still working, could get you out. we require refuge chambers that are now located in mines to protect miners if they can't evacuate. those are safe havens that have oxygen and food. there are stores of breathing devices along the escape routes. it's part of the law now.

it's not implemented by all but it's part of the law. and we have new flammability requirements for new belt equipment, and i know that's mining jargon but i lay it before the senate. and yet despite these important improvements, we mourn now another disaster of a very different kind and more lives were lost. and we ask: how can this be again? everything we know at this time tells us that this accident did not have to happen, this explosion could have and should have been prevented. if you're asked by a coal miner, "does an explosion have to

happen?" the answer is no. is it preventable? yes. that's easy to say and hard to do. but in the real world of serious work and mine safety, it is preventable. miners don't have to lose their jobs and their lives. and so our responsibility now is to learn from this new and terrible incident. we have to look at it carefully. we can't rush to judgment. i'm going to explain a couple of things that are being done. and we don't know exactly what went wrong at upper big branch. that was the mine. but i promise you, we will demand answers and we will get answers. msha, which is the mine health and safety group, will conduct a

complete investigation into this tragedy and that will tell us a lot. the agency's quick response, frankly, and leadership after this explosion have been, in my judgment, highly commendable. right now, what we do know is that we need to enforce aggressively the provisions of the miner act that we passed several years ago in 2007. at all mines. and where they are needed, and put new laws in place. understanding that mine operations are different. some operators try to do the right thing. others try less hard. it's a hard job, mr. president. i'm concerned that the enforcement process today moves much too slowly and that hurts

the good operators as well as helping the bad ones. even when the circumstances demand the most urgent response. today, mine safety operators can stop operators in a mine or a part of a mine whenever they see imminently dangerous violations. that's in the eye of the beholder. of the inspector. which means they have to be good people and well trained. once the operator has addressed that problem, then there is no longer a violation and mining can continue. but these inspectors also look for a very interesting phenomenon called patterns of violation, and for that you have to look back over the last several years in a particular

mine or a particular part of a mine to find out, has there been a pattern of violation which in and of itself might not rise to the level of imminent danger but could indicate that the mine needs to improve its safety and is either deliberately not doing it or, in any event, isn't doing it. if they find a pattern, these federal inspectors, they should be able to impose higher fines, and if it's not corrected, they should be able to -- as they are now -- shut a mine down or just part of a mine where there's a particular problem. this mine that -- where the explosion was, was just huge. it had numerous, double-digit

entrances into different parts of the mine. it was huge. but anyway, closing down a part of a mine or a mine doesn't always work that way because companies have found a loophole in this part of the law, the part dealing with so-called patterns of violation. they just keep contesting and appealing. they appeal and they appeal right on up to federal courts. they appeal the decisions to prevent the finding of a pattern. that's why they do it. if you -- if you don't want something to happen, if you don't want to pay a fine, you've been cited for a violation, you've been cited for a fine, but if you appeal that and if you appeal it long and keep appealing it and then if you get a judgment against you, you go

to the next court higher up, you don't have to either pay the fine or change the way you operate. the number of appeals have increased dramatically, from just 6% of total violations in 2005 to 27% last year. and with such a tremendous backlog of cases and limited manpower, the average appeal took 587 days to finalize last year. which is bad for everybody. some operators have taken advantage of this loophole, preventing government action and posing a serious risk to the miners' safety. west virginians can rest assured that i plan to press this issue

aggressively. we're already taking steps to get to the bottom of this. i'm really glad that president obama has been involved, called a lot of folks, including miners' families. and he's requested a full report to him on what federal investigators have learned about the disaster, and it's going to happen this week. now, maybe that's too early. they may not know everything, but he wants to be kept abreast of what's happening. and i have asked, with others, for a full briefing on the findings for west virginia's congressional delegation. i decided that wasn't selfish. i decided that was the right thing to do. i want to know what the president knows, and that's going to happen. i have requested that msha conduct a top-to-bottom review of all mine safety violations

all across the country so that we can get a sense of perspective of where we lie in this mine and others in relation to other states. and i've also requested hearings and oversight investigations from the senate committee on health, education, labor, and pensions, and they were kind enough to allow me to sit with them during the marking up of the miner act so that i could contribute what little i know. in closing, mr. president, i want to say that our coal miners have lost too many brothers and too many sisters. coal mining has always been dangerous and it's a common story in -- in west virginia

that -- southern west virginia particularly, which is where i first went, where there's so much coal mining, that mothers don't want their sons to go into coal mining. but there they are living up a hollow, up a creek, no other work available and they can get paid $60,000 or $70,000 for doing this job after some training. what are they meant to do? what if it's a mine which doesn't have any kind of representation which allows people to tell somebody in authority that something isn't being done safely? well, we have mines where the operators use intimidation. and if somebody tries to do something like that, they're out of a job. all kinds of ways to do that.

and while we all know their journey is a dangerous one, our coal miners must know that everything is being done to keep them safe. it's why i'm standing here, simply to say that. we have a solemn, urgent and i think sacred obligation in the united states congress to find the truth, do it fairly and carefully, and take action in their honor. these men have given us all they can and we must honor their sacrifice. i thank the presiding officer and yield the floor. and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

mr. rockefeller: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia is

recognized. mr. rockefeller: mr. president, i ask that the order of the quorum call be rescinded. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. rockefeller: mr. president, i have seven unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and that these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. rockefeller: i thank the presiding officer. note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. rockefeller: mr. president? the presiding officer: the snoer from west virginia is recognized. mr. rockefeller: i ask unanimous consent that the order for t q rescinded. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. rockefeller: and i would ask consent that the senate now be in recess until 2:15 p.m. this afternoon. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. under the previous order, the senate stands in recess until 2:15 p.m.

>> first world countries around the world. the united states only country that does not have universal health care system. on christmas eve the senate passed a compromise health care bill, a corrupted product of failed negotiations on democratic and public can parties. that wouldn't provide the same coverage as the original bill. >> is it ethical to only proviiv coverage to people rich enough to afford the expenditure that normally costs you and arm and a leg? this is a question we wish to pose to the citizens of united states of america. this is our country. and this video is voicing our opinions. oh the next generation of americans, in an effort to make some changes in a serious way to our system. ♪ .

>> on december 9th, president obama made a speech to joint session of congress and to the nation of the ever more critical necessity for health care reform. it seems the majority of nation knew now that the world's greatest superpower, needed to have an efficient or ethical system treating americans for their medical needs. >> i'm one of probably 40,000 people in the san francisco area who don't have health insurance and, that's why this issue is so important to he because, if i get sick, if something bad happens to me, i don't have any insurance to cover me. i also, if i want to go visit a doctor, i have pay full price. so, it doesn't matter to anybody than just getting affordable health, doesn't matter to anybody more than me. ♪ . >> the world health organization recently rate america as only 37th out of 191 countries in the quality

of our health care system. despite the fact that we spend the most in the world for health care. as of 2008, 43.6 billion americans were uninsured with america's economic crisis, those who weren't insured seen their premiums skyrocket. those americans who have preexisting conditions can still be denied medical treatment by insurers or even be dropped from the plan all together. >> individually, i have a health plan with through my partner's work. it is an excellent plan. however that is rarity i think among insurance policies. people think they have insurance. there is 55 million people who don't have insurance. there is another, probably 20 to 40 million who are underinsured. reality you don't know you have bad insurance until you get sick. ♪ . >> many uninsured americans avoid making doctor visits as they can not after them.

as a result many serious problems that could have been avoided with preventative treatment get progressively worse. eventually force people to go to the emergency room, being the most expensive place to see a doctor. as a result, extra cost must be absorbed by others in form of higher premiums and deductables. >> no, i don't think the current system is working why i'm so supportive of president obama's efforts to reform the current system. i think in particular, whether or not, there is a public option, and i think there are probably different ways defining that. i don't think it is that simple, simply a public option versus no public option. i think there is gray areas in between. whether or not you have that, fundamental reforms like eliminating discrimination on the basis of preexisting conditions, those are huge fundamental reforms of health care financing of insurance and of the overall

system. ♪ . >> for the selfish reason of their own financial longevity, many private insurance companies are propagating lies about the public option in an effort to turn the public against it. make totally false claim there will so-called death panels on which, for example, bureaucrats will be denied life sustaining treatments for elderly. this is no more than a scare tactic. nothing even remotely to a death panel has been suggested in any of the proposed health care bills. >> well with, one of the things about the public option that's a myth is that the government is going to take over your health care. the thing that the public option is, what the public option is, if you have a private insurer covering you, you can keep it and if you want to switch, you can switch to another private insurer. but with the public option, all you have is another option. it is not the government taking over your health care. so, the biggest mis-hit con

i always hear about the public option is that the government is taking over health care. that is singler or is in any way a radical change from what you have. ♪ . >> some of the claims that the public option would be a gateway measure leading to socialism. by definition it would simply offer consumers another alternative in the free market others argue that the public option would raise insurance premiums rather than lower them. but this is try, it would surely fail and be rejected in the marketplace as being clearly inferior to the private options and everything would eventually return to the way is now. >> we desperately need reform. and it is broken in all kinds of ways but it is broken we have lots of people uninsured. and that is just a moral outrage. it is also broken in the escalate costs for people and it is also, i think sort of broken in the great

amount a lack of security that people have regarding regarding their insurance if they lose their job lose their insurance. if they have certain conditions, they're not sure. whether or not those conditions will be covered. >> there are still many people around the country who don't, or won't accept the public option as a viable solution to solving our health care crisis. >> my relatives in canada know how bad socialized medicine is. my aunt had breast cancer and she was treated. her husband had prostate cancer and they let him die. kind of like, luck of the draw and randomized. sometimes you will not get treated for cancer because they don't to spend the money. so if you have really bad luck, like my uncle, they let him die. >> the private health insurance companies act with the same prerogative as any other corporation, make a profit. it is not with the american

people's best interest in mind. it is not just in their nature as a company to do that. it is basis of capitalism to do what they do. they have a product and they market it. it only becomes immoral when there are no other options for americans to choose. and that's just what the public option is. it's a choice. ♪ . >> i support the public option. >> my name is --, i support the public option. >> my name is erin and i support a public option. >> my name is -- and i am for the public option. >> i'm gina. i support the public option. >> we support public options. >> i do support the public option. >> my name is beth. i do support the public option. >> my name is nadia, and i would like to know more about universal health care.

♪ . >> to see all the winning entries in this year's studentcam competition, visit studentcam.org. >> the senate has gaveled out for weekly party lunches but when members return the work continues on a bill that extends unemployment benefits and health insurance subsidies for jobless workers. members are currently working out an agreement on number of amendments to be offered and a final passage vote could happen before the end of the week. the senate returns life at 2:15 eastern here on c-span2. >> the house returns this afternoon from its spring recess. they will gavel in at 2:00 eastern for legislative work with debate on six bills including one remembering the timms of the 1995 oklahoma city bombing. votes and general speeches

today start at 6:30 eastern. this week expect work on a bill that increases the authorization level for the national estuary program from 35 million to $50 million annually. that program aims to restore u.s. coast water quality. follow the house live on c-span. also this afternoon, president obama holds a news conference at the nuclear security summit that being held here in washington and you can see the president's remarks as he addresses questions from reporters at 4:30 eastern on c-span. >> we be prepared to commit that a republican president and a republican congress, in february and march of 2013, will repeal every radical bill passed by this machine. [applause]

>> earlier this year, commentator and drew sullivan spoke about the politics of homosexuality. he is author of, virtually normal, an argument about homosexuality and wrote about politics on his blog, the daily dish. held at princeton university, this is an hour and a half. >> a small correction. i am no longer senior editor at "new republic.". if i still were i wouldn't have been after last week. i am actually senior editor at "atlantic monthly" and writer at atlantic.com. i've been asked to speak about the politics of homosexuality. which is, as steve pointed out, very kind and generous introduction, the subject of an article i wrote in 1993.

and, summarized really in my book, "virtually normal cott. is now 2010. it was interesting, i'm going to ask to speak about this to, go over the arguments that i made then and see, how they have held up and whether they still apply, and whether i still brief all of them. what i try to do in that essay was to actually instead of getting into this extraordinary fight in which one side calls the other perverts and other side calls the other bigots, to actually try and deconstruct it a little. to about various ways of understanding and thinking about homosexuality. and i divided, and there are many, many different ways of doing so, but i decided for sake of clarity and brevity to divide it into four cat,

four different kinds of politics about homosexuality. and tackle why i believe every single one of them was wrong. those politics of homosexuality i called, prohibitionism, liberationism, conservatism, and liberalism. and the arguments i made in the late 80s and early '90s came from a young gay man trying to make sense of his own life in the world he was living in and try to make sense logical, rational sense, of the discourse around this extraordinarily fraught topic. it remains of course incredibly fraught today. intense, emotional, disturbing, upsetting. the sort of red hot center of a culture war in which many people's lives are

discussed and debated. i want to try and tonight defuse that, to calm that. and to try and think, rather than feel about this topic. and i ask you tonight also to help me do that because there is so much emotion, legitimately about the subject, that thinking is sometimes hard. the first concept of politics of homosexuality prohibitionism has actually had a much stronger and longer life than i expected it would back in the early 1990s. prohibitionism was of course the absolute consensus in america and indeed most of the world, for the vast majority of the existence of humankind. it is still the overwhelming

politics for the overwhelming number of homosexual men and lesbian women and bisexual transgendered people in the world. today, we see in africa, a rather terrifying movement to criminalize, imprison and execute homosexuals, fomented in the united states, created by the american religious right. in my lifetime when i grew up, when i was born in my own country, homosexuality was illegal. it was criminal. people were jailed. people lived in fear. today, they still live in fear, not really in many parts of this country but certainly in large parts of the middle east, in vast amounts of africa and asia where people today, even in places we think of as relatively civilized, suffer

tremendous suffering because of this. in iran, young gay men are hanged in public because they are homosexual. and this is based on religious doctrine, first of all. it's based in this country on the bible. and i think it is silly to deny the fact that the bible does explicitly condemn homosexual sex. i'm not one of these people trying to pretend it doesn't. leviticus is very clear on this matter. roman seem to be pretty clear that it's not kosher. i hope that isn't going to be interpreted as anti-semitic. does this work today as a politics? does biblical literalism,

the appeal to the bible which is in fact one of the dominant themes of the religious right? it was adam and eve, not adam and steve, you've heard the slogans. the bible is clear. this is the word of god. we must take the bible literally, seriously. well, my response to that simply this. leviticus is clear. a man shall not lie down with a man if he does with a woman. but it is also clear that the penalty is execution. it is also clear that you shall not mix one fabric with another fabric, in which case the religious right should be campaigning to shut down bloomingdale's. it should if biblical literalism is the actual argument, be arguing for the execution of homosexuals as real fundamentalist regimes do.

so, i'm sorry, but already the prohibitionists are engaging in incoherence. either the bible is literally true and commitment to be enforced, or it isn't. they're telling it isn't. because they don't support the execution of homosexuals. then you come to a much more sophisticated argument. and this argument comes from the catholic tradition of natural law. what it says is, that human beings are naturally designed by god to be heterosexual. in fact, at some level, homosexuals do not really exist. they are all, we're all head sexuals but some choose to engage in behavior that is unnatural. that is against the way god made us, and the way nature designed us and this revolt

nature is the argument against home section allty -- homosexuality. the legal framework for criminalizing homosexuality was often refered to in english law and indeed in early american law, crimes against ture. this is a core element. why is this a core element? because, when you ask them it is sexuality and sex al acts are by nature supposed to procreate and create life. and a man and a woman can do this but obviously a man and a man for biological reasons and a woman, and a woman, for biological reasons can not create new life. and therefore the act, the entire purpose of sexuality

is being perverted literally away from its natural end. therefore, we are not, it is claimed, bigoted about homosexuals or stigmatizing home section alls, -- home sex als, but the act of sexuality in this sense is clearly contrary to whatever every human being would understand. this is the other critical argument of natural law. natural law does not appeal way protestant fundamentalism does to the bible in literal sense. instead it makes an argument that these arguments that it is making are obviously and self-evident with reason you do not need revelation

or faith to accept the obvious reasonable nature of this condition. and of this argument. and you know, it remains a very powerful argument. the male body produces sperm. that we know biologically are and can be, and can become, if united in an ovum into a potential human being without this particular thing, nobody in this room would be. i certainly wouldn't. and i know all of you wouldn't either. i'm now degenerating into same kind of repetitive mantra as bart simpson's alter ego. so one also would expect of this argument to be held consistently. what i'm trying to do here is think reasonably about

this. well protestants who invoke this, also defend contraception. in other words, and in fact they, they, very strongly committed to contraception in many circumstances. now to use contraception as a head sexual, -- heterosexual, is to engage in the deliberate act and prevent it from reaching its natural end. presume fwli in sense, heterosexuals to use contraception are perverting the entire point of sexual interaction. protestant argument is yes, it is also about committing in love to one another. sex is an act of love in a committed relationship. well, unfortunately that argument can also apply obviously to gays and lesbian couples so bye-bye

that argument. the catholics of course, being sometimes very smart, and in 1968 realizing, uh-oh, if we give this away, a lot of other things will follow, insisted that so, contraception is as bad as homosexual sex for exactly the same reason. and again it is important to point out that catholic doctrine in this is not bigoted. it is not in that so far, not saying that the homosexual people are evil or wrong or, it is saying the sex act must always be open to procreation. it is same argument against masturbation, and as against contraception. it just homosexuals get

caught in this same argument, but by nature, sadly they can not reproduce themselves. so the question then becomes, is it okay that therefore for infertile couples, people who know that they can not procreate at all, to have sex, to engage in a sexual act inherently capable, through no fault of their own, of producing children? right? here you have a sexual act that they know in advance can not create children. one would imagine that if sex is only feasible during that, if it is creating new life, then clearly people

who are infertile for one reason or another or people who have post-menopausal can not have sex. so one expects the catholic church to say now, you must not have sex past menopause and you must not have sex if you're infertile because you're perverting the core nature and reason of sexuality. but they don't, do? they actually provide the sacrament of marriage to infertile couples. there is no bar on the sacrament of marriage for people who are past menopause. it is also simply a fact during the period when a woman is pregnant, it is impossible to procreate. in the sexual act. yet the church does not bar sexual acts in that nine months which one might imagine if one is arguing for natural law, from nature,

there is nothing more natural than the nine months of pregnancy to which a woman is not open to conceive again. but, no. this position says that's fine. this position also says that in terms of family planning, if you time right, the there is the rythym method as it was once called, natural family planning, if you can time right the moment when she can conceive, then, then, that's okay. well if that isn't also trying to rig the system against nature, in order to prevent procreation, i don't know what is. this argument is riddled with exceptions. the argument that is used within natural law to say that gay people can not have

sex is violated in the case of many other examples whether it be the rythym method, whether it be the infertile couples, or whether it be post-menopausal couples. at which point some say, well, you know, even with infertile couples as in the gospels, a miracle can happen. you can still have sex and a miracle can happen and somehow god can intervene. if a miracle can happen, then maybe i can have a baby with my husband. who am i to put a limit on the power of god. you laugh. because the argument is of course ridiculous. and once you go through this argument, and as a young catholic boy trying to understand what my church was telling me i could never have love or a relationship, i had to go through these arguments, one by one by

one. and i found that every single one fell apart until it came to gay people. they somehow were uniquely set apart because they somehow were not worthy of all the exceptions that were made for other people for compassionate and human and convenient reasons. to answer this argument, because of the young catholic boy, i kept asking them fortunate questions because, it is a church i still love and a faith i still hold, there came this argument which is, that in fact is what really matters that the whole universe by nature is divided into the symbolic two halves of male and female. this is a mystery about humankind. that god has chosen.

it is represented by jesus and the bride of the church. it is represented in the heavens. it is why the mother of god is given this great problem nance within the catholic tradition along with jesus. there is some great symbolic notion that the whole universe is made whole by this complimentary of the sexes. and that anything that violates that complimentary somehow misses. so that, contraception or infertile sex, or rather infertile sex between couples who can not procreate, because they model the form of the male and the female, are allowed but because a man and a,

woman and a woman do not represent this natural form of the universe, it is some violation. now, some of you have puzzled looks on your faces and i don't blame you. jesus one recalls, never married. jesus unrecalls, told the disciples leave their wives immediately, without even saying good-bye. jesus one recalls, consorted with single women. the church itself demands that its highest people in authority be male and unmarried. this fantastic importance of comply men tearty of male and female, suddenly collapses. except when it comes to the question of homosexuals. in which case it is resolutely

and consistently enforced. it is also true of course, that if one understands nature as nature, and this entire tradition springs from thomas eqinas's understanding of aristotle and he was trying to understand biology. he was trying to understand, what actually is in nature, you would think, that as equine has did, the modern church would be seeking constantly and emphatically to discover what science is telling us. about what nature really is. science has told us in the last 150 years there are not actual in the whole universe just two gepders. there are many species which there are intermediate genders. the human species.

has many people born as intersection. there are, there are doeses of genders of grass. there are fish species that go from male to female to male in their own lifetime. and everywhere in nature, you see homosexual behavior as darwin saw himself and then, covered it up because he thought it was too outrageous to say, happening all over the place in all sorts of species. and now of course, in science, inate study of nature there are all sorts of theories about why homosexual orientation might be of evolutionary advantage. might have helped bonding. it might have been advantageous for human beings have a group of people who weren't dedicated to solely rearing of

children themselves but actually could be helping the community as a whole educate, religious duties, scholarship. all sorts of other things that actually gave niece communities evolutionary advantages because men and woman who were not dedicated solely to reproducing and bringing up as a family unit. now, we are at a stage of knowledge we don't really know the resolution of all these things. but what we do know, we do know as truth, as the truth of nature, is of this idea of male and female is the only definition of what the universe is about, as somehow some ultimate truth of which all variations must be niched, is simply not consonant about science and nature. if aquinas he would be

living today and studying evolutionary biology and psychology, to understand what god meant us to be. i look at the world and universe as a catholic who believes in god, as an amazing, varied, diverse, fascinating complicated, beautiful place. and i believe that also applies to sexuality and to human gender, and i know what i do not know. i believe in what the great catholic poet gerhard hopkins called pied beauty, the beauty of those freckled and different. the fact that the universe requires diety. the fact of course as we now know, the diversity of individuals and of genes, is

a strength, it is a driving force of human life and human civilization. my view is therefore, again, by reason of by feeling, this argument is over. the last desperate act of the people supporting it has been the decision of the current pope to insist that gay people are simply, as he put it, objectively disordered, unquote. he doesn't quite explain why, or how. he is even going so far as to say, that even if gay men are utterly celibate, if they obey the church's teachings entirely, if they never have sex with another man, they still can not be

priests. his directive recently in a last gasp of effort is simply to say, that we don't care whether a gay man at heres to the exactly the same rules as a straight man in the priesthood. he is still somehow sick, too sick to serve god. in my view that particular directive, which, i think up until then there are some arguments that seem to fall apart, that itself is not an argument. it is an act of bigotry. it is an act of stigma my at thisization. this -- stigmaization. this is by the way, that is a church that engaged in the over the last decades in the growth desk cover-up andment of sexual abuse of children

greater extent than any other institution we know of. if it were a secular institution the police would have gone in and shut it down. but nonetheless, hypocrisy and double standards of these individuals are not what i'm arguing here. what i'm arguing here, the argument makes no sense. and i tried most of my life for it to make sense and it doesn't sense. the second politics of sexuality, -- devotions devotions. . .

lost. sadly lost. but one day will find itself again. the second politics of homosexually i want to call

liberalationism. and all of you liberals will hate me. it is basically an argument that again in a curious kind of way because in some ways -- you can't understand it without understanding catholicism. all he wanted to do was turn it upside down. there's no truth. there's no fundamental nature. of human beings. homosexually like heterosexually is an entire construction. it is all in our heads. but to talk about homosexual guess through history, for example, is to make a fundamental fallacy. there were no homosexuals before the late 19th century when the term homosexually was invented. people laugh.

but he made a great career out of this argument. and he's absolutely right. in many respects. that in different cultures and in different times and in different eras and places, how homosexually has been described, what it has meant, how homosexuals have understood themselves, the words they have used. the varieties of ways in which it has been expressed has varied enormously to such an extent to say, for example, that someone living in eighth century bathanium thought himself as a gay man is, in fact, idiotic. no historian would agree -- would disagree with that. and his brilliance, and his brilliance, was to understand exactly that. and to try and free us from these constructs that he thought

were actually imprisoned in us. that all that mattered in the end were feelings and desires. the heterosexually and homosexuality dissolved into acts and you can see the catholicism in him. he wants to reduce everything to that as well. and then to claim that none of it has any sustaining or permanent meaning. so most students in today's ivy league will told if they're gay and lesbian they're actually year. that to be gay and lesbian is to be in permanent constructionist revolt against any sort of category, whatsoever. that it is a permanent revolt against structures that inhibit human freedom.

and this is what we call year liberationism. in which we study text and deconstruct them in which we study words and deconstruct them. in which we look at our lives and deconstruct them. and the whole idea of gay rights is itself oppressive. and i think probably for him it was. although in his later years, before he died, there did seem to be some shift in his thinking. but i can't read into what he might have evolve into. so i want to agree with him that there is the obvious variety of expressions and understandings and self-understandings. but i don't think it goes all the way down. i think there is something also just there. that we seem to understand and

all i can say is that my experience and maybe your experience and ask yourself this as deeply as you can, most people have had to ask themselves this in a way that most people have never asked themselves this because they never had to question their heterosexually. although freud, of course, was fascinated why heterosexually had to be explained as much as homosexuality. i do think think, no, these acts and feelings sexually and emotionally are not just acts and feelings. they are as human beings in nature acts and feelings that are related to other people and those people are members overall of two genders. and the fear of one attracted to another gender, it's not something that you've constructed. this is a very elaborate way of saying that you really can't help what turns you on. you really can't help who you fall in love with.

and it remains a simple truth, a fact of life. a phenomenon -- a phenomenalogical. when i wrote my book, i had to explain what is homosexuality. this is how i experienced it. this is how everybody i've known experienced it. that it emerged from them deeply. just as heterosexuality emerged from people. you don't think ahen you first fall in love oh, i'm a heterosexual. or i'm a homosexual. you think, god, i'm so in love with david or jane. it's the truth. you can't deconstruct that. and it's eternal. and it's been part of us forever. and for some reason the

biologists and genetists are trying to figure out and evolutionary theorists are trying to figure out a small minority of human beings have that experience with members of the same gender. there you have it. it's an experience that seems to be in every culture, at every time, in every place. and it's not, therefore, socially constructed. a huge amount of the rest of it is. but when you get all the way down, there is some core solid concrete beneath the earth that is reality. and that is what we call our sexual orientation. there is also something rather bizarre to my mind about liberationism's incoherence politically. because year liberationists are railing against gay oppression. but shouldn't they actually -- if they were consistent be seeking gay oppression?

isn't the experience of the outsider and the marginalized and the persecuted which is essential to the version of the year threatened? by equality and inclusion? if our role is to be the outsiders why would we ever seek to belong? why year liberationists part of any movement to change because or form institutions to include gay people at all? and, of course, in days gone by, before many of you have seemed to have been born -- god, i feel so old these days. [laughter] >> that was precisely the argument. we don't want to have marriage. we don't to have equal marriage rights. we want to destroy marriage all together. we don't want to join the military. we don't want straight people to join the military. we want to destroy the military all together.

so in the end, the irony of liberationists is that they actually seek to perpetuate the oppression of gay people. except, of course, almost all of them in real life are too humane to actually go there. sadly, they take it out on gay conservatives but we'll leave that for another day. but do you see what i mean? there's something incoherent about this politically. you can't -- you can't worship being in a prison as the core of your it's and then ask to have the key to get out. in the end, it becomes a prison you beautifully decorate. you make a charming home. and god knows we homosexuals are good at that. [laughter]

the third politics of homosexuality, i feel like i'm from some monty python speech. [laughter] >> sorry. the third politics of homosexuality i call conservatism. and i mean this in not in the way conservatism is currently understand in this country. i mean, a class of conservative temperament we really like the homosexuals but not talk about it, thank you. this is a very english view. why do you have to keep bringing it up? can't we all just get along? why do you have to talk about sex all the time? why do we even have to talk about this. gays in the military, there was once a time when we didn't have to deal with this subject.

i don't want to hate you but i don't want to have to acknowledge you exist. [laughter] >> and these are also good people. many of them. but, of course, in the last 20 years the possibility of that happening is over. the closet has collapsed. looking at admiral mullen, seeing the difference between then and now, admiral mullen in front of the congress said he always served alongside of gays and lesbians in the military. as most soldiers and especially sailors will always tell you. [laughter] >> not to denigrate the air force or the marines. [laughter] >> heaven knows not the marines. [laughter] >> but that now he understood it was a violation of integrity of these soldiers that they have to lie about who they are.

because our society has evolved to the point where these people are not closeted in their real lives. they just have to pretend to be someone else within the military. and this is an enormous and cruel imposition upon these people. and, in fact, because the society has evolved to such an extent of these people's lives are very obvious, other people, sometimes for malicious reasons out them and their careers are over. and this is not an honorable thing to happen. and the honor of the united states military and the integrity which is the word that he used of the american soldier will no longer allow this conservatism to remain. you will also notice that the closeted politician is becoming actually rarer or more ridiculous.

larry craig is the only person apart that he's heterosexual. not many people heterosexuals spend time in the bathroom with their feet 10 feet apart. you will also notice the disappearance of openly gay republicans. there are none. in the congress of the united states. none. why? because the cost of a gay person today to be in the republican party, which is no longer a conservative party. it is a fundamentalist party. is impossible to sustain. log cabin republicans which 10 or fifteen years ago who once had a chance of making it have all about given up. the right wing fringe of the log cabin republicans a group called

geoproud actually cosponsored a booth at the conservative conference which is going on in d.c., which i'm so sorry i'm missing. [laughter] >> and what's interesting about those gay republicans is they're all openly gay. you know what's also interesting about them is they all support equal marriage rights, military service, openly gay military service. and they all oppose constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage. there are no gay people left in this country able to actually support the agenda of the republican party. because the closet itself, the atmosphere that it created has disappeared. it's gone. it's over. that's what's happening. in britain, to give you a simple counter-example. the country i left 2 years ago. -- 24 years ago. the conservative party, if it

wins the next election, which is happening within the next 100 days -- if it wins the next election by one seat majority, we'll have 15 openly gay conservative mps. and two of them will be in the cabinet. i had dinner two nights ago with a shadow minister for the environment who is not only openly gay. he's also married under britain civil partnership laws where every single right that every heterosexual has. and he is campaigning to win gay votes for conservative values. that is the coherent next step in an evolving society. but it means that the closet is over. and it means that the old conservatism is dead. and what's happened in this country is that those people have left what is increasingly a fundamentalist party that seeks not only the gay people stay in the closet. but actually embraces the idea

that they should be cured. and it's actually fermenting campaigns that they be executed in africa. i'm running out of time. liberalism, number four. [laughter] >> liberalism understands homosexuals as a protected and victim class. they see the entire homosexual question in terms of the classics of our rights construct in which minorities need to be protected from majority hatred and majority oppression. they need special protections from these things. there must be laws that make it impossible for you to be able to fire someone, private people within the private sphere, not the government. because they're gay. we must have hate crimes laws so that people -- the laws --

someone kills somebody because they happen to be walking down the street and look like they have a lot of money. and somebody who kills somebody because he yells fagett at them and they need a penalty over them because of the act of violence. because the minority group is so vulnerable to fear and the terror spread throughout the broader community is so great that our laws must make a special note that they are not americans, but african-americans, korean-americans, gay and lesbian americans. and every civil right is to make sure that this next group is included in that category. and then we're fine. and i think this comes from an

extremely benevolent and good place. what i worry about is that it balkanizes the society into different sections. it places in fact and structures racial, sexual and sexual orientation divisions within people. and provokes resentment among those who don't seem to be protected. and generates a very particular argument that, yes, some people are arguing for special rights. and i don't believe minorities should have any more rights than majorities. i think they should all have rights. now, i don't believe the majority -- that minorities at some fundamental constitutional level should be allowed to be discriminated against by their government. absolutely not. that's what courts are for. but i do believe that minorities can and should and must look

hatred in the face and be confident enough to stare it down without a necessity of law and government pretending they do not have that capacity. i believe that the doctrines and attitudes that liberalism fosters with these special groups and these special categories actually subtly entrench in the human psyche that they are victims and they must always seek help and protection. that in some sense, even though it is done in an incredibly benevolent way infantiles them. i also believe someone who's a passionate believer in free speech, that we should never criminalize bigotry. just as we should never criminalize any kind of good speech. i believe the freedom of the bigot is also the freedom of the profit.

i think a government in any particular time will never be able to know forever which is which. and that all the government should do is make sure both have the freedom to say and think anything they want. and the only limit should be -- it should never be speech that is a threat of violence. that actually explicitly targets any specific person. because i believe -- that's why i defended the right of the boy scouts who discriminated against gay scout masters even though i think the policy is abhorrent. because i believe that once you accept the principle that a private group cannot discriminate against people it decides for its own particular reasoví8 whatever reasons it i then the groups that are most vulnerable from government interference are the ones that are the smallest. gay people. among them.

that the right of the nazis or kkk to walk down the street under the first amendment is indistinguishable from the right of the drag queen to walk proudly down the street in the gay pride parade. i want to defend both of them. not because one of them is good and one of them is bad. is because both of them are acts of freedom. and if we start as gay people infringing upon the first amendment, the fundamental right to say what we want, to be who we are -- we will finally be the victims because there really aren't that many of us. and we will be the people who will be the victim of this kind of intimidation. now, i also believe for those reasons that we should be extremely careful in enacting

the liberties of people who sincerely believe this is against their conscience. even if as i've tried to show there isn't much reason in this. it is not the role of the government to tell a religious person that they're not reasonable. at some level every religious person is not reasonable. religion is not about reason. and what i worry about and what i worry is a legitimate fear among people is that once you start down this path of protecting particular groups of people, other people and their freedoms to say and be and speak will be affected. and lastly, i also want to say that gay people are a very particular kind of minority. a very strange in some ways minority. different than every other racial minority or group that we think of.

because -- which makes them not and shouldn't be put apart. of all minorities should not be balkanized or set apart. the reason is every homosexual is born into a heterosexual family, at least everyone. and most of us live our lives deeply embedded in heterosexual. -- culture. most african-american kids grow up in an african-american household. most jewish kids grow up in a jewish household. it's a minority that you can demarcate and there's a minority that creates its self-sustaining culture from birth on. not true of gay people. we are spread randomly through the population. in every family. and we live and breathe as heterosexuals. as included within heterosexual

culture because they don't realize yet. unless we tell them or unless it's so obvious they have to kick in a whole bunch of denial, which they're very talented at. so this fact that we're embedded already from our birth on for such a long -- almost formative years makes setting us apart in later years even more, i think, consending and balkanizing in a strange way. it is a benign form of stigmatizization and we somehow need to be protected more than other people. my view, and this is where some ways a libertarian right meets the liberationist left is the right attitude is those drag queens at stone wall who fought back. who stood up for themselves. didn't seek law. to bash those cops back. what i love about act up was

it's fearlessness in declaring there is something wrong with being gay and gay is good. gay is good. good is good. -- gay is good. why is something that is so good be something we should be so frightened of being persecuted for? bring it on. bring it on. i love debating the religious right. why? 'cause i'm not afraid of those people. why? because i'm not some persecuted minority desperate and unable to defend myself. and the first thing that i defend myself with is the first amendment. which is what i'm doing here tonight. and which gay people have done for centuries. i need to conclude.

the politics that i argued in alternative to these four things have in the couple decades since i first started making this argument come to pass. we have seen and the argument was that the core argument is that the government -- the government should stop treating us differently. the government should stop identifying us as different. and stop discriminating against us. we are equal. and our government should treat us equally. and that means our relationships should be treated no differently in any way, shape or form than a heterosexual's relationship that is identical in its commitment, in its fidelity, in its love and its passion. i will never accept that somehow

my love for my husband should be quarantined into something called a civil union or a civil partnership or euphemismized that's not the equivalent of my sister and her husband. i am not going to be written out of my own family. and there is no reason why any gay person should ever accept anything but full equality under the law. separate is not equal. we are our own families. we live in our own families. we are not something other than the family. the defense of the family means the defense of homosexuals. there is no difference. we should fight for no difference. and the service, the military service of soldiers who risk

their lives and have died for this country should never be treated in any way differently than their heterosexual peers. they should always be treated and rewarded and punished on the basis of rules that apply to everyone equally. that can be done and it should be done. segregation is wrong. it was wrong racially. it was wrong sexually. it is wrong with respect to sexual orientation. and civil unions and domestic partnerships and anything short of civil marriage is a form of segregation and a form of stigmatizization. people will object that religion is such a powerful thing. and that unreason should,

therefore, be given a special privilege over reason and equality and truth. well, if religion is not about truth, what is it about? if religion is not about the sincere seeking of truth, then what is it about? and the civil protections i'm talking about -- the civil equality i'm talking about, simply the ability to be treated like everyone else is a civil thing, not a religious thing. it is a marriage license issued by a civil entity. it has nothing to do in some respects with religion. atheists get married every day of the week. by local clerks, by town clerks, by civil officials. and they never have anything to do with any religion at all. the idea that a religious group should be able to say who and

who cannot be civilly married is absurd. let me give you one simple example, the great inconsistency within the catholic teaching. is the catholic church campaigning to make civil divorce illegal? is the existist of civil divorce an attack upon the family? is it an attack on marriage? divorce is absolutely forbidden within the catholic church. it affects far more people than gay people. more than the situation of gay marriage. why is there not a defense of marriage act to prevent divorced people remarrying? if there has to be a defense marriage act to prevent gay people marrying? be consistent. and they're not. be rational, and they're not. and treat us equally and they're not. and lastly, yes, it is a civil question. it is about civil equality.

and it's very simple. but what is it that i really -- or we really are fighting for in the gay rights movement? and it is that there should never be a gay rights movement in the future. i want to abolish the gay rights movement. i want to shut it down. i want to achieve civil equality so the distinction between homosexual and heterosexual in the political realm is irrelevant. i want the day to come when there's no human rights campaign and no national gay and lez bean task force. no legal defense network. when i am not always described as a gay conservative. when i'm described as a conservative or whatever else i'm supposed to be. i want the day when this is over.

i want the day when we humans together. when our differences are opportunities for self-understanding and conversation. when we can get past this distinction that has caused so much pain to so many people for so long. and we can become citizens. and human beings again. thank you. [applause] >> what we're going to do is take questions and try to get

people to speak into the mic. >> you do that. >> anything else you want me to say anything else? any topic? >> no. >> so thank you so much, dr. sullivan. and on behalf of the university committee on public lectures and the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender center which still exists at princeton university. we thank you for visiting princeton. now we have time for questions. and so because of the broadcast that's happening eventually the rebroadcast of this we ask that you please wait for the microphone and please speak into the microphone so that posterity we know what your question is. and i am informed that you will take questions on any subject not just the subject of your lecture? >> yes. >> so if it comes up, the millions of subjects for which he is known. and i will give it over. >> thank you. could i also ask a favor. if i promise to end all this at 9:40, is that okay?

since we're not on 9:30? >> yeah. >> yeah, because this place is very squeaky, if you want to leave before then, please leave now. but if you don't, can you stay until 9:30 'cause otherwise it get really -- the noise and the distractions get really demoralizing. >> it's a squeaky room. >> i know. i know. i know. the oxford union where i used to debate there was a rule that once a person started speaking no one could leave the chamber. just because it's really demoralizing for a speaker watch people get up and go out. [laughter] so leave now or forever hold your peace. it's only 20 minutes. i will take any questions on any subject within the normal realm of proprietary. >> what distinction do you make

between the boy scouts and the catholic church? they seem to find it okay that boy scouts can bar gay participation but not the catholic church? >> i guess because i believe that religious faith in a way is something more sacred than merely learning how to go camping. or how to tie a knot. and that religion and questions about the ultimate meaning of the universe do deserve special protection in the society in a way that other associations do not. and i know that's increasingly a controversial position. but it is one that i hold. and i think the first amendment is very clear about that. and i think religion is special. >> so i guess my question -- first, i want to thank you for everything you've been saying on your blog recently about torture.

i've written about this. i'm a catholic. i disagree with you on the subject of your lecture tonight. but i deeply appreciate everything you've said. i hope you continue to speak. >> thank you. i think that's a subject on which catholics of all varieties and christians of all varieties should be far, far, far more passionately engaged in than we currently are. the fact that the united states government has tortured people in the most cruel and inhuman and undignified ways. and the people who did that are not only not prosecuted but bragging about it on national television. is an extraordinary threat to the integrity of this country. and also the defense of western civilization. >> so my question is, you've done a good job of, you know, kind of going through the natural law arguments. but i feel like your argument is rational still as you presented

it tonight an argument from desire that this is a desire deeply felt, you know, for gay men and women. and i wonder how you answer those who say -- cites these fringe phenomenon of people say they love something like the golden gate bridge. and i don't mean to demean anyone by saying that but people say i deeply feel this. this is my desire. you know, why doesn't the argument you offered us tonight apply to them? >> simply because it is not desired as love. and i think that's a different thing. it's a deeper more profound thing. and i think it is love for a human being. who has a soul and is made in the image of god, which i think is a different thing. than an object. or an animal. or a hobby. and the reason i believe this -- you know, i'm sometimes asked

how can you be openly gay and be a catholic? and my answer is, i'm openly gay because i'm a catholic. i know that i am not -- and i don't mean to say that the catholic church agrees with me. i am not. i'm in disagreement with the hierarchy of the catholic church. but i also believe that it's the duty of every contentious catholic to speak from his heart what he believes sincerely to be true. about himself and others. and that the core truth of our faith, in my view, is love. these things remain, the greatest of these things is love. and to ask a whole group of human beings made in the image of god to live a life without love, without the intimacy, without the support, and without

the care of another person is an act of cruelty. and it is -- it is a failure of compassion on the part of the church not to see that. i think many catholics do see that. and i think it has gotten too muddled up with the notion of sexual acts as opposed to human love. and i have never made an argument that the sacrament of matrimony should be extended to homosexual persons. i would like to start a conversation within our faith tradition about what we do as a faith tradition with committed gay couples. obviously it seems to be receding, not coming closer to that conversation. but i do believe that it is -- it is about love, not sex. and i also believe by the way -- and i know this sounds funny. but if you really want to kill

off gay sex, marriage is the greatest way to do it. [laughter] >> and seriously my husband will kill me for saying that. [laughter] >> seriously, at some level when you actually come down to it, marriage or the commitment of one human being to another for life, for good or bad, sickness and in health, to be there for them when they've had an awful day, when their mother is sick -- to be there for them when they were laid off, to be with somebody through the ups and downs of life and stay with them. and make a binding commitment in front of your family and friends that you will never, never let them go. there's a beautiful song we played at our wedding that it's by new order. and one of the lyrics is, if jesus came to take your hand, i won't let go. that's a beautiful thing.

it is not intrinsically evil as the pope says it is. i believe that in my depth of my soul. i feel it in my life. and i think that is a truly catholic position. in the end. it is bound -- marriage, you see is not also just about love. but it is about a love that also becomes a profound friendship. which is a great virtue. that the ancient and the catholic church always taught was a great virtue. i wrote an essay about friendship in the last chapter of my book "love undetectable." and it ends with jesus. i in my conscience generally believe that this is what my faith is compelling me to do.

and i utterly respect that your conscience says otherwise. but i would also like to have a conversation reasonably about things like natural law. and why these exceptions are made for others and not for us in the way i did in the first part of this talk. and i think it is not fair. and i have gone to notre dame. i've gone to boston college. i've written in catholic magazines. and i'll tell you this, no one has really answered these questions. instead, they have told me i'm a bad catholic. and it's a very painful thing. to love your church and to be told really you shouldn't be there. and for the pope to say, especially with respect to gay priests who are celebelt is not

a true test of faith. >> i wonder if you would meditate for a moment on the difference between the concept of marriage as a legal institution and as a cultural institution. and i oftentimes think, as i know we do not have in this country -- why we have a smattering of civil union legislation, civil union is not the legal equivalent of marriage. but if it were universally, we would still have, at least as i interpret your talk tonight, we would still have a problem. and that is that there still is this cultural thing called marriage, which gay people say i want -- i want that. that is significant to me. and so i sometimes wonder whether if the state were to see, well, we're actually going to get out of the business of marriage. we're not going to issue marriage licenses anymore.

we're going to issue civil union licenses to anybody that wants one. does that somehow -- would that clear the deck so to speak? or would we simply would have said, oh, now you're peeing in the well and inviting me to drink from it. >> your last metaphor is wiped away. it's a very serious question and this will be my response. first of all, it's never going to happen. sort of it's a kind of esoteric argument. an interesting argument. what's interesting in england and the pragmatic english, and this is typical, of course, they have civil partnerships but they all say we're getting married. that's how they get around it. the english is so good at this kind of thing.

[laughter] >> and that's why they irritate me actually a huge amount because they just avoid the subject and try and find a way to euphemismize their way out of it. it's good matters. but secondly i actually believe in the cultural institution of marriage and the reasons for it. i believe that it gives a status. it gives a social status to people who are prepared to say in front of the world, i'm here for this other person forever. and i also, frankly, even though i obviously wouldn't in any way legally prevent it, i don't believe in divorce as a person. i don't. because i think marriage really is the solemn commitment forever. i think that's part of its undying definition. now, obviously we're all human. and in the end sometimes marriages are so bad and so

toxic to people that they really should leave them. but i don't think they should enter them with that understanding or easily or casually. i also think that it is a good conservative -- and this is why i'm -- why i still think i'm a conservative and no others do. is that the more someone sells there for you to take care of you, the less the government will have to do so. and that, therefore, it helps limited government to sustain these marriages. they are part of what burke call the little platoons of our society that help self-government and self-help. they're also economically important for people. every statistic you will find will show you that married couples live longer and are

healthier and happier because they have someone there for them. we all need that. going home in life alone is hard. and i think -- and i also think sex is a very powerful thing. as rick james might have said. [laughter] >> someone got the reference. [laughter] >> and men in particular, as we know, and i'm certainly not pretending otherwise about myself. sex is a powerful drive. it's made me do lots of stupid things. and had lots of amazing experiences. i think it's crazy to think that sex is an astonishing mystery. and that something with men in particular. but we also know that if we give into it too much -- we've learned this over millennia, it

can hurt us. it can lead to the spread of viruses and diseases. it can lead to emotional isolation. and lack of self-worth. it can lead to thinking of one's self purely as a sexual object. it can lead to compulsive sexual behavior. it's such a powerful force in human nature. and especially for men, i think. that we need some kind of social institution to give status to commitment. and i think in a strange kind of way it's particularly true for gay men. because we're all men. we don't even have women to give us hell when we come home having done something really stupid.

we don't have women in our relationships to tell us, you need to settle down. and now, of course, lesbians on the other hand -- i'm generalizing massively here, okay? [laughter] >> but it's only when you generalize massively when you get to interesting stuff. you know, in some ways -- you know the joke, the joke is that what does a lesbian bring on the second date? and it's a u-haul. [laughter] >> what does the gay man bring on the second day, what second date? thank you. [laughter] >> it's about men and women for goodness sake. i think if you look at anybody with any understanding of males and women looked at gay culture and lesbian culture they would find anything to be surprised about.

now, it just so happens in the last generation once the restrictions and the criminalization and persecution of gay people was released and when there was a general sexual liberation in the entire country, straight and gay in the '60s and '70s, when all that repression suddenly burst out, gay men had freedom and no social institutions. and 300,000 of them died. and i have lived with a virus now for 16 years that it's denied me the ability to have citizenship. that has terrified me. i have lost friends. i lost my closest friend. i watched him die in his mother's arms at the age of 31. i really believe -- and i'll tell you this from my motivation. it was watching that happen -- and i'm not blaming anybody for anything.

i think these are very human impulses and very understandable impulses. but if we do not create the social institutions that can help gay men restrain a little, encourage a little stability and fidelity and commitment, then the fire next time could be even worse than the fire last time. i'm doing this for the people i lost. and i'm not saying it's -- i'm trying to make a nuanced point here. and i don't think every gay man shootings married. and i don't think having lots of sex with lots of people is the worst thing in the world at all because i have. [laughter] >> i am saying that from a purely objective viewpoint, if there are no social institutions to encourage commitment of one person to another, then

collectively the consequences are psychologically and in the end physically terrible. just as societies in which marriage collapses or in a city where some marriage collapse and the family collapse and the consequences for people are really bad. even though every single one is made in the image of god and we should not condemn and i'm not. i'm just saying the date is clear. and i want to build a firewall against this happening again. and i think this is part of it. as well as building the self-worth of people so that they understand that this is possible for them. >> thank you. i wanted to return to the issue of having a dialog with proponents of natural law. and i wanted to sort of press upon the extent to which that argument boils down to irrationality. and i wanted to ask if you -- if you think that there's basically

a core of homophobia and it just might boil down to homophobia? >> i -- all i can tell you is that my experience over the last 20 years of making this argument in that context has been met in my own church with greater and greater and greater repression. and greater and greater and greater hostility in the hierarchy. the more persuasive our case is, i think the more vicious the response has been. and i don't think that comes from a place of confidence. i think it does come from a place of fear. and i think it also comes from a generation of gay men who in the church who have extraordinarily

numbers of church who have run the church for centuries. who cannot accept that the life that they have lived need not have been lived that way. and they will do anything deep in their psyches to prevent others from having the happiness that they had themselves. and if i were to ask myself psychologically what's going on, i would say that's there. people always laugh about this as if the vatican was some -- it's one of the gayest institutions in the world. do you think a straight person did a sistine chapel or a straight person orchestrated the high mass? gay people have been at the core and center of the church. some of the greatest saints have been gray.

some of the greatest and worst popes have been gay. when there was no place for gay people to go, where would you go? you would go to monetaries. you would seek out professions where your inability to marry would be hidden. it is no accident that so many of these men went into the church. it is also part of the fact, i think, evolutionary biology that gay men are actually because we often struggle deeply with our own it's do develop spirituality that is quite profound. i'll tell you one little story. cardinal newman. and i'm not talking here about whether people have sex or whether they don't have sex. i'm talking about whether they are gay or not. whether they love another person of the same gender. erotically, emotionally and over

the years, of course, deeply. in newman we know -- one of the greatest catholic intellects and one of the great catholic saints. and for an english catholic for me a particularly iconic figure. lived with a man and was devoted to another man his entire life. so devoted, in fact, that he mandated that he be buried alongside him. in the same tomb. and recently -- and this is a true story. maybe we should end on this. recently, of course, cardinal newman is about to be beatified, become a saint. and the current pope -- if you're going to be a saint, they wanted him not to be in that grave.

and they wanted to separate him. they wanted to dig up his remains so that this joint grave would no longer be in the public record. because they also wanted to dispel any idea that this man who was such a great pillar of the church could ever have been homosexual. but something very amazing happened. they dug it up and they found that the bones had so disintegrated that the two bodies were in distinguishable. and there was nothing left to separate. and i think at some level that should teach the current holy father something. and is a kind of beautiful rebuke to so much fear.

that it's permeated so much pain for so long. thank you. [applause] >> i'm sorry. sam wants to ask one question. >> as chair of the committee i did want to claim one -- >> i'm really sorry. >> no. i've been dying to ask and it's a follow-up to the natural law question and i want to ask it from a secular aerspective for my own it's as a neuroscientist american. [laughter] >> i think you should be protected from discrimination myself. >> we have our organization and we're going to keep it. but when i hear discussion of natural law in the context of the previous question about perhaps prejudice and irrationality, when i look at natural law, i worry that

natural law is a code phrase for intuitions, maybe prejudices, but these intuitive feelings that we have how human relations ought to be. and my question is on your -- in the daily dish, you write a lot about neuroscience. and i wonder whether as the foundations of behavior have become understood in terms of neurocircuitry, in terms of the things that make us who we are, do you think that's going to change our perception of what's normal, not normal if we start understanding the foundations of behavior, is that a way of replacing in my optimistic view -- replacing natural law and turning the question into a different kind of question? and i wanted to hear what you had to say about that. >> i do. i do think it will open a whole new worlds of understanding of what human -- what being human is. i'm fascinated, for example, of the new york science of faith.

i'm fascinated by the studies of the brains of people in deep meditation compared to people who are not. i'm fascinated by the possibility of understanding the homosexual mind. and the heterosexual mind and see if there are differences to see how subtle they are and obviously they change over time. you see, my view aquinas, for example, was desperately seeking the truth. about what human beings were. in the 13th century. and 14th century. it wasn't -- what i feel in the discussions of natural law is exactly that. it's actually a resistance to understanding nature. they resist it. but i have to say also that if darwin didn't do it, we're 150 years after darwin.

and religious fundamentalism has never been stronger in this country or in around the world. the great problem, i think, is that the more we know the truth about who we are in all our complexity, the more terrifying it will become for us to abandon the easy certainties and prejudices of the past. and that what we're really seeing in the world right now and this goes far beyond the question of homosexuality and it's the central question of my book "the conservative soul" is i think that fundamentalism is an erotic response to the truth. as it's being revealed by science. as it's being revealed by human experience. because it is sometimes as elliott put human kind cannot bear very much reality. and the reality that neuroscience is opening up, the possibility of seeing as we

found with darwin, you know, a revolution in thinking, which i think is coming again. may instead of opening the human mind provoke a response the way that emancipation created jim crow. people can't handle it. we have to remember that a galileo -- what happened to him? i mean, the people that stumble upon the truth are the people most dangerous. and they are the most -- and the reaction to them is sometimes the most ferocious. that the reformation in a way, which discovered the scriptures, which removed the authority of certain people to tell people what was in the bible, the printing press, gave us witch

hunts, witch trials, burnings at the stake, the inquisition. the most horrifying period of religious power and fundamentalist reaction in which -- you know, once -- i took my husband back to my hometown. it's a beautiful little town in england, well, not that beautiful. parts of it are beautiful. it goes right back to the middle ages. and i was showing him around. and we came to the oldest church at the top of the town. and we saw these three big gravestones down there. and we thought well, these people must be really -- i hadn't been there a while. these must be the lords. and it said, no, here lie the remains of the martyrs of the protestant faith three yards to the left, right next to the starbucks. [laughter] >> you laugh.

but people in iran right now -- right next to what they thought was starbucks is being tortured because they are standing up for what they believe in. religious fundamental and they standing up for what they believe in and are tortured. do not believe this cannot happen again. do not believe that it will somehow march constantly forward without some horrifying actions. and in this particular moment we have forces at work of fundamentalism both in the middle east and in this country of all religions, whether it be the hideous fanaticism of the revolutionary guards in iran.

or the biblical fundamentalism -- mark theisson vice president cheney's secretary say that torture is the right thing to do and there are people who did west bank who are there forever because god commanded that is their land and if necessary must launch a war to protect that. and everybody has nuclear weapons. i mean, i don't think -- i don't think people -- i mean, i'm being crazy. and i think things are kind of scary right now. and the more we get closer to the truth about human beings, the more terrified the reaction

will be. and it is -- it is the fact that people in fundamentalist societies are seeing because they can't push away anymore through the mass media images, for example, of liberated women. that is fermenting a greater repression. or aggression in the middle east towards basically enslavement of women. in the most hideous fashion. to greater degrees. there are no -- there are very few countries out there that are not becoming more fundamentalist right now. and this is -- this is -- this is -- this is a flight from reason. it is an antienlightenment. and i believe in the enlightenment because in the end god has to be compatible with truth. that god is truth.

so i don't fear science in that way. but i absolutely understand those who have clung to certain doctrines as the meaning of their lives for whom this truth is simply too scary to contemplate. and whose response is a frightened and terrified and violent repression. [applause] >> thank you. >> let's meet another winner from c-span's studentcam video documentary competition. through a 5 to 8-minute video we asked middle or high school students to share their thoughts on what are the country's strengths or a challenge facing the country. today we speak to third prize winner guthrie kornbluth a seventh grader in berkeley, california. welcome to c-span and congratulations on your win. >> thank you. >> why did you select a topic healthcare for your documentary? >> well, i thought that it was

very important. i thought it was maybe the most important issue about -- that's facing our country right now. because people could actually, you know, get sick or die because of not being able to have a public option. >> and how did you become interested in healthcare? >> i think it was on the internet, reading an article about it. i got captivated by stories on the web. >> why do you think the public option should be included in healthcare? >> i think that everybody deserves to have -- to be covered in healthcare. i think that -- i've seen the results of it in other countries, like in france. i saw the movie "sicko" by michael moore which shows how great healthcare can be if it's a public option. >> president obama just recently signed legislation for healthcare that became law. it does not include a public option. what are your thoughts about it?

>> i think it's great -- i think this is a huge thing to get passed. i think it's really great. but i think that we -- it still needs a public hospitalization it's a good first step. >> in your documentary, how did you select individuals to interview? >> well, the process was kind of rushed 'cause we -- we heard about it -- i think it was late into november. so it was kind of a little bit rushed. but we thought of people who had something to do with the medical industry or just we generally thought were erudite people who knew about the subject. had a firm grasp on it. >> in addition to interviews what other resources did you use for the document sunny? -- documentary? >> we used some stock footage that we found. and some stuff off youtube that had to do -- some like news -- some news that was put onto the

internet that we used on the documentary. >> who was jay kornbluth. >> he's my uncle. >> and what did you learn from him? >> he had a bunch of personal experiences. we didn't get to put all of this stuff into it that we wanted to. but he told us about some of his personal experiences with healthcare. >> and what were some of those experiences? >> well, he's uninsured. so he's -- you know, he has a girlfriend. and he's worried that -- when he gets hurt he wants to be able to pay for -- you know, to be able to covered. >> how long did it take you to complete the entire project? >> we actually did it in four days. >> as a third prize winner, you're going to receive $750. what are you going to do with your winnings? >> well, i actually don't know yet. i think i'm going to put them into the bank. >> well, guthrie thank you for joining us today. and congratulations again on your win. >> thank you.

>> and here's a short clip from guthrie's winning documentary. >> many uninsured americans avoid making doctor visits as they cannot afford them. as a result many serious problems that could have been avoided with preventive treatment get progressively worse. eventually forcing people to go to the emergency room which is the most expensive place to go to the doctor. as a result the extra costs must be absorbed by others in the form of higher premiums and deductibles. >> to see guthrie's entire videos and all the winning videos please visit studentcam.org.

>> host: joining us on the phone this morning is martin katy of the politico. it's their congressional bureau chief. to talk about what the senate did yesterday. martin, they approved -- they approved a cloture vote which means it's a procedural hurdle. what happens next on this legislation? >> guest: well, at this point the way it cleared for the extension of unemployment benefits as well as other programs to pass within 30 hours. this is the big hurdle. this was sort of the republican unity vote against this particular bill. now, republicans will point out they weren't against the extension of the unemployment benefits or the extension of the other programs in there like the doctors fix. and flood insurance and cobra health insurance. republicans are just mad the democrats keep doing these one-month band-aid fixes on this

that's not paid for. they are trying to figure out a longer term bill. it should clear pretty easily. four republicans jumped ship including scott brown todown the democrats to break a filibuster. >> host: it's a longer term bill and what does that legislation say? >> guest: we don't know when exactly it will come up. they just bought themselves another month. harry reid said yesterday that he might be able to put together a deal with mitch mcconnell the minority leader and the tom coburn the primary filibuster guy on this by this afternoon. we might hear about a longer term deal. what they would do is a full year extension of all these programs. and that way they wouldn't have to deal with it every month. the thing is -- i mean, coburn and other republicans are not going to relent on this unless they have some sort of pay-for that's congressional lingo tore spending reduction or revenue increase or something to offset this so the $9.2 billion cost,

for example, does not contribute to the deficit. >> host: well, but do democrats have the votes now that we see that four republicans yesterday voted to end this debate and go forward with at least a short term extension of unemployment benefits. so does that -- does that tell us that possibly democrats have the votes even if coburn objects? >> guest: well, they only have the votes for the cloture vote and for the one-month extension. both scott brown and susan collins who voted to end debate yesterday both said we're supporting the cloture votes. we're not necessarily supporting the constant one-month extension here. so the democrats don't have the votes in the long run to keep extending this temporarily. that's the way the democrats have gotten around the pay as you go rules is to label this emergency spending and keep doing it -- >> we leave this recorded portio of "washington journal" as the senate has returned to

continue work on that extension of unemployment benefits. live coverage on c-span2. extended benefits. he called the montana unemployment insurance claims processing center. he said if his unemployment insurance benefits are not extended, he does not know how in the world he's going to take care of his daughters. he continues to searcr a job job, but for now, unemployment insurance benefits are the lifeline for him and for his family. unemployment benefits help him to pay the bills for his daughters. unemployment benefits help the single dad from missoula and also help millions of americans who, through no fault of their own, have fallen victim to this great recession. as we meet today, benefits have lapsed for 200,000 americans. another 200,000 americans could lose their benefits, too, if we do not pass this bill this week. unemployment benefits help our

unemployed neighbors, and in helping our neighbors, we also help to keep open the neighborhood grocery store and the neighborhood gas station. in helping our unemployed neighbors, we also help to keep houses out of foreclosure and in helping our unemployed neighbors, we also help the economy. the nonpartisan congressional budget office says that extending additional unemployment benefits would have one of the largest effects on economic output in unemployment per dollar spent of any option. the c.b.o. chart behind me tells us that just -- just tells us just how effective increasing aid to the unemployed can be. the c.b.o. analyzed the effectiveness of a number of job-creation proposals. for each policy, the c.b.o. estimated the number of jobs created for each dollar of budgetary cost. you'll see in the chart behind me there are 11 policies that the c.b.o. analyzed.

increasing aid to the unemployed is ranked first. it's number one, top of the chart. you can see it with the blue. among all of these policies, increasing aid to the unemployed is the most effective. the congressional budget office says that it will create most jobs per dollar of budgetary costs. it's the most efficient and it creates more jobs. other policy options are much less cost-effective. c.b.o. also says that for each dollar spent, increasing aid to unemployed could increase the gross domestic product by up to $1.90. that's almost double per dollar spent. why is increasing aid to the unemployed so effective? let's just ask ourselves that question. well, households receiving unemployment benefits spend their benefits right away. they have to. they're spent. that spurs demand for goods, demand for services. that boosts production and that

leads businesses to hir more employees. unemployed benefits are essential to bridging the gap between losing one job and finding another and it has become increasingly difficult to find that next job. in february, there were 2.7 million job openings, and in the same month, there were 15 million americans out of wo work. that means that there are about 5 1/2 job seekers for every job opening. over five. it's no wonder that it's hard for people who are unemployed to find jobs. this chart behind me tells the story. prior to the great recession, there were fewer than two job seekers for every open position. now there are 5 1/2. let me repeat that. prior to the great recession -- you can see it on this chart, the red line over to the left -- there were fewer than two job seekers for every job that was open, every position that was open. that's back in december of 2007.

now, if we look at the red line that goes to the right, now there are 5 1/2. it's important that we extend unemployment benefits. we need to bridge that gap between jobs. and getting unemployment benefits is not living high on the hog, by any stretch of the imagination. the average unemployment benefit is $335 a week. the average cost of a loaf of bread is $2.97. the average cost of a gallon of milk is $2.72. diapers for just one baby can cost up to $85 a month. these days, $335 only stretches so far. we need to keep our unemployed neighbors from falling into poverty. we need to figure out how best to create new jobs for unemployed workers. one way we can do that is to help foster job growth and that is by using the unemployment insurance program to create the right conditions for job creation. in that vain, i'm holding a hearing in the finance committee tomorrow to explore ways to use

the unemployment insurance system to help americans to get back to work. let's reform this system. let's modernize it. let's make it work better. states and experts have great ideas for how we can improve the unemployment insurance system. they have ideas about how it can save and create more jobs. for example, some states are creating new jobs through subsidy programs. montana has a job subsidy program and has put hundreds of people back to work. using funds from the recovery act, this program helps employers to pay for the cost of creating new jobs. across the country, thousands of people are benefiting from job subsidy programs. but right now, it's essential that we pass a temporary extension of unemployment benefits. it's essential that we help americans put food on the table. it's essential to pay the bills while they continue to look for work. it's essential for people like jeremy from flathead county,

montana. jeremy is a wildland fighter. he's been receiving unemployment benefits for the first time in his life. fighting wildfires is seasonal work. typically jeremy could find another job during the off-season. but this year he's been unable to find employment. jeremy's benefits lapsed on february 28. that's when congress failed to extend unemployment benefits. jeremy has been left hanging. it's just not right to leave americans in this position. so let us extend unemployment insurance benefits for jeremy, the firefighter. let us extend this vital lifeline for the single dad fro missoula and for his daughters who depend on him. and let us enact this temporary extension of unemployment insurance without delay. mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. cardin: mr. president? the presiding officer: stphoupl maryland. mr. cardin: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cardin: mr. president, i rise in support of the bill currently before the senate which would provide for temporary extension of unemployment benefits, cobra

coverage and prevent a severe cut to providers' reimbursement under medicare. the underlying bill would also extend the national flood insurance program which is set to expire -- which expired on march 28 at midnight. each of these provisions is important in its own right and each will help our economy move forward. the long-term unemployment rate is defined as the percentage of people in the workforce who have been out of work for more than six months and are still looking for jobs. that rate reached 4.3% of the workforce in march. 4.3% of the workforce out of work for six months, cannot find employment. our nation's overall unemployment rate is still at 10%. maryland's unemployment rate continues to rise, reaching 8.3% in february statewide, up from 7% in february 2009.

mr. president, 11 of our counties, nearly one half of the counties in the state of maryland, the unemployment rate exceeds the national rate. in baltimore city, 11.2%. in tkor which he ster county 12.9%. in wu ster county, more than double the statewide percentage. you must help to keep these families' heads above water. each of the thousands of families that depend upon extended unemployment benefits need our help. in maryland it's 16,000 families. they need our help in order to be able to pay for their -- feed their families, pay the rent and utilities on their home and keep their houses literally out of foreclosure. i hear from heads of households every day who are trying to find work, but the jobs just aren't there. in fact, the labor department statistics tells us that for every job opening, there are

five individuals actively seeking employment. those odds aren't very good for someone who is trying to find employment today, and that's why we have the long-term unemployment. that's why we need to extend the unemployment insurance benefits to those who are in need today. we are emerging for the most severe prolonged economic downturn since the great depression. for those of my colleagues who are insisting that unemployment compensation extensions be paid for, i would point out that for every $1 we spend in unemployment compensation, we are generating more than $1.5 back into our economy. in other words, this is a stimulus. this helps job growth. when people have unemployment insurance, they spend and spend it immediately. it helps our retail establishments, it helps our food stores, it helps our economy. it is the definition of stimulus spending, and it is immediate. i would also add that this is not a handout. unemployment insurance is just

that: an insurance program. an insurance program in which employers and employees contribute so that in difficult times like this they can receive benefits. we're in these times now. that's why we paid the unemployment taxes. these funds should now be available to help the people who need it. equally essential are the cobra benefits which allow people who have lost their jobs to continue health insurance coverage for themselves and their families. i cannot tell you the number of people who are shocked when they lose their jobs and then go to pay for their cobra and find out that it's prohibited. they can't afford it. they can't afford to continue their health insurance protections in the most critical times in their lives. and that's why the congress passed help for people during this economic time with their cobra protections. but that has expired, and we need to extend it so that families can continue to maintain their health insurance. the extension of cobra benefits

will allow to us get affordable health care to those who are in most desperate need. i also want to mention the expiration of the national flood insurance program. in my state over 60,000 homes are covered by the national flood insurance program and half of those are on maryland's eastern shore. this program was authorized but expired on march 28, 2010. and since then, no new policies have been issued. no policies have been renewed. and there has been no increased coverage on existing policies that could be issued. marylanders who wish to purchase a home in a floodplain can't do so during this period. we need to act now. we literally have frozen the market, which is not good for our economy. it's not good for family. and it's certainly something that we need to correct. the bill before us will retroactively make up for the past two weeks, but we need to act quickly in order that this

important program continues. finally i want to stress the urgency of fixing the medicare reimbursement, an area in which i've worked on for many years and tried to repeal the sustainable growth rate payment system that makes no sense. as of april 1, there is a 21.2% across-the-board cut in medicare reimbursement for physicians and providers paid for according to the ski schedule. therapists, nurse practice pracs and more. the center is holding claims until wednesday, april 14. but at that time claims will be paid at the lower reimbursement rate. we must stop that from happening. just today my office received nearly a dozen calls from constituents who have been told by their doctors that they're not accepting new medicare patients at this time. this is no longer a hypothetical. there is a denial of access to care, and seniors are being made to suffer because of

obstructionism in this body of not allowing this bill to move forward in a prompt way. i come to the floor today to urge immediate passage of this legislation and urge my colleagues to work together to pass a long-term extension of these essential benefits. assuring that american families are able to weather this economic storm should not be a partisan issue. we need to work together to debate the merits of this bill and to provide the american people with the help they need and the economy with the boost it needs while we're working on long-term recovery of our nation. with that, mr. president, i thank my colleagues, and i would yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

barbara milano keenan quorum call: quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call: quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. baucus: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from montana's recognized. mr. baucus: i ask t further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. . baus: i send an amendment to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from montana, mr. baucus proposes amendment number 2731, strike after all the enacting clause --

mr. baucus: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. baucus: i ask that further proceedings of the amendment be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. baucus: on march 10, the senate passed a bill to extend unemployment insurance and a number of other provisions through the end of this year. we are currently working with the house of representatives to agree on a package of offsets for a portion of that bill. in the meantime, congress needs to act on the pending bill to ensure that americans can receive their much-needed unemployment benefits. this bill would extend benefits through the end of this month. my amendment, which i just offered, would extend the programs of the bill before us today for one more month, to the end of may. you might ask why, what's the purpose of this? the answer is this further short-term extension would ensure that congress has enough time to resolve the differences over the long-term extension. mr. president, it's now april 13.

the end of this month is not too long away. there is not sufficient time to work out an understanding agreement with -- with relevant senators, usually senators on this side of the aisle but also senators on the other side of the aisle of how to pay for and what portions of the long-term unemployment program will be handled. it's going to take a little more time than two weeks, so this amendment would extend the unemployment benefits and all the provisions in the current bill for one more month to the end of may to give us time to work out -- more likely to work out an understanding so then we can pass the bigger, longer term extenders bill which would extend tax provisions as well as s.g.r., cobra, u.i., fmap and other provisions until the end of the calendar year. and i suggest the absence of a

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

quorum call:

and we have had objections to extending unemployment benefits as an emergency, objections from the other side saying well, these can't be extended because they will cost too much and add to the deficit or this or that. it is interesting to me that in this country when our country has experienced an economic downturn, we have always on an emergency basis dealt with the most vulnerable americans by extending unemployment insurance benefits, why? for two reasons. number one, when you work for a living in this country, you actually pay premiums for an unemployment insurance plan that then kicks in when you lose your job. so this isn't as if somebody is getting something for nothing. people who are working in this

country are actually paying in to a plan that provides for unemployment insurance. and number two, extending unemployment insurance during a severe economicturn is just the right thing to do for the most vulnerable americans. i find it really interesting that the very people who have been standing in the way of doing this, saying, well, it's the federal budget deficits, they're too big. well, i agree they're too big but i haven't seen any of these folks out here when it really matters. this is just taking on the most vulnerable americans so they're out here taking that issue on. but what about the really big issues? how about fighting a war and not paying for one penny of it over a ten-year period? you know, the -- the first eight years of the previous administration, we went to war and we were told by the president, george w. bush, you're not going to pay for a penny of this and if you try to pay for it, i'll veto the bill. it's all going to be emergency spending. well, the fact is, we should have seen the same folks out

here complaining about that. or how about go back 10 or 11 years when the legislation was passed that built these huge corporate financial pyramids that gotten gauged in all kinds of unbelievable -- got engaged in all kinds of unbelievable speculation and ran the country into the economic ditch and caused $15 trillion of american wealth to vanish and caused these unbelievable increase in deficits. i didn't see them out here on that either. in fact, many of them voted for the piece of legislation that repealed the protections that were put in place after the great depression and actually allowed to happen what has happened in the last ten years that caused this collapse. so, i don't know, it seems to me that this last stand on the budget deficit is to say let's have the last stand when it comes to the most vulnerable americans. that's our last stand. how about a last stand, for example, on some of the affluent americans? how about a last stand on

carried interest? i would encourage my colleagues who have been out here worried about the budget deficit, come out here when i'm here and let's talk about changing the carried interest rules. what's that mean? sounds like a foreign lange perhaps to some. it means that there are some in this country who are earning more income than anybody else in america and paying the lowest income tax rates. why is that the case? that's what the law apparently allows them to do and we've been trying to change the law but some of my colleagues don't want to change the law. that would be increasing taxes. let me give you an example of increasing taxes. how about increasing taxes on a person that made $3.6 billion in a year, which, by the way, is about $10 million a day, and pays 15% income taxes? how about if we say to that person and the others like him and her, how about if you pay the same kind of taxes everybody else in this country pays? that will reduce the federal budget deficit. i ask my colleagues, do you want

to join me to do that? i'm all for reducing the federal budget deficit. tight htighten our belt, reducee spending, i'm all for that. but how about also asking their people to pay their fair share of taxes. i said yesterday, as i've said before, we've got some of the biggest financial institutions in this country that in the last decade decided to buy sewer systems from foreign cities in order to avoid paying u.s. tax taxes. how about let's make sure that we close all loopholes like that, that says you want all the benefits america has to offer? how about paying the taxes and being responsible as an american citizen for the things that you are required to do? i mean, if we want to really reduce the federal budget deficit, let's take some real big hunks at doing that by, yes, reducing some spending -- and there is plenty of waste. i've chaired 20 hearings on the biggest waste, fraud and abuse in the history of this country. that is the contracting in iraq and afghanistan. i won't go through it in detail today but i'm telling ya, the

biggest waste in american history in these contracts. so let's cut some of that spending. let's raise some taxes on those that aren't paying their fair share, those that are doing everything they can to avoid paying taxes in this country. let's cut the deficit. but let's not come out here and pretend that your last stand is to take on the most vulnerable americans at a time when we should extend the unemployment insurance. that makes no sense. now, if you know much about economics, you understand during a steep economic downturn, there is substantially less revenue coming into the federal government. i think we've lost something like $400 billion a year in revenue. at exactly the same time, when you have a steep economic downturn, the economic stabilizers kick in: unemployment insurance, food stamps and other things for people that have been laid off, out of work, in trouble. that's exactly what you do during an economic downturn. you have less revenue and more spending. that's temporary because the minute you come out of this and restore economic health, then

you do the things necessary to get rid of those budget deficits and put the country back on track to a better course. so i don't know. i -- this has been a -- a byzantine circumstance to decide to see who comes to the floor of the senate and say, do you know what? now we're going to make our last stand and it's going to be when you want to give some unemployment insurance to the most vulnerable americans, those who have lost their jobs. now, someplace in this country, all around the country today, about 17 million people or so woke up jobless. they've lost their jobs, don't have work. they got dressed and went out with some hope in their hearts that maybe they could find a job. but tonight will come and they won't have found a job. and the question that they ask isis: am i going to get the funding i was told that would exist, that i paid insurance premiums for, for unemployed insurance. am i going to get this help

during this period of time? this wasn't my fault. he was laid off because of a very steep economic recession. and the answer should be from this congress is yes, you're going to get that help. we understand the obligation and the need to do that. again, i'm very interesting in tackling this federal budget deficit. let's tackle it in big ways in the areas where substantial additional revenue that should come in is now not coming in because people are avoiding paying their taxes. some of those that are the wealthiest americans, let's tighten our belt and cut spending in areas i just described. let's not decide the last stand is to try to take on the most vulnerable americans who woke up this morning jobless, in some cases hopeless and helpless if they don't have the money to buy food, pay their rent or buy medicine. we can do better than that.

there is a moral skpwer alternative for this -- imperative for this congress at long last do the the right thing. mr. president, i didn't come to the floor to say that. because that is the business of the day, i wanted to on spwaf senator baucus -- on behalf senator baucus, senator reid and others, we're trying to work on this. last night by one vote we were able to invoke cloture with almost no help. now we'll get on with the business of seeing can you during a deep economic downturn extend unemployment insurance as you are required to do. i hope the answer is yes. that's our responsibility. that's our obligation. if there are those who want to come to the floor jointst wanting to join me in this dealing with the things i just described, spending cuts, let's join and doing that. i'm here and very happy to do t mr. president, i wanted to talk

about -- let me ask, if i can, in another section of the moshings talk about energy. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. dorgan: mr. president, there are many things on the agenda for this country that need doing, and we're trying to work through this list. we worked on a health care reform bill that was, i understand, very controversial. but the fact is health care is such a significant part of our economy and the costs are growing so rapidly, we have to try to address this. and we d there is another issue, however, that i want to talk about today, and that is the issue of energy. we don't think much about energy because energy becomes kind of second nature to the way we live. we get up in the morning and first thing we do is turn off an electric alarm clock perhaps and then -- and then flick a switch and lights go on, and we do almost everything that -- without think