>> you know, it's okay if you can't -- dr. garber, do you have some additional questions? >> if i could -- just a couple of follow-up things that i wanted to sort of get on the table. we've talked a little bit -- and i think dr. wang in particular addressed to a certain extent the issues of exercise. i mean, you'd love to have your patients exercise for a couple months before they get into their accidents. can you comment more specifically on what the effect is of exercise in the older population with regard to those types of markers of fragility like muscle mass and their ability to withstand some of these impacts? i know that surgeons are fond of

talking about physiological versus chronological age and perhaps tell us what it would mean for an 80-year-old who's exercising and doing weight training and running versus a 60-year-old who perhaps is sedentary? >> and i have a discussion slide that will come up shortly. i'm not sure i can answer exactly your question. the question of whether, you know -- how exercise affects core muscles, we haven't studied that in a prospective in addition we've seen in our patients with a history of good activity that they appear to have good core muscles and we've kind of made that association. how we can -- the other thing that we've done is we've studied patients that are in the icu, the large cohort that had a very high mortality rate, we know that the psoas muscle can change very acutely within a course of a couple of weeks of being critically ill.

it can decrease by 20% or so, so we definitely know they can drop very substantially in size. how quickly it can go back up we haven't sorted out yet. and we have a number of studies going forward to try to study that. so this slide is something that's kind of -- i think helps to drive home the point if i haven't already driven the point home. that age and comorbidities are insufficient. and what we did -- i mentioned that we've studied this in abdominal surgeries and liver transplant surgeries and in multiple surgeries and what we found that the -- that the psoas muscle is by far the best predictor, far better than age and comorbidities and what's interesting is we took the 10 worst -- so this is the 10% worst psoas area and we looked at how they matched up compared to the 10% with the highest age.

and the 10% with the largest number of comorbidities. so in the past we've always used age and comorbidities as our assessment of frailty, okay? or fragility and what we found is that the psoas muscle seems to indicate something different. okay? and, in fact, it's this psoas area which is by far the best predictor of poor outcome. >> and at least another question, to what extent does that or any other markers that you're looking at represent a reflection of actual medical conditions that individuals may have. the comorbidities that you're talking about those age related conditions, how do you separate those from the effect just of aging itself? >> yeah, it's very difficult. i view this as a psoas muscle so in order to have a good psoas muscle you need to have good nutrition. okay. you can't have chronic disease which is causing you to be ill and not being able to exercise.

so this is just a marker, okay? and it's very difficult to separate out those other processes. and right now all this is, is a -- is something that we have found -- this is by far the best marker that we've found so far and we're attempting to sort out the factors that contribute to it. >> and then one last question from me, we talked a lot about the data which is mostly fatality data which is in terms of the older occupants but we didn't really discuss too much except sort of referentially what the effects are of even relatively what we might consider minor injuries on long-term disability for these occupants. i know that we've had some discussions at some conferences about lower extremity injuries particularly in older adults. even things as simple as sprains and contusions may result in long-term kinds of disability and i would like you to discuss that a little bit if you can.

>> it's hard to speak up in generalities. what happens in these patients and the more frail -- and i'm going to get away from the use of the word "elderly" but in the very deconditioned patients, very small injuries are able to just push them over the edge. so we oftentimes see -- and typically these frail or more deconditioned patients of the elderly but i mentioned multiple patients with a couple of rib fractures they end up with a pneumonia and certainly when we did -- in our ciren population i think about 80 to 80% of our fatalities had rib fractures and quite a substantial portion had rib fractures and we also have a substantial number of patients who have sustained what we would consider relatively minor orthopedic injuries but again, but because they are deconditioned they are unable to get up to weight bearing very quickly. they end up going to a nursing home and bed-bound for a substantial period of time. and they end up being readmitted.

so even small orthopedic injuries can lead to fairly -- can lead to very poor outcomes in a sufficiently deconditioned patient. we see this over and over again so this is a very common anecdote. i can't give you the exact sort of injury and what its effect is in more detail. >> the point about less severe injuries, we tend to focus here on fatalities and higher scale injuries but lower extremity injuries tend to be on the lower side. mild traumatic brain injuries is an area that doesn't get a whole lot of restrictions but it's something we can get a handle on also by doing further research on and seeing where that goes in the future so that's one area we're going to focus on also. >> thank you. that's all the questions i've got. >> dr. poland?

>> i think i had maybe two questions. let's show that video. i think it's ready so we can see the belts inflating in the rear seat. >> and doctor those are 6-year-old children. >> a 6-year-old child and on the right is a small adult female representing a fifth percentile in size and weight. >> we'll be interested to hear more when you come to our child passenger forum next month. i've heard some information about these belts also being beneficial in rollover crashes and is that true and is this to have this type of restraint in the front seat? >> well, currently, we have air bags in the front seat and those

are mandated by congress. so we believe that there would be marginal incremental benefit from putting the inflatable belt in is well because we have low limiters and pretensioners in the belt system. we haven't assessed the belt systems at this time but i believe nhtsa has. >> and for my next question, we talked about crash rates and when crash rates start to increase. it looked like we were seeing some increases around the 70-year-old range and then maybe some more increases around the 80-year-old range or possibly it was the fatality rates we were looking for that u-shaped curve where we had high rates for the young and then is that the fatality rate i was talking about and then a higher fatality rate for the old. is that when injury tolerance starts to decrease? is it at that 75-year-old range or is it earlier than that?

>> it really depends on what injury you were talking about. for bony injury we think an increase on the age of majority, as you start losing bone mass. however, as, i think, maybe dr. kent showed, the organs be the abdominal organs or maybe it was dr. wang, i don't know who, don't age quite the same way so for long injury -- unless it's secondary to a rib fracture, we wouldn't expect to see a major change with age. >> yeah, but, you know, overall risk of fatalitfatality, they g from age 20. it starts and you can see biomechanical consequences of aging in the early 20s. things like calcification of the cartilage starts to show very young and that predisposes you to thoracic injuries. so, unfortunately, it's pretty young. >> so even at age -- after age

20 we're starting to see some decreases associated with lost tolerance injury just because we're getting older? >> yes. >> thank you very much. thank you, gentlemen. i appreciated having the opportunity to speak with you on this panel. i think i could talk about it all day long. but we've just about reached the end of our panel session. thank you, chairman hersman. >> thank you. this has been a great panel, very informative. thank you for your slides, your data and the presentations, the videos all of it was great. i did want to recognize ms. mass. if you could please stand in the back. miss haas was awarded an honorable mention at the 2010 los angeles international film festival for the video that we got to see at lunch and i'm sure you all can understand why she also in

[inaudible conversations] >> taking a look at the u.s.

capital here where both the house and the senate will gavel back into business today. earlier this morning senate minority leader mitch mcconnell met with some of the new incoming republican senators as they attend freshman orientation this week. the senate gavels back in for legislative work today following an extended break for the 2010 midterm elections during which they held periodic >> who have beat the tea party favorite christine o'donnell to finish vice president's joe biden's term. mr. coons will be sworn in by the vice president later today. another new face west virginia joe manchin, the sitting democratic governor won a race

to finish the late senator robert byrd's term and mr. manchin will also be sworn in today. >> a look at the future of smart phones a demand of wireless spectrum and policy with qualcomm paul jacobs, that's tonight on c-span2. the supreme court heard oral argument in arizona christian school tuition organization versus nguyen earlier this week. the case involved an arizona law that allows residents to give up up to $1,000 that they would have paid in taxes to a nonprofit student tuition organization of their choice. this organization gives scholarships to students to attend private and religious schools. the court will decide if this case violates the separation of church and state. this argument is just over an hour. >> in case 09987 arizona christian school tuition

organization versus winn >> thank you, mr. chief justice and may it please the court for 13 years arizona has permitted private si citizens to contribute money to private organizations set up by private individuals and has let those organizations use that money towards scholarship when individuals applied for them. the ninth circuit erred finding that they have standing and second striking the program down. regarding injury in fact the key point is this. not a cent of the respondent's money goes to fund religion. if you placed an electronic tag to track and monitor each of the respondent plaintiffs not a fraction of a cent would go to any religious schools coffers. >> their point is that this tax money does belong to the state. that the private individuals are using because it is money that

even by the new amendment says either you pay it to the state or you use it for this purpose. but it's the state's money and it's giving you by its largesse the right to redirect it. that's their argument. so it would be the taxpayers' tax dollars being spent on religion if they could sustain their claim? >> there are two problems with that. one has to do with injury and tax and the second has to do with redressibility. our point as you track the taxpayers dollars, it doesn't actually fund any religious program unlike other cases in which this court is considered taxpayer standing for religion. their complaint is not that the government is spending money that the taxpayers -- money that has been extracted and spent on the taxpayers. their complaint is that someone else's money is not being extracted and spent enough. and the relevant language in

flast it's, quote, his tax money must be subtracted and spent and here that's not occurring. and with respect to with the other argument with redressibility and causation our point is this. it's speculative as to whether or not that chain of events that you spelled out justice sotomayor would actually happen as this court said when a tax credit is given sometimes that actually reduces the amount of money the government has to spend. it doesn't increase it and so that's different than the direct outlay that was at issue in flast. >> the constitution if we get a new system, here's what the system will be. the taxpayers who are religious will be able to check a box and the check that they send to the irs -- it's a possible system, what happens is that check is cashed by an official and the cash is given to the local priest to say prayers to the individual who contributed the

money and in your view there is no one who could challenge that? >> let me say two things about that. first is that is not all that today -- >> the difference is in the one cases it's a deduction and in in this case you're paying 100% with money that would otherwise go into the cougher. -- coffer. conceptually does the government think there is no one who could challenge that? >> i don't think that any taxpayer could challenge that. that is depending on the hypothetical justice breyer i'm not sure if the government is specifying which religious organizations might be eligible for the checked box but if the government is doing something that is underexclusive and only giving tax credits to one set of religious organizations, that's a texas monthly -- >> so if we can go back into history, it could have been the case that the -- as long as they were fair to every religion the

first congress could have funded prayers throughout the nation in churches for anyone to go and pray and that would not have violated the establishment or if it had nobody could have challenged it? >> no, justice breyer. two things on that. first we're talking about the standing and not the merits. and with respect to the standing if government only funded religious organizations or religious prayer, i do think that other organizations would have standing. not as a taxpayer because this court has been very careful in flast to say there's an extremely narrow exception for taxpayer standing, but other organizations would have texas monthly standing because >> does anyone have standing in your view to challenge this scheme? >> the way this scheme is set up, our answer is no. and i think that accords with the court's general reluctance

to convert taxpayer standing in this area. >> and if leave out the fine points that you were discussing isn't the underlying of the case will be unenforceable unless we recognize taxpayer standing? >> i don't see that, justice ginsburg, in flast. i think it's a very narrow exception when someone's dollars is being taken out of their pocket and spent by the government on religion. and i don't think that's happening here. >> flast is gone, right? there is -- there is nothing more to flast because it just happened that nobody had thought of this system at the time of flast? if they had, they could have -- what? >> i don't think flast is gone at all when there is direct government outlays -- >> there not need be because all

you have to do is to get around it is create what we do have here. >> it can get around it in some circumstances and again, those who are underincluded in a government program may have standing not as a taxpayer but at the end of the day justice breyer that's the result -- that's the results for every other clause in the constitution. taxpayer standing is the most narrow of exceptions. >> but if there's a plaintiff -- we have a bill of rights and most provisions have plaintiffs who are hurting with speeches being suppressed but this one doesn't have. it's in the constitution like all the others. and i thought, to be candid, that's what the problem was and that's what the court was responding to? >> well, i don't see that in flast justice ginsburg but be that may, i think the court at is really forge was very clear if at the end of the day you can't find a plaintiff with standing that is not an excuse

to relax. there are general requirements of -- if you granted the plaintiff standing what you would be granting is for the first time a tax credit which is a complaint about someone else's money not being -- >> so if you're right, general katyal they were against to rule out hunt, you'ller, hibbs, this very case just a few years ago that the court was without authority to decide those cases and that somehow nobody on the court recognized that fact nor did the s.g. recognize that fact. the s.g. participated i believe in each of those cases. >> right. let me say two things about that. first i do think it's very much just like with frothing ham and after taxpayer case and then when it was teed up, the court said no we shouldn't have

granted taxpayer standing in those cases so my answer to you is, yes. now i do think this court's decision in hind reiterated some of the principles in flast and i think the plurality made it clear it would go no further than flast and to grant standing here you have to go tremendously depart from what flast is about. a direct government outlay of funds -- to take the money out of someone's pockets to fund religion. >> i just want to make sure i heard your answer. you said -- the answer is yes. in other words, you agreed with justice kagan's criticism of those cases and you said, yes, she's right. those cases were wrongly decided? >> the results may have been the same. it just would have been on standing instead of on the merits. mueller, for example, upheld the program so the bottom line decision would have been the same but the way in which the court got there would have been --

>> but you said there would have been no standing in those cases? >> no taxpayer standing. now there may have been other forms of standing, texas monthly standing which could have been alleged to challenge those programs. >> but it wasn't -- it wasn't -- i don't remember whether the government participated in the winn case when it came up in the tax injust act. >> we did. and -- >> and there wasn't a word about lack of standing. >> acknowledge the fact that the standing hadn't been pushed or pressed below but i acknowledge particularly in the wake of hind the government will acknowledge the standing defects and brief them as we are here. our point on redressibility is not simply that the tax -- that the cost of the program is speculative. it's also that the relief that the plaintiffs are seeking in this case won't redress their

problem. that is if you gave the plaintiff everything they are asking for, the very same religious schools and the very religious s.t.o.'s would continue to be funded, the very same religion s.t.o.'s would be funded because they would leave in place and this was my answer to justice breyer the tax deduction, the 501c3 tax deduction and so there would still be a government revenue being spent in favor of these religious s.t.o.'s under these program. it would be at the level of one-third instead of 100%. i don't think that satisfies their problem. i don't think james madison's feelings would be satisfied if madison were told well, you're not going to be taxed 3 pence, you'll be tax 10 pence. if i could reserve the balance of my time. >> thank you, general.

>> mr. chief justice and may it please the court. arizona's tuition tax credit does not violate the establishment clause because it's a neutral law that results in scholarship programs of private choice. it's neutral because like the tax deduction that the court upheld in mueller it's one of many tax-saving devices including some 26 other credits that are available to arizona taxpayers on a neutral basis. >> ms. bicett, i've been puzzling over this scam. can you tell me why arizona adopted this sort of scam rather than the more tuition voucher gives the state the voucher or the scholarship or what have you. this is so much more complicated and complex and unusual and it just left me wondering why it was chosen or what the state

thinks the advantages are of it now. >> yes, justice kagan. one of the things that is true in arizona that was not true in ohio is that under the arizona constitution any direct aid to private schools is prohibited. the other thing about the tax credit program is that it does encourage contributions not only from parents but from the community at large. and this then provides money for low income students, students -- >> does the record show the extent to which there are donations by people who do not have students? does the record show the extent to which there's these additional donations that you just referred to? >> your honor, of course, it was at a motion to dismiss, what the

record shows is that there are some reports that -- studies that have been done that show there have been some children that have switched from public schools to private schools as a result of the program. that many of the scholarship programs -- in fact, most of the scholarship programs provide scholarships based on financial need. >> you haven't -- i don't think you answered his question. the question was, is there anything in the record that shows whether any of the money that's involved here comes not from parents but rather from others who can contribute to the program? >> well, what the record shows is that there's a large amount of contributions. there's $55 million. we have arizona's department of revenue reports that lists the

number of contributors and who contributes -- or not the individuals who contribute. it doesn't specifically line out who the contributors are, whether they're parents or whether they are not parents. >> well, i said if some of the contributions are considerable like a million dollars, that couldn't be just a parent, right? >> you're right. >> are there contributions of that size? >> again, the record doesn't show what the size of the contributions are. it shows the number of contributions and the total amount of contributions. >> you only get -- if you give a million dollars, you still only get a $500 tax credit; right? >> that's correct. the programs are programs of private choice because any aid that reaches religious schools

does so after -- only after four levels of private decision-making. arizona sets up the neutral rules for the tax credit and after that private individuals and organizations take over. anyone can form a school tuition organization. and the increase in the number and diversity of school tuition organizations over the 13 years that the tax credit has been in existence demonstrates the fact that this is free for everyone to -- >> the thing that worried me in zelman is this, and i might get your answer. probably arizona spends some billions of dollars on public schools, doesn't it? i don't know what the exact amount is. >> yes, your honor. >> let's take 30 or 40% of that and spend it through this program on religious schools. imagine that happens.

at that point people might get into considerable discussion about what qualifies and what doesn't qualifies. if it's a valid school or just teaching religion and what the rules and regulations are. how is arizona dealing with this problem by saying there's no regulations. by saying we're not -- is there a system for dealing with the legitimacy and the circumstances under which a particular religion schools qualify for that program? who decides and how? >> under the tax credit program, the schools have to be qualified private schools. in order to participate -- >> and that must be a set of regulations and rules? >> primarily what it is is that private schools in arizona satisfied the compulsory education law as long as they meet the requirements that the public schools have in terms of providing qualitatively -- the

subject matter, that the -- >> and those standards have nothing to do with this program? they are standards that any private school religious or otherwise must meet in order to satisfy the education requirements of arizona? >> that is correct. >> and when do they teach the religious part of their program? >> excuse me? >> i mean -- normally, the schools -- i'm not an expert, but when you have a to do to be a school is a very complex thing and you have all kinds of requirement that is eat up quite a lot of the day. and i just wonder how the religion part fits in as. has there turned out to be no problem? do they teach religion at 6:00 in the morning? does it matter if a person is qualified? i once had a case in the first circuit and it got to be surprisingly complex and i just wondered how -- if it turned out to be any problem at all in

arizona in this area? >> justice breyer, the record doesn't reflect that and i'm not aware of any problem with private schools. in arizona and certainly not that have participated in this tax credit program. >> suppose an s.t.o. -- this is a hypothetical case discriminated on the basis of race. no hispanic, or no white or no black receive our money. suppose there's no federal statute on it. no state statute prohibiting it, would be there a constitutional violation, a federal constitutional violation? >> if it was a private institution -- >> no. it's an s.t.o. >> and so that is a private organization. >> all right. there are no attributes of state action that would suffice to allow a discriminated person to bring suit?

a person who has been discriminated against? >> as long as there was not a federal law -- >> a hypothetical is no federal statute, no state statute. it's a state action question is what i'm asking. unless the discrimination could be attributed to the state at the state's direction -- >> well, don't you think a strong argument could be made that it could be attributed to the state. the state has all sorts of rules what an s.t.o. has to be. the state provides the mechanism through the credit, for the funding. >> i assume that there's of a tax deduction for contributions to churches. yes, your honor. >> and many churches discriminate on many religions. does that pose a -- >> what about -- what about the answer to my question?

>> well, your honor, because -- you're saying an s.t.o. is sufficiently private so they can -- >> because they are -- >> the name of it was bob jones. it was a private school. and it discriminated on the basis of race. and the question was whether they could have tax-exempt status so that there could be donations to them. do you remember some of that case? >> yes, your honor. the court held that the department of revenue could preclude the university from having tax-exempt status because that violated public policy. and, therefore, they were not entitled to 5013cc status and so

these organizations are 503 organizations on they would not be able to -- >> i have a justice kennedy's question in a slightly different way. i'm assuming you would agree if there was justice a strait tuition voucher program the states could not give tuition vouchers on the basis of religion, could not say if you're a catholic you don't get these tuition vouchers. to say, sorry if you're a catholic you don't get scholarships out of our s.t.o. and the question is why should the state be able to do that if the state can't do it itself in providing tuition vouchers, why should the state be able to set up a system using intermediaries that exist for no other reason than to administer the program without those distinctions. >> your honor, the state is not

making those decisions. and anyone can set up a school tuition organization. totally secular schools are in existence and there has been no problem setting those up. five of the top ten s.t.o.'s do provide scholarships to any school -- >> but the plaintiff -- >> the private market -- >> the plaintiffs contend and this is a motion to dismiss and so we have to accept their contentions as settled that there are s.t.o.'s that make these distinctions that would clearly be impermissible if the state administered these programs. these are not preexisting charitable organizations or preexisting schools. they are entities set up solely for the purpose of administering this program and yet the sate is saying it can make distinctions that the state itself cannot. >> your honor, if i might

correct you. there was one school tuition organization that preexisted the tax credit. and certainly the private schools that participated for the most part did exist before this school tuition organization. what this program allows private organizations to do -- it allows parents to get together with private schools and form school -- >> but you said there was a s.t.o. before this program, but it didn't get the benefit of money from taxpayers that would have gone -- that money went to arizona, not to the s.t.o. before this scheme was created. >> before the scheme was created they would have gotten a tax deduction, a federal tax deduction and a state tax deduction instead of a tax credit.

but the difference -- there is not a significant difference between a tax credit and a tax deduction in terms of constitutionality. the only difference between a tax deduction is that for purposes of a tax deduction it depends -- the value of it depends on the tax bracket of the taxpayer whereas the tax credit the value depends -- is equal for all taxpayers that owe taxes. and this court has never made a distinction between tax credits on the one hand or tax exemptions, tax deductions under respondent's theory, any money that the government doesn't take in would then be the equivalent of state money. and that would then undermine

501c3 corporations. and was this a public purpose not to take in state money that the state would normally be entitled to. if they give contributions to that purpose. so it's not a question. and that type of purpose has been upheld by this court in laws, in hernandez. and again there's not a basis for distinguishing here between what arizona is doing and other 501c3 organizations that have for years been able to enjoy the benefits of tax savings, tax benefits.

and help give scholarships, religious organizations. >> thank you, counsel. >> mr. bender? >> thank you, mr. chief justice. and may it please the court. i would like to start with mr. katyal's statement if we win the case you don't get any relief because much money would be -- would go into religious education. as it goes now. that shows he does not understand our claim. our claim is not that money is going -- that state money is going to religious schools. our claim is that state money is being given to the beneficiaries of a state spending program on the basis of religion. it's a claim about discrimination in the distribution of these state funds. >> but there's a discrimination, i gather -- the school that

seems to get the most money on the list doesn't appear to be a religious school at all. it's not even discrimination between religion and nonreligion if you think that is invalid, which i don't. it doesn't favor religion at all. >> i didn't say it favored or disfavored religion. >> then what's your problem -- >> the problem is that government benefits in a government benefits program cannot constitutionally be given to the beneficiaries of the program on the basis of their religion. if a parent comes to one of these -- >> you can't have a government program that gives out money indiscriminately to certain organizations that say provide hospital services. and it would be unconstitutional if that included organizations that were religious organizations as well as organizations that were not. that would be unconstitutional. >> let me try to clarify --

>> so you must positively disfavor religion. >> no, you must not. you must give the money to the beneficiaries without taking the beneficiaries' religion into account. suppose -- >> how does this take the beneficiaries religion into account when the program works perfectly -- in exactly the same way if it's a nonreligious school? they don't care whether it's a religious school or not. >> because the s.t.o. are giving out government funds and they are on the government's behalf distributing tax revenues. >> no, i hope that wasn't my question. how is it discriminating on the basis of religion if the s.t.o.'s, the government's money -- it doesn't care whether it goes to a religious school or not it's treated the same? >> the s.t.o. -- most money is given out to s.t.o. that do cares whether it goes to a religious school >> the state money going to the s.t.o. -- the state doesn't whether whether it goes to a religious s.t.o. or a secular s.t.o.

>> that doesn't matter if the state grantee cares that's unconstitutional. >> i thought we've held when a decision is made by a private entity whether to use the money to go to a religious school or nonreligious school that that doesn't violate the constitution because the decision is not made by the state. it's made by the private recipient. >> i believe the court held the opposite in bowen where the decision to use the money for religious purposes was made by the grantee not made by the government. the government program was completely religiously neutral. the grantees were given funds to educate adolescents in sexuality. the court held -- chief justice rehnquist wrote the opinion that although the program is constitutional on its face because it wasn't unconstitutional because religious organizations could participate as grantees. it would be unconstitutional if those organizations distributed the benefits of the program on the basis of religion. think about a head start program.

suppose the government sets up 50 head start programs in a particular community, they are all run by private organizations, some religious, some not. >> i'm sorry. just to get back to bowen for a moment. >> yeah. >> the entities that were distributing the funds could be private or religious? >> same as here, yeah. >> the entities are not in bowen were not identified. the recipients of the state funds were as here -- they weren't identified as religious or not? >> i don't understand. in bowen i think the court held and in the as applied bowen that if the grantees were to give out the -- their services on the basis of religion, that would violate the establishment clause. >> do we know the schools do that? do we know that these religious schools do not admit people except of a certain religion? >> well, i think we do know that

and the complaint alleges that but that's not the point. the point is not what the religious schools do. the point is what the s.t.o.'s do. the s.t.o.'s are government grantees. they are distributing government funds. the constitution prohibits organizations that distribute government funds as part of a government spending program. >> that is to say that it's government funds that any money the government doesn't take from me because it gives me a deduction is government money? i mean, that's -- >> this is money that the government takes from people. >> this money has never been in the government's coffers. but the government has declined to take this money? >> but it's money that's raised by the state's income tax. every tax credited dollar is a dollar that has to be paid either to the government as income taxes do or to an s.t.o. -- >> i'll give you credit, mr. bender, in your brief you say if you're wrong on that point that you're folding your pen and leaving.

if there's no standing and no violation. but i must say i have no difficulty that any money that the government doesn't take from me is still the government's money. >> but it -- >> let me ask you -- if you reach a certain age you can get a card and go to certain restaurants and they give you 10% credit. i think it would be rather offensive for the cashier to say and be careful how you spend my money. [laughter] >> but that's the -- >> no, it's not. with respect to, justice kennedy, the money that's involved in this case is money that is generated by itch decision of the state's income tax not by nonimp decision of it. if there were no state income tax -- >> would you say the same thing about a tax deduction? >> would i say what that it's a tax deduction.

>> that it's the government's money. >> no -- >> they are kind enough to give the taxpayer a deduction for certain contributions. >> because when a taxpayer makes a charitable deduction, that charitable deduction is made from the taxpayers money. at the time the taxpayer makes that deduction the taxpayer can do anything he wants with that money. that's not true of this tax credit. at the time this tax credit is taken, the tarotos the government let's say $5,000 in state income taxes. you've got to pay that 5,000 -- you can't keep it. it's not your money. you can't keep it. it's not that all of your money is the money. it's that this $5,000 that you owe the government is income taxes. >> why isn't that true of a tax deduction either. this is a modest tax credit. the tax deduction that a wealthy person would get by making a contribution to a college or

university that has a religious affiliation is much more valuable than this $500 credit. >> it doesn't turn on whether it's valuable or not. it turns on whether -- when the taxpayer makes the payment the taxpayer pays of its own money or to the government. when you make a charitable contribution you're using your own money. that's not money you owe to the government. you don't know how much money you owe the government until you figure out your taxes. this credit doesn't come in to play until you figure out your taxes. and then if you owe -- >> we don't understand that. somebody does know. it's december 31st, they know -- they figure out how much tax they are going to have to pay for that year. they know exactly. they can know exactly what their taxes will be. and it will be x. and if they make a deduction, then it will be x minus y. what is the difference? >> the difference is that -- to me the broad difference is that the tax deduction is given for charitable contributions.

and i think the court would decide if it faced the question -- i don't think it's ever had to that it's constitutional for the government to support private charity and if the government is going to support private charity by letting you deduct charitable organizations you can't leave religious charities out of that program. that would violate the establishment clause. so if you believe that the charitable deduction in the federal income tax is a constitutional thing for the government to do, to support private charity by picking apart and that's true, then you have to give the deduction to people who contribute to religion. so, yes, there is a government support for that private charitable contribution but it's a charitable contribution. the money in this case is not a charitable contribution. mr. katyal says that it's not the government's money. who's money is it? is it the taxpayers money, who give a $1,000 contribution? no.

if you don't take my word for it, look at what the s.t.o.'s say about their program. one of them says, quite frankly, hey you can give charity with someone else's money. it's a miracle. another one says it won't cost you anything. you can give charity with other people's money. who's money is it? >> what difference does it matter what they say on their websites? there's a very important philosophical point here. you think that all the money belongs to the government. >> no. >> except to the extent that it allows private people to keep some of it. that's what your whole argument is about. >> no, it isn't justice alito. my argument is that the government imposes an income tax and people owe the government a certain amount of money in income taxes due, that and the government says you don't have to pay it to us, you can pay it to an s.t.o., that's a payment of government funds. >> we don't owe it to the government if they have made

this contribution? that's the whole point. >> it's not a contribution. >> they don't owe the tax to the extent they have given money to one of these constitutions. you posit at the very beginning that you owe a full amount of tax. that's not true. you don't owe the tax if you made the $500 contribution. >> i disagree with that. i think -- >> you owe the tax if you look at the arizona income tax form, it says, here's your income. apply the tax rate to the income. here are your taxes due, $5,000. you may pay that in part by giving $1,000 -- by paying $1,000 to an s.t.o. you are paying your taxes. when taxpayers take this $1,000 -- >> that's the problem. they have to revise their form so that it's a deduction before the line. this is a major lawsuit? >> this is a government spending program. is there any doubt about that? the money in this program is not

private charitable -- >> you assume it's -- i see your argument there. now, in zelman, the holding i would think, which i was not in agreement with but it's now law, that the government can have a spending program. and what they did was the government spent money in the form of vouchers to be given to private individuals to use for such education as they wished, that met certain standards including religious schools. so what's the difference between the program here and the one that was held constitutional in zelman? >> the difference is that in zelman the money went to the parents without any religious discrimination. religion was not involved in the distribution of the money to the parents. the parents in zelman got funds based on their financial need and the fact that their children went to school in cleveland, which was a failing school district.

and the program was to give them, based on their financial need -- was to give them a voucher. in giving the parent the voucher nobody said to the parent, what's your religion? nobody said to the parent are you going to send your child to a religious school? the court said as clearly as it could in zelman that that would be unconstitutional. >> who here says to the parent who's going to the school what is your religion? >> the s.t.o. who gives them the scholarship. >> in other words, the s.t.o. gives the scholarship to only catholics -- >> exactly, exactly. >> with the gentleman's money you claim is at issue is the money -- the contributor to the s.t.o. has failed to give to the government when it's the government's money. now, that decision of whether to give the money to an s.t.o. or not, whether to give it to a religiously affiliated s.t.o. or a nonaffiliated one, that's in the hands of a private individual just as the voucher

program was. there's no religious discrimination in that choice. >> let me put it to you this way, justice scalia. suppose the government in this case gave the money to the s.t.o.'s directly to itself. and the s.t.o.'s then gave out the scholarships, would it be constitutional for an s.t.o. to say to a parent who comes asking for a scholarship, are you catholic? if you're not, we won't -- >> perhaps not but you have -- you have an intervening parent or contributor. and it's that person who is making the decision of whether to give it to a religious or nonreligious horg it isn't the government making that decision. >> it's not a parent -- >> and that was the same thing in zelman. parents under this program are not allowed to give contributions for scholarships to their own children. the people who get -- who can claim the tax credit -- the person who get the scholarship cannot be a dependent -- >> suppose they change one rule

and the rule that the s.t.o. was this, they said we will give you tuition if you otherwise qualify for your child to go to the school that you wish to go to. and if if you are jewish or you're protestant, and you want to go to st. joseph's school they won't keep you out or vice versa and that would -- >> yes. >> the answer is yes? >> yes. >> so the only thing you're challenging is the rule that they will not -- yes, they will not give the scholarship to a protestant to go to a catholic school? how do we know -- >> we allege that the s.t.o.'s that give out the majority of the funds -- i think now it's 70% of the funds that the s.t.o.'s that give out a majority of the funds only give the funds to parents who will send their child to a religious

school designated by the s.t.o. >> but that's different. what you were complaining about -- i'm jewish. i want my child let's say to go to st. joseph's and so now do i qualify or not? the only thing -- >> that depends on the s.t.o. you go to. >> your complaint is only with the s.t.o.'s that wouldn't let me send the child? >> exactly. >> and we know that they exist because -- >> we allege that they exist and no one doubts that. >> i'm sorry. i just want to make sure i understand your complaints. you just said to justice breyer that your complaint was that the s.t.o.'s are giving scholarship based on the student's religion. >> yes. >> i thought another part of your complaint was that the s.t.o.'s were giving just to the religious schools? >> s.t.o.'s don't give scholarships to religious schools. they give scholarships to parents. after they are awarded -- >> but to attend that school. the essence of your complaint is

that some of the s.t.o.'s are requiring that the recipient, recipient child, of a particular religion? >> that and some of the s.t.o.'s are also requiring that in order to get the scholarship the parent agree to send the child to a particular religious school. >> but that doesn't get you there. that doesn't get you there. >> you were saying -- >> you're saying both, right, mr. bender. >> both of them. >> can i ask you, is there -- do you understand the beneficiaries of this program? as the state said, who the beneficiaries of this program are. the -- are the beneficiaries of the program the parents or the general taxpayers? >> the beneficiaries of the program are the parents and the children. that's what this program is for. the state set up a program to help parents send their children to nonpublic schools.

and to do that they are going to give them scholarships. scholarship money is going to -- >> so i would assume then the beneficiaries is the program with the parents then it's the parents who have to be treated qual? -- equally. >> exactly. the scholarships as zelman said as clearly as it could -- the scholarships have to -- in that case the vouchers have to be available to parents on a religiously neutral basis. the scholarships are not allowed to be made available to parents according to their religion or according to whether they will send the child to a religious school. both of those kinds of discrimination are going on here. i think -- >> mr. bender, can i go back to your point. you were making the distinction between the taxpayer who makes a charitable donation, whether that taxpayer has the whole universe and could spend it on buying clothes, on gambling, on this charity and that charity

but your point is, this contributor does not have the universe to pick? this one has -- you either give it to the government or you give it to the s.t.o.? >> exactly. right. it's not the taxpayers money. it's confusing because we're talking about two kinds of taxpayers here. we're talking about my clients who are general taxpayers whose money is being used to fund this program. and we're talking about the taxpayers who take the tax credit. they are two different -- >> so if they had a statute that gave a income tax deduction only to individuals who make charitable contributions to educational institutions there would be a problem because it wasn't a general tax exemption for charitable contribution isn't it so >> no. justice alito, i think it would be constitutional if it said that you get a deduction for making a charitable contribution

to an educational organization. and that can include a religious education organization because if it didn't it would be unconstitutional. ... >> at data to anything he wants with that money. he could take a vacation. he can give it to a charity. he could buy close with a. he could buy food with it.

it's a completely open system. nobody tells the taxpayer what he has to do. in this case when the taxpayer rights that check, to the stl, the taxpayer can't get that money. can't use it on vacation. can't use it to buying food. has to either paid to the state are -- >> the same thing is true of charitable deductions. when you take a terrible deduction, you don't have the money anymore. you have given it to a charitable organization. now, you are allowed to give it to a particular religion, a particular church, and there seems to be nothing unconstitutional about that, right? so what is unconstitutional here about the private, the private decision to give a benefit to an

organization that only support particular schools, and, indeed, only supports people of a particular religion to go to that school? i don't see any difference. >> there's nothing unconstitutional about the taxpayer sending the money to an sto. if stos did not discriminate on the basis of religion in getting that money out, there will be no on constitutional -- >> churches discriminate on the basis of religion. when i take my charitable deduction to give it to a particular church, that church discriminates on the basis of religion, but that's okay. >> if the government said to you to compare taxes, don't do your taxes to us, paid into a church, and the church get its benefits on to people of a certain religion, i believe that would be -- >> so it's how the government puts it. it really is just that line in attacks on mature concerned about. and the only relief you really need is changing the tax form? >> no. is a difference between a cherry

and paying your taxes that when you make it should of contribution, you are making a chart of a contribution that costs you money. in arizona, if you make a chart of a contribution of a $1000, it costs you $950 if you're at the maximum tax rate, because maxim tax rate is 9%. in arizona, if you take this tax credit, it costs you nothing but it's not charity. charity -- excuse me. >> just to follow-up on the question because i want to make sure you have the answer. this system were set up exactly as it is now, but arizona said contributions to stos are deductible, you do have no problem? >> contributions to stos are deductible from one's income tax. >> right. >> no, we would not have a problem. >> so the only difference is arizona set up a system where you get a tax credit instead of a tax deduction? >> of course. >> the top marginal rate was

90%. >> yes, it would be true even if the top marginal% were 90%, which is never going to happen in arizona. [laughter] >> but the federal rate has been up that high. >> i understand. >> that's what the establishment -- >> that is still charity. if the top rate is 90%, when you give that money, it's your money, you can use it for anything you want. and even if you're in the 90 percent bracket, you're getting some of your own money. you are engaging in charity. and the constitution i think permits the government to subsidize private charity that if the government will subsidize private charity, it can't leave religious charities out. so that's the dividing line. is the government subsidizing private charity? in this case the government is not subsidizing private charity because it is not private charity. >> if this is government money than, why would it be unconstitutional in your view

for this scheme to exist if, if the stos did not discriminate at all on the basis of -- >> because it's perfectly okay to use government money for non-religiously discriminatory purposes. you can give a tax credit for buying a solar water heater. that's 100% tax credit. that's a somewhat democratic tax credit because they are, when you buy the heater, you get something for the money. this tax credit is a very strange tax credit that this is a tax credit that is only used to pay your taxes. that's the only function it has. >> you have stos that say we will only give, we will only give scholarships for religious affiliated schools, but we will not discriminate on the basis of the students who religion. and if this is the government's money, you think that would not be an establishment clause? >> no, no, no. given as to discriminates either by saying we are guilty people to a certain religion, or we

don't do the people of another religion, or by saying we will only give you a scholarship if you send your kid to a religious school that we designate. >> that's the opposite early. i thought you said the opposite earlier. if you did, i'm sure you did. let's suppose you did. >> thank you for correcting me. >> and what's the problem with that? >> supposed the government gets its money to put cat scans in hospitals. it is certain beneficiaries. and one group of beneficiaries is the association of catholic hospitals. and others the association of jewish hospital. another is a totally secular hospital. so did the tax credits to all three. of course, the catholic group will get to the catholic hospitals, and so forth. what's wrong with that? spent i don't get your hypothetical. >> what they do is they have government money, just like you claim, and they say they will give it to want abroad organization, like the

association of catholic, jewish or secular hospital, and we expect them to distribute it. and they will, of course, distributed to those who are the numbers. and in some cases their members are religious organizations, and in some cases they are not. now, what's the difference between that and what happens here, leaving the students out of the? >> it depends on who the beneficiary -- >> the beneficiaries of the government, catholic hospital, cat scan program will be catholic hospitals. because they are the ones who belong to the catholic hospital association. money will also go to the secular hospital association, as it goes to a secular sto here. so i don't see that part, that's the last prong we are talking about. >> i'm not clear on your program. if the government program benefits hospitals, the benefits have to go to hospitals on a religiously neutral basis. >> the government says -- the

government says, it does give the money away to a religiously neutral basis that it gives it to hospital associations. it turns out that some of those, naturally, are supposed to give it to their members, all of them will be religiously affiliated. >> but the hospitals are the beneficiaries, justice breyer. that's the difference. the beneficiaries you are not the stos. the beneficiaries here are the parents. the stos are a conduit of government funds the parents. the parents are the beneficiaries, and the constitution requires that the benefits of a government spending program go to the beneficiaries on a religiously neutral basis. and so in some and, the beneficiaries were a parent and it has to go to them. >> i don't understand the answer to justice breyer's question. his question was, give it to the hospital a quote of the sto, and that gives it to hospitals on a religiously discriminatory basis.

why aren't the hospital's beneficiaries of that program? just as you say the parents are here? >> if the hospitals are the beneficiaries than hospitals have to get the money on a religiously neutral basis. the analogy would be the patients are the beneficiaries of the program. the government wants to help cancer patients, and so is going to give money to hospitals to help cancer patients. so it is money to various hospitals under justice breyer's programs that if one of those hospitals says we only treat catholic cancer patients, that's unconstitutional. >> that's the other issue. we are trying to separate in your argument the issue that some of these organizations are religiously affiliated from the argument that, moreover, they will only give money to individuals of a particular religion. now, i understand your argument for the latter, but i must say i don't understand your argument

for the former. if you accept these others. >> if i going to a scholarship from an organization and they said well you going to send your child with a scholarship, and i say, i haven't made that decision yet. they say we will only get a scholarship if you send your child to a jewish school, which teaches people how to pray in the way jewish people pray, and has a -- its education is jewish religious education. that's religious discrimination. >> thank you, council. you have four minutes remaining. >> thank you. i think i have this right. we're talking about my clients is money is being used to fund this program. that's a nice description that is not a description of what's going on here. flast recognize the special solicitude for taxpayers when money is taken out of their pocket and used to fund religion

against the conscious. here, even if you accept all of this public money discussion that's been happening, not a sense of their money is going to find -- >> but flast i looked at again briefly. it seems to use that wonderfully precise word, nexus. [laughter] >> and you're quite right that in flast that was the case. but why isn't it, if it is given, indexes in flast, what was in flast. why is it also being a nexus we have this complicated system, which is designed to make the ordinary taxpayer pay a little more in this kind of an instance for what you have done is directly subtract from the treasury $5000 cash to turn over in the view of the plaintiffs, to a purely forbidden religious purpose. >> two things. first, the language in flast on page 106 is not the nexus, the definition of what the actual taxpayer standing claim is. and it requires that it is tax

money being extracted -- >> was that in that instance in flast, does flast speeding the general description says about how taxpayer standing will go forward. if there's any doubt about that, bought a fortune exactly because the dissenters said exactly what you said, which is look, let's look to economic effects and that alone will be enough and it's just probably cause, tax spending clause, doesn't matter. the bottom line on the treasury and this court says no, that isn't the case. >> they could not admit it is your particular knowledge that there's no way to know it is your dollar and that would be a silly and fictional thing to say, as the plurality opinion in hyde makes clear. what flast said was that taxpayer dollars, not your dollar, but taxpayer dollars are going to this activity. in the same way that it is going to the activity here. >> i disagree. i don't think that's what flast. i think flast is about that microfracture of dissent that is coming from your pocket and

being used to fund religion. that's what madison complained about and maybe a small, maybe three kids, but there's a special heart of conscious when it's your money, your hard earned money being used to fund a program directly as to which you don't like. >> flast talk about a nexus. and here the taxpayer challenging a provision of the tax code enacted pursuant that the tax spending power that grants the tax benefits. that's as close a nexus as you're going to get using the language of the flast. >> i think that doesn't do with the direct entry on the taxpayer which is the leverage of flast. even if you disagree with me, the heart here is a lot more speculative just like you know because you have to posit a newer for the hard to exist to this taxpayer, a tax credit will cost the government money, not save it. that is taxi for and will go up as opposed to someone else's tax burden, a corporation and the like, or that deposit the government will cut spending in order to make up the shortfall in revenue that he says is going

to exist that you have to do all those things, none of which have to do in a flast situation. is a direct outlay of funds. if i could just been a moment on just -- justice kennedy's action which, of course, they didn't advance below the ninth circuit said. i think it is this court precedents are quite clear in saying that the fact that the government regulates something doesn't reform it to a state actor. if it did, then all 501(c)(3) sees would become state actors and that i think would be an enormously damaging and i'm president for this court to follow, rather i think it requires the performance of a traditional executive prerogative -- government prerogative. and hear all the sco is doing is funding handing out money and doing so on a neutral basis, anyone can form an sdio, and anyone can find one. >> thank you, general.

the cases submitted. >> taking a look at the u.s. capitol here today in washington, d.c.. you see a few of the workers doing some repairs to the dome. both the house and the senate are going to be gathering today -- gaveling back in for business. following the extended break from the 2010 midterm elections. among some of the issues that the senate is going to be working on this week, natural gas and electric vehicles, issues of weighty quality and food safety. you can watch the senate live starting at 2 p.m. eastern here on c-span2. also here at the capitol, the house will start its day at 2:00 today, taking up 10 suspension bills that are on the calendar. and all the requested those will be held until 6 p.m. eastern.

you can watch the house live on a companion network, c-span. of course, this genuine marks the start of the new congress, the 112th come in many new faces will be coming to washington. one of those including republican dan boyle, the son of the former vice president, dan quayle -- sorry, that is banquo. and he won the race to represent arizona third house district. and as a new phase might be similar to football fans, former philadelphia eagle offensive lineman, jon runyan, a republican. he won the race represent new jersey's third district. and for more information on all the new members of congress, you can go to our website, c-span.org.

>> the atlantic magazine hosted a clean energy forum late last month. we will take a look at this portion features the opening remarks of the conference, and will run about 40 minutes.

>> [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> good morning. we're just about to get started. may i ask you to take your seats, please. that was quick silenced to the room. thank you. my name is elizabeth baker and i vice president of the atlantic and i wanted to welcome all of you to our third annual green intelligence forum. on behalf of the atlantic and our underwriters, applied materials, the boeing company, the dow chemical corporation, general motors, the itt corporation, morgan stanley, shale and siemens to a program like this takes a lot of work and a lot of effort if we're very appreciative to those countries for supporting us this year. it's been my habit at these gatherings to try to tie back

what we will be talking about today to the atlantic city which is now 153 years old. in energy and environment space, we claim to be one of the first green magazines. we had very early findings from the likes of henry david thoreau, walt whitman and john muir. in fact, in 1897, john muir wrote a piece in the atlantic called the american forest which was one of the prompt for president teddy roosevelt to start the national park service. across the 20th century, our riding went into the direction of scientific advance, energy and alternative energy and environmental movement. with writers such as bill mckibben, angry -- and greg easterbrook among those who wrote for the atlantic. and observing our long history and all those dozens of things in writing to the magazine into the website, i'm happy to claim us as the first green magazines, and hope these two days of content at the green intelligence forum will help to support that as well. we will be covering topics

ranging from environmental competitiveness to the future of freshwater, clean transportation to a coherent energy policy. so welcome to they want that in today's program with excellent lineup of speakers for you, including opening headline remarks from david hayes, deputy secretary of the department of the interior, and a keynote address by bill ritter, the governor of colorado a little bit of the sport. we will kick off today by delving into the future of energy and environmental policy in the wake of stalled climate education. instead of looking backwards we will be looking forward on solutions and opportunities for government and industry to shape the future of clean energy, technology and manufacturing. tomorrow we will start here again at 9 a.m. and our program will take an in depth look at water use in the u.s. and the possibilities for changing the way we use water in her everyday life. to mars program will also focus on transportation, both urban and global, and have cutting edge technologies are changing

the way we travel. we will have time at the end of each session for q&a, so you will seek standing microphone should. we'll ask you to lineup to those. would also invite you to tweak your comments throughout the program today and tomorrow at hash tag gif 2010. hash tag gif 2010. we would love to have your comments on today's program. you will find comment cards at your places, so please leave us at the registration desk as you go pick i would ask you that you cite its cell phones and pdas, if you don't mind. so distorts off today, it is a great pleasure to begin today's program with an introduction to a keynote talk interview with david hayes. before his current role, secretary hayes served as global chairman of the environment land and resources department at the firm of weakens and locked and. he served as senior fellow at both the professor policy institute and the world wildlife fund. prior to those postings he was

counselor to interior secretary bruce babbitt during the 1997-2001 clinton administration. secretary hayes has been active in the past in the nonprofit sector that he served as vice chairman of the conservation group, the american rivers, and as a board member of resolve, a nonprofit that focuses on problem solving in energy and environmental fields. he's also former chairman of the board of the environmental law institute. during the 2007-2008 academic year, secretary hayes was a consulting professor for stanford university would for stanford university woods institute for the environment where his report on regulating carbon offsets was published by the center for american progress. he's also the author of dozens of articles and issues related to energy and the environment. secretary hayes is a graduate of the university of notre dame and stanford law school. so thank you very much to secretary hayes for being with us today. [applause]

>> indication what are the other guy getting on stages, i'm alexis, and that technology and at the atlantic. and i have to have a book coming out next year about the history of green technology. so with it, we will have a q&a afterwards. >> thank you. thank you, alexis. i'm just going to make a few opening remarks and then we will have a conversation. the topic of this program for the next couple of days couldn't be more relevant, i sleep sustainable energy development. and some people may wonder, well, that's why that was the national parks service have to do with all this. isn't that what you'd of the department of the interior? we need a new branding, a consultant of some kind because we are really more than department of energy and we are

the department of the interior. traditionally, that's been in conventional oil and gas. we've all been reminded about that with the bp oil spill, and surprise surprise, the department of interior that regular its oil and gas offshore. we also develop oil and gas onshore. the department of interior manages 20% of the landmass of the united states. and with the other major federal land owners, we develop subsurface rights there. so a third, fully a third of the united states, domestic energy supply, comes from a third of the landmass of the united states, which we managed, the oil and gas, coal, et cetera. in fact, 50% of the coal any niceties comes comes from the department of the interior land. the traditional approach has been very traditional. it's all about oil and gas. that certainly was the case with the prior administration, where

the unrelenting emphasis was on opening up more areas for oil and gas drilling. an approach that we brought new balance to, which i would love to talk about a little bit later. but most importantly, when secretary ken salazar and president obama came into office, we wanted to change the inflection points at the department of the interior, and expand it from yes, some continued oil and gas development, but for the first time really meaningful we know what energy development on the public lands. and literally in the last few weeks, you are seeing that coming to fruition. it started right in the beginning with the first secretary of order by ken salazar saying we're going to put an emphasis on renewable energy and climate change in this department. we're going to great a swat team, we will see if we can for the first time the valve our amazing resource base for solar, geothermal and wind, and make renewable energy a reality.

with the help of the recovery act, and driven largely by state renewal energy standards, we are moving out, and by the end of this year, we will have permitted 4000 megawatts of new solar power in the southwest. just yesterday, secretary salazar announced the world's largest solar facility in blythe, california. it will produce 1000 megawatts of concentrated solar power. that 4000 megawatts that has been permitted that will be permitted by year end, represents the equivalent of five nuclear power plants, eight to 12 coal-fired power plants, all renewable resources on our public land. in the wind sector, we approved the cape wind project off of nantucket, apologies to all of you who have summer places in cape cod. but it is an amazing project

that will produce at peak 450 megawatts of power. we are looking at developing that atlantic wind resource more generally. and we are doing it in a balanced way. we have a responsibility, in our department, for fish and wildlife resources, for conservation resources writ large him and we're working very closely with conservation communities to make sure that we do this right. and the final play, because of what to get to the q&a, in that regard, for example, for future solar projects, we have working with western governors and state of california, which has been a real groundbreaking here in this area, we've identified 24 areas in the west that look like they are well suited for solar development. and rather than just go willy-nilly and accept applications on our 30 million acres of solar resource public lands, we are

doing an environmental analysis that focuses on the 24 areas, 770,000 acres. and that's where we want to do future development, because we think it makes sense. we will do a thorough environmental analysis for those areas. we are going to help investors target areas that make sense, because of access to transmission lines, because of relatively less environmental sensitivity, et cetera. and we are thinking of taking and will be taking the same approach on the atlantic, identify specific areas that state and investors are interested in, and focusing our environmental reviews on those areas, giving investor interest up, and then moving out and developing those projects that it's an exciting time for the department of the interior, and it's a lot more fun to work on these projects and on the bp oil spill. i will attest to that personally. thank you. >> thank you, secretary hayes. and then go for joining us this morning. i want to make my pitch for the

department of interior as a really interesting part of our energy policy apparatus that if you think about it as being a company, that would be a great takeover target i think just because it controls so much land within the united states, that is increasing invited, largely because of the renewable resources that are there. the lobby does it is a really great example. the solar site that injury has identified are axley posted on interior's website. they had these incredible pentagrams were if you go online now, you can go click in on this large map of the mojave desert and spin around 360 degrees and check out how big it accidents. i think that if you are from coming, the bay area, or the sort of mid-atlantic corridor, it's hard to understand the scale of the spaces and how much out in the west interior really does. the other thing i really like about india, unlike the

department energy, the department of agriculture, into your isn't on crosscutting kind of agency. and as such they have to balance that is competing interests. water, recreation, energy production. and i think particularly right now we are in the midst of possibly a major political change in congress, major stresses to our ecosystems, and the need to develop new technologies and energy requires balancing competing interest in the way that injury has, has been four years. so with all those things in mind, i want to talk more about the specifics of solar technology that we're talking about deploying in the mojave. it's different than what you see on your houses, or on at least houses in california, and in germany. so can you just talk about what one of these power plants looks like?

>> well, there are several types come as you know, alexis. one or two other projects that we are permitting this fall are the traditional photovoltaic array, albeit at a very large in scale. most of their concentrated solar plants. and either use the parabolic trough technology where the mayors concentrate the sun into a point that essentially is a mineral oil that heats and then steam generates electricity through turbines. there also is, the sun catcher technology which are these larger 38-foot in diameter dishes basically that concentrate power individually into a unit, and then tracks the train to as the parabolic mirrors do as we'll. and, finally, the power tower which are the mayors that

concentrate to a tower and bring the sunlight into the tower to be the steam generating units. >> the recent i want to make sure that people do this is that when you have steam you need water. and we are out in the mojave there's not a lot of water. we can get to our first house issue which is when you're permitting one of these plans, how do you ensure that when you put in 1000 megawatts of solar out in the mojave, there's enough water to ask around the plant without impacting the serenity nearly? >> well, it's a very appropriate question, and i catch myself to your remarks about the injured part but i'm how great we are. that's how i translate that, come anyway. butcher point is right that we're a conversation -- conservation agency and we have

in our midst the u.s. fish and wildlife service, for example, which has responsibility for endangered species to read the national parks service which worries a lot about -- we are used to working through them. all other projects that that we are improving this fall, used dry cool technology. because of the water issue, it's a series issue. and we've come up with very unique ways to make sure that these projects use the minimum amount of water, and the water that the access is a renewable resource. most -- the water needs actually, most of them, cleaning the mirrors, literally. although with a large foot logic of your talking about three to 6000 acres of mirrors. that's a lot of mirrors. what are we doing? well, one of the project in nevada, next slide, is taking the applet from a small town

nearby, treating it, and rejecting it to essentially compensate for the groundwater that it pulls up. the imperial valley project is building an extension from the town water treatment plant, and so it will use treated as its water supply. these are the kind of approaches we take in very creative approaches. and the amount of water used in these projects as a result both in terms of size and impact is very modest. the blythe project which will be the world's largest solar project, i'm told use the white equipment of 220 acres of alfalfa. of how the drink a lot of water. but still, that's not obvious from a percentage basis and a relative basis a very modest. >> another balance issue,

there's one takeover -- particular plan that secretary salazar approved by country called brightsource that a big hangup there was that there about 25 desert tortoises wandering around these thousands of acres. and literally, they did a survey. there are like 25 of these, kind of remarkable animals. how do we balance sort of development of resources versus like a relativelrelatively small number of an endangered species? how do you follow the letter of the law while still accelerating clean technology development? >> well, interesting. we're having a conversation beforehand. there is a false sense that a lot of folks have, that the desert is a desert when it comes to biodiversity and resources. it's not. and desert tortoises may be the

subject of ridicule by some, but they should not be. they are a magnificent and will cut and what about everyone of them because they are an endangered species. how do you deal with them? you deal with them by trying to ensure that after this project is done, that desert tortoises will be better off as a species. that can involve things like investing in good habitat that will be protected. i think it's the blythe project is also very substantial investment in bromance lab at -- bureau of land habitat. there is a disturbance for the desert tortoise. we relocate them. we require the app because two, five, spent an enormous amount of money to make sure it is done well and ride amtrak, and part of the science effort.

and that we've had a lot of experience with this. i recall in the late 90s when i was in interior before, fort irwin was looking to expand in the desert, and the army had to have a very sophisticated effort to relocate the desert tortoises, and it was a little jarring to see the generals, et cetera, tracking the desert tortoise. appropriately so. >> i think against the backdrop of stalled policy comes a large climate picture. i want to talk a little bit about the policy innovation a round of the solar areas that you have developed. it's a legitimately good idea to be able to backtrack certain solar power plants, but how did you develop it? and it is something, are there lessons we could learn from that solar energy development project that we could apply in other places like offshore wind or

onshore wind? >> good question, alexis. i think the answer is yes. we have sort of a duality or of approaches. when they came into office, the bush administration had not approved a single solar project on our public lands. they had opened up the opportunity for applications to be filed, and there were literally 200 plus applications randomly put on public lands asking for leases to develop solar projects. that's not a smart way of being what we call smart from the start, of exciting areas, citing these large areas that make the most is because they may be new transmission, they may be environmental he degraded. property may be near a water source, et cetera. so we got a duality here. on the one hand, we want to move

forward. we need to move forward, and the recovery act provided material, financial incentives to move forward. so we identified the 20, 20 to 30 of the projects that were furthest along that, working with the state authorities, california in particular, that looked like they had the best combination of citing resources to go forward, and we fast track to post. we put special emphasis on the those. working with the state government, working with the conservation community. and that's what you're seeing the result of here this fall, as in anticipation of the december deadline for recovery act funding. we have finalized the environmental impact statement and approving permits. but that's not an ideal way to do it. a better way to do it is what i described before, which we have underway in a parallel effort. take a broader look at the

landscape, identify working with the governors, working with conservation groups, the areas that look the most promising, do a deep dive on environmental review, provide a pathway for investors to look to develop these areas, protect those areas before development, and before. that's what we're looking to do indialantic wind apple, the same approach. >> what happens, you mentioned the status bill. what happened about this team is built like to any of these projects get built? >> well, we will find out. we will find that. i think the answer is yes. and it's primarily because of the renewable energy standards that the states have. california of course just raised fares to 33% of the electricity has to come from renewable power by 2020. nevada is i think or 5% by 2025. on the east coast, new york, new jersey, massachusetts all have strong renewable energy standards.

they are clear be driving this market. certainly in the solar projects in the west, and integrate interest in atlantic wind in the east, it's the state driven poll of renewable energy that is a huge driver. and it's worthy of noting here as we consider what to do on the federal level. >> back to the federal level, back in 2009 he wrote an article in my miquelon reporter, where you argued that the obama administration's climate energy policy would have to be measured as something more than just cap-and-trade bill passed, that now seems like a good prediction, and you argued for the full arsenal of tools. now that you're back in government, what do you see, maybe just two or three most effective tools for the obama administration? >> well, the first is, as i think what we're talking about,

which is an credibly important, which is showing on the ground success in terms of developing utility-scale renewable energy projects. essentially making the talk a reality. and we are very proud of what we're doing in the department of the interior in that regard. and its solar and wind oriented that it's also transmission oriented. with a big push to develop transmission we're needed. we have a huge amount of stranded renewable energy that we are unlocking with transmission. and it requires an intel mobile amount of number of inner agency meetings, as we get all the players around the table. but the administration is that one mind on this, and is concentrate on results. that's one important thing. i will say one other thing in terms of our own backyard at the department of the interior, when it comes to climate change.

it's obviously disappointing that we have not moved, more towards a comprehensive climate change legislation. but we are the primary stewards of our natural resources. the train it has the world's largest waterhole symbol in the bureau of reclamation. were the primary wildlife agency. we have more habitat than anyone else. so we worry about endangered species. we worry about fire risks. climate change is impacting all of these resources any discernible way, and we have responsibility to manage these resources, the water resources of the southwest and colorado river, which serves the drinking water to 30 million americans. we are proud of the fact that we are confronting the issue head-on. we are getting data with about, which required, we are

developing adaptation plans. and i think you will see a conversation occurring in communities around the united states about the impact of climate change is having, and now we have to adjust to it. and hunters and anglers see it already. water companies see it already. that's going to add to the debate and add to recognition that oh, i see, we really do need to tackle this problem. >> you served under secretary babbitt in injury before. what are the differences between the agency -- were inside the agency under the two leaders? >> well, it's a different time. secretary babbitt had a fabulous run as secretary, and like a ken salazar, was very well suited for the job having been a governor of arizona.

secretary salazar is former senator from colorado. just for the record, i'm not from the west. i'm from upstate new york, and i'm proud of it, actually. so the interior department is not just the west. i've been talking to ken about that. and he gets a it, particularly with atlantic wind on our doorstep. it's a different time. the fact that renewable energy has become such an imperative is a very different thing. climate change in the late 90s was really just sort of on the upswing in terms of appreciation of it. and ken salazar came in after his senate experience, committed to the clean energy economy and dealing with climate change. so that makes it very exciting. it's also very exciting to be part of this administration of this president is very committed to these issues. >> we have a lot of good things

that were going on whether in interior or and to have the blowout. lots of attention has been focused on the management of our oil and gas resources. and secretary salazar expanded into materials management. do you think enough has been done to reform the management of offshore oil and gas? >> no. we are in a constant reform cycle, big time. and i've been personally very involved in this. i was the first administration official down in the gulf the morning after the accident. and from april 20 until september 17, every day we were focus on this issue. and we continue to be focused on the need for reform. we are in the midst every organizing the bureau of ocean energy manager regulation and

enforcement, formally the mineral management service. we have split off the revenue function already from that organization and moved it to essentially the budget part of the interior. and policing an environment to review function is now, will be split in two by the end of the year. we are working with mckinsey consultants to help us figure out how to do this right. and we just listed a moratorium on deepwater drilling because of the progress we have made in putting the safety rules in place for the new fund will that came out on september 30, and we're going to have more rules coming out. i am confident we are in a much better place today than we were before april 20. there was a shared lack of appreciation for the risks that could have happened. that lack of appreciation has evaporated. we are totally aware of the great risks now, and we are sort of righting the ship and making sure going forward oil and gas

drilling, particularly deepwater drilling will be safe. but it's going to be an ongoing effort, there is no finish line here. >> it seems tough because it's kind of a structural issue their people go in and out of the oil and gas industry and backing to enter your. this happens all over the government. in this particular case it seems to have had pretty negative consequences. how do we stop that from happening? >> well, i think safeguards might be a better way. >> i would say that the bigger problem, frankly, was the fact that industry expertise outpaced government expertise. it's a related problem, but it's a series issue when you get into very, very high-tech, very high risk and high capital intensive activities like the nuclear industry, or like deepwater drilling. we need to learn for the nuclear industry. i think we need to create potentially an institute that will provide a place for

government to pull its resources with industry and ngos, and provided training ground so that the government is right there and able to be the cop on the beat that is clearly necessary. >> let me send it out to you guys for a question or two before we wrap up a. no, if anyone is -- there are mics right there if anyone has a burning question. >> you can just talking about that i will repeat your question. [inaudible] >> you were talking about these resources, and i can understand you have a lot to do. the question i had is, these are really public resources. and while you are developing the policy right now for everyone

gets in, i have a striking sense that the resources will be controlled by a few large companies. i mean, i can understand it's a big investment and you want to feel a have companies or corporations that are reliable, but in other resource areas, public resource areas, there have always been, or we have tried to have preferences for public entity, a way for the public to share, and so forth. and i haven't heard anything in your discussion about how the public who really owns these resources will do it. and secondly, what is your antitrust policy with regard to develop these? and the final one is, what happens when these projects into their economic life?

>> on track i guess what i'm concerned about is how will ordinary people who will end up paying for these resources, and clean up these resources, how will they be protected under your plan to? >> sure. those are really excellent questions. and these are absolutely public resources. so they have to be managed for the benefit of the public. they are managed under federal laws that mandate that we do this in a balanced way. you asked several questions. let me pick through them quickly. one is, what are the financial benefits to the american taxpayer who owns these properties. and there are financial benefits, and we are insistent on getting fair returns for private use of these public resources.

we have a bit of a kaleidoscope of approaches before dealing with this, and we are looking to better rationalize this. but for example, on our blm lands, lessees essentially get a right-of-way to put the solar projects in, and we get a rent from them. we don't get a percentage of the power, the revenue like many private land owners do. we ask we think it makes sense to change the law so that you as a taxpayer can get the same financial return as a private landowner could. but there are substantial revenues that come from the to contact the department of the interior after the internal revenue service, is the largest revenue producer of the federal government, primarily because of oil and gas offshore. in terms of the antitrust laws, et cetera, it's an open field, and we have not seen certainly in the renewable area, and

actually all shore area as well, an issue of only a few companies and the opportunities for independents, et cetera. in terms of your final question, we require permittee to demonstrate the financial ability at the end of the lease to return the land to the way it was. so we're not going to have another century of the legacy of mining that occurred in the 19th century and those abandoned mines. we require a demonstration that the companies will have the wherewithal to redress impact on the lan at the end of their tenure. >> you spoke about large-scale utility power generation, solar. i wonder if you talk a little about the other end of the spectrum, the trade off between the large central plan and transmission lines versus the individual homeowner or community, distributed power.

>> i'm sure the discussion over the next couple days, distributed power has enormous importance in this pantheon of renewable energy. and we are, we are all for it. and, in fact, our personal department investments in renewable energy fall in those lines. you can't go to a national park in alaska, or a remote blm lands without finding solar panels, wind turbines, et cetera. many of which, many of these folks are off the grid. so we have personal experience with how important and useful distributed power can be. we are all for it, and please, do not interpret our position on utility-scale power as suggesting that the only answer, far be it. but it is early part of the puzzle. >> i just wanted to know if you

could say anymore to address the idea, i mean, given that developing renewable energy was such a priority for the obama administration coming in, why it's just now within the past month that we're getting the first approval for these projects on federal lands? >> sure. very simple. bush administration was nowhere on this program. it takes -- this is a major federal action to approve a lease for utility-scale power. you have to do a full environmental impact statement of the national if i'm in a policy act. that takes at least 18 months. there's your answer. here we are, 18 months later. and, and we pushed very hard to get these environmental impact statements reviewed, to work with stakeholders, to get a record of decisions. these projects which involve anywhere from 3000, to 6000 acres are incredibly complex, major projects.

the paper trail, we are killing a lot of trees in doing this, and we're very proud of how quickly we have done it. about how well we have done it, too. the reality is though there is a major-league time. >> interfacing with the state agencies, too. i spoke the other day with james and his tiny plane over west virginia. and we looked at a lot of the non-top removal -- the scale is just amazing when you're after like 3000 feet. 360 degrees in every direction it seems like completely crushed land. i mean, that's kind of the scale of the challenge, writes? what do you see as the future role of cole sort of antihero, energy discussion? how do we minimize the environmental impact of that type of coal mining?

>> well, i think we're all hoping that geological carbon sequestration will provide a route to truly clean coal. the 2005 energy act, our site is at the's geological survey were asked to work with the doe to help develop the metrics that are being used in demonstration projects for geological carbon sequestration. and this is another area where the public lands can provide laboratory to test big time storage of carbon that is removed from coal. there are big liability issues, and we are the potential to provide a real service there. i think we move in that direction. we recognize though that coal is here to stay. and we do with it as best we can. i think the best thing we can do right now is provide an

alternative, and until recently with his big time solar and wind, we haven't had much of an alternative, even to talk about. so the debate will continue. >> great. thank you, secretary. >> thank you. [applause] >> some repair work going on here on the u.s. capitol dome. where both the house and senate are getting ready to dabble in to start the work we. earlier today senate minority leader mitch mcconnell met with incoming republican senators. is a look at that meeting. >> which university? >> good morning, everyone. this is a little larger meeting than this day two years ago and four years ago, and after the

election we had one republican freshman senator. after the '06, after the '08 election we had to freshman republican senators. obviously i'm pretty excited to be sitting here with 13 this year. and this is going to be a huge improvement for the united states senate, from our point of view. and i believe the american people sure have chosen outstanding members to join the united states senate. thank you very much. >> senator, first of all, -- do you share that sentiment? >> on your marks, sir, do you support your marks? i'm not. [inaudible]

>> senator mcconnell welcoming the newest republican lawmakers. the senate is about to gavel in. general speech is expected today. leadership elections scheduled for tomorrow, and later this week senators will vote on whether to proceed with a food safety bill. live coverage of the senate here on c-span2. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. gracious lord, whose glory has been revealed through the generations, in this time of

change renew within our senators a true understanding of your providential purposes. create in them a fervent desire to do your will and to trust you to produce the results so desperately needed to heal our nation and world. lord, guide them with the light of your truth, so they can see clearly the path you would have them follow. may their priorities reflect your wisdom so that your liberating love will be felt in all they say and do.

help them it emulate the depths of your caring, in their relationships and responsibilities. and, lord, we ask you to bless our new senators with your wisdom and courage. we pray in your holy name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the

clerk will read a dmiewn indication toot senate. the clerk: to the senate: iring's your honor the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standling rules of the senate, i hereby ats point honorable mark r. warner, a senator from the commonwealth of virginia, to perform the duties of the chair. signed daniel k. inouye, president pro tempore. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: the presiding officer and i have had a number of occasion to speak in recent weeks. i welcome you and everyone else, the floor staff which is so valiant, our pages, and we look forward to a busy next few weeks. following leader remarks, mr. president, the senate will turn to a period of morning business, senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each during that time. at 4:00 today, vice president bide listen swear in senators coons of delaware, manchin of west virginia. there will be no roll call votes during today's session of the senate. as a reminder, my colleagues, before the recess i moved moved to proceed on a knew bills,

filed cloture on the motions. as a result, we could have a series of up to three roll call votes at a time to be derld on wednesday. those cloture votes will be on the motions to proceed to the following bills: natural gas and electric vehicles, paycheck fairness act and the food safety legislation. the senate will not be in session tomorrow in order to allow for caucus meetings and leadership elections. i'm told there are three bills at the desk due for a second reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 4168, and act to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 to expand the definition of "cellulosic biofuel." h.r. 4337, an tooct amend the internal revenue code of 1986 to modify certain rules applicable to regulated investment companies and for other purposes. h.r. 847, an act to amend the public health service act to extend an improve protections

and services to individuals directly impacted by the terrorist attack in new york city on september 11, 2001, and for other purposes. mr. reid: mr. president, i would object to any further proceedings-to-with respect to these bills en bloc. the presiding officer: objection has been heard. the bills will be placed on the calendar. under rule 14. mr. reid: i welcome back my friends and welcome our new colleagues who will be sworn in as united states senators. senators manchin and couldn't are joining our family today. the senate will look a little different today starting today. it will soon look much different with 16 new senators fake office soon. some desks will switch aisles but the majority has not changed. on the other side of this building, the house of representatives will look even more different with a new majority and new leaders. before any of that happens, we need to use the next few weeks to finish some business. the 111th congress is not over

yet and the lame-duck session starts today. i'll work with my caucus and senator mcconnell will work with his caucus. we'll see what we can get done before the start of the 112th congress in january. the american voters sent us a message two tuesdays ago. that message is they want us to deliver. they want us to work together. the voters didn't elect only republicans. they didn't elect only democrats. and they didn't want either party to govern stubbornly, demanding their way or the highway. when the heelt of the campaign season cools, our constituents are more interested in us getting things done. they'd rather we work with each other and talk past each other. despite the changes, our charge remains the same: our number-one priority is still getting people back to work. the most important change we can make is in working as a unified body. i yield the floor.

the h esteemed republican leade, we've had conversations sings the elections and i look forward to our continuing to work together. mr. mcconnell: i thank my friend, the majority leader, congratulate him on his reelection. i look forward to working together to wrap up the business of this current congress and working with him again in the next congress. mr. president, i've seen a lot of elections in my life, but i've never seen an election like the one we had earlier this month. the 2010 midterm election was a "change" election, the likes of which i have never seen. and the change that people want, above all, is right here in washington. most americans are deeply unhappy with their government, more so than at any other time in decades.

and after the way lawmakers have done business up here over the last couple of years, it's icy to see why. but it's not enough to point out the faults of the party in power. americans want change, not mere criticism. and that means that all of us in washington need to get serious will changing the way we do business, even on the things we have defended in the past, perhaps for good reason. if the voters express themselves clearly and unequivocally on an issue, it's not enough to persist in doing the opposite on grounds that that's the way we've always done it. that's what elections are about, after all. and if this election has shown us anything, it's that americans know the difference between talking about change and actually delivering on it. bringing about real change is hard work. it requires elected officials, whether they're in their first week or their 50th year to

challenge others and, above all, to challenge themselves to do things dly from time to time. to question, and then to actually shake up the status quo in pursuit of a goal or a vision that the voters have set for the good of our country. i've thought about these things long and hard over the past few weeks. i've talked with my members. i've listened to them. above all, i've listened to my constituents, and what i've concluded is that on the issue of congressional earmarks, as the leader of my party in the senate, i have to lead first by example. nearly every day that the senate has been in session for the past two years i've come down to this very spot and said that democrats were ignoring the wishes of the american people. when it comes to earmarks, i won't be guilty of the same thing. make no mistake, i know the good that has come from the projects that i've helped support throughout my state. i don't apologize for them, but

there is simply no doubt that the abuse of this practice has caused americans to view it as a symbol of the waste and out-of-control spending that every republican in washington is determined to fight. unless people like me show the american people they're willing to follow through on their small or even symbolic things, we risk losing them on the broader efforts to cut spending and rein in government. that's why today i am announcing that i will join the republican leadership in the house in support of a moratorium on earmarks in the 112th congress. over the years i've seen presidents of both parties seek to acquire total discretion over appropriations. and i've seen presidents of both parties wavelet more taxpayer dollars on meritless programs and comitionz than every congressional earmark put together. look no further than the stimulus which congress passed without any earmarks only to have the current administration load it up with earmarks for everything from turtle tunnels

to tennis courts. contrast this with truly vital projects i've supported back home in kentucky such as the work we've done in relation to the paducah plant in western kentucky. here was a facility at which workers for years why unaware of the dangers that the uranium at the plant posed to their health or helped to safely dispose of the hazardous materials that were used there. thanks to an expo say about the plant in the 1990's by "the washington post," the danger was made known and i set about forcing the government to put a cleanup plan in place and to treat the people who had worked there. through the earmark process, we were able to force reluctant administrations of both parties to do what was needed to clean up the site and to screen the people who had worked there for cancer. these screenings saved lives and they would not have happened if congress had not directed the funds to pay for them. another success story is the

bluegrass army depot which houses some of the deadliest materials and chemical weapons on earth. as a nation we decided that we would not use the kinds of weapons that were stored at this site and yet the federal government was slow to follow through in safely dismantling and removing them. even after we'd signed an international treaty that required it. but thanks to congressional appropriations, we're on the way to destroying the chemical weapons at the site safely and, thus, protecting the community that surrounds it. administrations of both parties have failed to see the full merit in either of these projects. which is is one of the reasons why i have been reluctant to cede responsibility for continuing the good work that is being done on them and other others to the executive branch. so i'm not wild about turning over more spending authority to the executive branch, but i've come to share the view of most americans that our nation is at a crossroads, that we will not be able to secure the kind of

future we want for our future and grandchildren unless we act and act quorum callly. and the only way well be able to turn the corner and save our future is if elected leaders like me make the kinds of difficult decisions voters are clearly asking us to make. republicans in and out of washington have argued strenuously for two years that spending and debt are at crisis levels, and we've demonstrated our seriousness about cutting spending and reining in government. for example, every republican on the senate appropriations committee voted against every appropriations bill in committee this year because they simply cost too much. most included funding for projects in our home states. we voted against them anyway. banning earmarks is another small but important symbolic step that we can take to show that we're serious, another step on the way to serious and sustained cuts in spending and

to debt fnlt. earlier voters across the country said they are counting on republicans to make tough decisions. they gave us a second chance. with this decision i am telling them that they were right to put their trust in us. it is my fervent hope that it will help demonstrate to the american people in some way just how serious republicans are about not letting them down. republican leaders in the house and senate are now united in this issue, united in hearing what the voters have been telling us for two years and acting on it. this is no small thing. old habits aren't easy to break but sometimes they must be. and now is such a time. with a $14 trillion debt and an administration that talks about cost cutting but then sends over a budget that triples the national debt in ten years and creates a massive, new entitlement program, it's time for some of us in washington to show that every way that we mean what we say about spending.

with republican leaders in congress united, the attention now turns to the president. we have said we're willing to give up discretion. now we'll see how he handles spending decisions. and if the president ends up with total discretion over spending, we will see even more clearly where his priorities lie. we already saw the administration's priorities in the stimulus bill that's become synonymous with wasted -- wasteful spending that borrowed nearly $1 trillion for administrative earmarks like turtle tunnels, a sidewalk that led to a ditch, and research on voter perceptions of the bill. congressional republicans uncovered much of this waste. through congressional oversight, we will continue to monitor how the money teps sent to the administration is -- taxpayers sent to the administration is spent. it is now up to the president and his party in congress to

show their own seriousness on this issue to. say whether they will join republican leaders in this effort and then after that, in significantly reducing the size and cost and reach of government. the people have spoken. they have said as clearly as they can that this is what they want us to do, and they will be watching. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, leadership time is reserved. there will be a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each.

the clerk will call the roll quorum call: the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. specter: mr. president, i suggest that further proceedings under the quorum call be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. specter: mr. president, i further ask consent to speak for up to 15 minutes. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. specter: mr. president, i have sought recognition to discuss the activities of the so-called lame duck session which we are about to enter, and i begin by suggesting that our session does not necessarily have to be a lame duck. we have the capacity to respond to the many pressingroblems of the country as we choose. we can spread our wings and we can fly. you could say that at many points during the course of the 111th congress, the session has been called a turkey and hasn't been very active in many, many respects. and this body, not atypical, has expert at avoiding tough votes.

well, if there is any time where it is easiest to avoid tough votes, it is a long distance from the next election. and you can't get any farther from the next election than today, since the last election was just 13 days ago. so it is my suggestion that this would be a good time to undertake some significant action. the country is at a tremendous state of turmoil politically. i think more so than at any time in the country's history; certainly more than at any time during my tenure in the senate, and i think beyond that, any time in the history of the country with the exception of the civil war period. we have seen candidates run on a

platform of "i won't compromise." well, this is a political body, and the art of politics is compromise and accommodation. and i would suggest that there are some real lessons which we all learned 13 days ago on the election which we ought to put into effect now and take some action and some decisive action. i suggest that a good place to start would be the enactment of the so-called disclose act. and that is the legislation which would, at a minimum, require that the identity of contributors be known to the public so that their motivations can be evaluated. the campaign finance reform

followed the massive cash contributions going back to the 1972 elections, and the congress passed reform legislation in 1974, and then in a landmark decision, buckley vs. valeo in 1976, key parts of that legislation were declared constitutional and parts of that were equated with money. i agreed with justice stevens that that was a classic mistake. that the principle of one-person, one-vote is vitiated by allowing the powerful, the rich to have such a large megaphone that it drowns out virtually everybody else. and there have been a series of

legislative enactments to try to overcome the restrictions of buckley vs. valeo and a corresponding series of supreme court decisions broadening the field of freedom of speech until you got to the case of citizens united. and then upsetting 100 years of precedent, the supreme court of the united states decided that corporations and unions could advertise in political campaigns, and in conjunction with other loopholes in the campaign law, it was possible that those contributions could be made secretly. when the bill was called for a motion to proceed, as we all know, it fell short of the 60 votes necessary to cut off debate or to postcloture.

59 senators voted aye that we ought to proceed. 57 democrats and two independents. and all 41 republicans voted "no." i ask consent, mr. president, to insert into the record at the conclusion of my remarks an article by richard poleman in the fill level i can't enchoir -- in the philadelphia enquirer and "the new york times," an editorial on the disclose act. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. specter: the article recites a number of senators who voted "no" against proceeding with the disclose act, having made in the past very forceful affirmative statements in favor of disclosure. it may be that by reminding those four senators, perhaps one of them or two of them -- we'd

only need one if the 59 votes hold -- could be persuaded to vote "aye" and proceed to consider the bill. then we have the advocates of mccain-feingold. and if you compare the roll call vote on mccain-feingold, you find that there are a number of senators who voted "no" against taking up the disclose act. senators who had previously spoken out very forcefully in favor of finance limitations and in favor of transparency perhaps, at least one of those or perhaps even more could be persuaded to vote to proceed with the so-called disclose act. but we have had, as there has been a plethora of political commentary about the dangers to our political system, by having

anonymous campaign contributions. the last election was inundated with money, and the forecasts are that the next election will be even more decisively controlled by these large contributions and by these anonymous gifts. anonymous contributions. so that to preserve our democracy and to preserve the power of the individual contrasted with the powerful of the wealthy, i believe that that ought to be very high on our agenda. there is a corollary to the need for some change, some reform as a result of what happened in citizens united. in that case, we had two votes, and they were decisive to make the five-person majority; two

votes which totally reversed the positions which those justices have taken not too long ago during their confirmation proceedings. chief justice roberts was emphatic in his confirmation proceeding that he was not going to jolt the system, that he would have respect for stare decisis and that he would have respect for congressional findings. so was justice alito, on both of those accounts. and their testimony in their confirmation hearings -- the testimony of both explicit in the statement that it was a legislative function to find the facts. and it was not a judicial function on finding the facts. when citizens united came down,

as the dissenting opinion by justice stevens pointed out, a voluminous factual record showing the dangers and potential dangers of excessive contribution was on the record. and all of that was ignored in the decision of citizens united and was really ignored by the commitments with those two justices -- which those two justices have made in their confirmation hearings not too many years before. the best approach in dealing with this issue, i suggest, is to have the public understand what is going on in the court. it is my view and the view of many other senators that we are long past the time when the court ought to be televised so the public would understand what has been going on. on repeated occasions the

judiciary committee has voted out legislation requiring the supreme court to be televised. and it is, i think, an appropriate legislative function to impose that requirement. it is up to the congress to decide administrative matters. for example, the congress decides when the supreme court will convene. it's on the first monday of october in each year. the congress decides how many justices it takes to have a quorum -- six -- to transact business of the court. it is the congress which decides how many justices there will be on the court. and the congress has set the number at nine. it is recalled that an effort was made during the roosevelt administration to so-called pack the court by raising the number to 15, and the congress could

have done that. it would have been -- the congress has the power. the congress decides what cases the court will hear. for example, mandating that mccain-feingold be reviewed by the supreme court so that the court's customary discretionary decision on granted certiorari or not can be overcome by the congress. and i suggest that it is time that transparency and understanding by the public should come into operation. justice brandeis was an eloquent spokesman for sunlight being the best disinfectant. that it has been said repeatedly that the supreme court follows the election returns and the supreme court follows the values of our society in a changing

country, which has eliminated segregation, eliminated -- changed the rules with respect to sexual preference, changing the rules many times. and the best way to accomplish that it would be take up this issue which we could take up in this session. this session before the send of the year. something i have discussed with the majority leader, something i discussed with the leadership of the house and we could handle this in relatively short order. there is another matter which i suggest we ought to take up and conclude, and that is the issue of the start treaty. president reagan set the standard of trust but verify, but since the end of 2009 when the last treaty expired we've been unable to verify what the

russians are doing. the start treaty also provides for beyond verification, provides for arms reduction, which is something which ought to be done. no reason to have these vast arsenals that can be reduced that would be much less expensive in an era when we are very much concerned about governmental costs. the 1992 start treaty negotiated by president reagan and by president george h.w. bush passed the senate 93-6. the 2003 moscow treaty on arms control negotiated by president george w. bush passed 98-0. so that is a subject which -- which ought to be taken up and ought to be acted upon. nonotwithstanding the objectionf a small number of individuals.

we ought to take that up on the merits and vote it up or down. i'm sure that it would be -- would be ratified. the issue of don't ask/don't tell is another matter which ought to be concluded before the end of the year. we know what the results -- what has resulted from the study ordered by the department of defense. some say we ought to know more than we know at the present time. well, we have considered don't ask/don't tell for more than a decade. and i think it is palpable and plain at that time for the current standards of -- have long since vanished. it ought to come to a vote. and to tie up the defense -- department of defense authorization bill on that subject, a bill which has been passed year after year after year going back decades is

something which ought to be enacted by -- by this congress. i suggest further that we ought to take up unemployment compensation very promptly. we have millions who are unemployed. an unemployment rate of 9.5% nationally. there are people who are actively seeking jobs who can't find them and that ought to be a priority item. certainly to be accomplished during this session. one other item which i think we ought to act on and that is to authorize federal funding for research on embryonic stem cells. now, that legislation has twice been passed. first under the name specter-harkin and later when the majority changed to harkin-specter. we should have enacted it earlier. we have relied upon an executive

order promulgated by president obama to authorize federal funding and then in a surprise decision the united states district court for the district of columbia ruled that the executive order violated the existing statute. well, it's not a constitutional issue. the congress can change that. the order has been appealed to the court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit and the order has been stayed, which means that at present time legal -- research can proceed with federal funding, but it is a very uncertain matter that is testified by tr collins, the director of the national institutes of health, the scientists working under n.i.h. grants are very much in doubt as to what is going to happen. there are some $200 million and more than 200 projects which --

which hang in the balance. and on embryonic stem-cell research, we are dealing with a life and death situation and there ought not to be hesitancy or doubt in the mind of those scientists. the objection has been raised that these embryos could produce life. well, if there was any chance that that would happen, i think no one would be in favor of using them for scientific research. but the fact is that there's some 400,000 of piece embryos frozen and they're not being used to produce life. back in 2002 when i chaired the appropriation subcommittee on health, i took the lead in federal funding to assist individuals who wanted to adopt these embryos to have them

produce life. some $9 million have been appropriated in the intervening years, but onl only 242 of these embryos have been adopted to produce life. meanwhile in 2008 the year where most -- the most recent year when statistics are available, more than a million people died from heart disease or for cancer and we have the capacity, the opportunity through these embryos, which replace diseased cells to deal with stroke, to deal with heart disease, perhaps to deal with cancer. we don't know. but there -- there is much that can be done and congress has the authority to clarify the situation. it could take years pending in the court of appeals for the district of columbia with the time for briefing and argument

and decision, possible appeal to the supreme court of the united states, but it is a matter that congress could act on. twice we have already acted both times vetoes were successfully handed down by president george w. bush. so there is much we can do during this session of congress if we -- if we make up our -- our minds to do it. one other lesson which we have seen from the current election is the tremendous power which has been exercised by the extremities of both -- of both political parties. and we have seen this in recent years. we have seen an excellent

senator like senator joseph lieberman who can't win democratic primary. and we have seen an excellent senator like bob bennett with a 93% conservative rating who can't survive the nomination process in utah. and those are only a couple of cases. many more could be cited. but we have also seen that when the voters are informed and the voters are aroused, that we are still a country which has a constituency which desires to be governed from the center, not on either extreme. and the primary elections bring out those on one side or the other. but we have the situation with

senator lisa murkowski, which demonstrates the point that there's still a dominant voice in the center. senator murkowski lost her primary election, il of the principle that i mentioned a moment ago about the primaries being extremes. but then on a spectacular write-in campaign, it now appears that senator murkowski will be reelected. the first time that has happened since senator thurmond won on a write-in campaign in the 1950's. that's a pretty tough proposition. have to have the spelling right. murkowski's not the easiest name in the world to spell. notwithstanding the fact that its been popularized not only in

alaska by her distinguished father, elected at the same time i and others were elected to this body. and it is not certain, but it looks pretty likely, that senator murkowski will be remaining in the united states senate. so that when the electorate understands what the issue is and there was so much publicity that the electorate did and when they were aroused and motivated to action, i think it is very, very strong evidence that america illustrated by alaska wants to be -- wants to be governed from the center. so i think that's something that ought to be noted by this congress in the last 45 days of this year as we look over a tremendous number of very

important issues. and i have not covered the entire range of issues which we ought to consider, but i think i've covered some which ought to be handled by this session of the congress and the duck ought to spread its wings, show it's not lame and get something done to operate in the interest of the american people. i thank the chair and yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. mr. dorgan: mr. president, as i walked in the door to the chamber, i heard the senator from pennsylvania talk about the start treaty and let me say that it is such an important thing for this congress to ratify. i mean it's very important that that be an urgent requirement for this congress. the work that's been done on that i think is some excellent work. the subcommittee which i chair dealing with energy and water and the funding of nuclear

weapons, we have added the funding that a number of people on the minority side felt was necessary to make certain we had confidence in the life extension programs. so i to hope and i would join my colleague in saying that i -- i believe it is critically important for this congress in the lame duck session to move on the start treaty and the work that has been done and negotiated with the russians to begin reducing the number of nuclear weapons and delivery vehicle. i wanted to start by saying i appreciate what the senator from pennsylvania has said. mr. president, this morning i read a little piece in the newspaper that a man named jacob carroll died in afganistan, a u.s. soldier. he died in afganistan on the battlefield. i don't know jacob carroll, but he's one of 438 soldiers who

died in afganistan. over 4,400 who have died fighting in iraq. and i think most americans perhaps hear the news, see the news and move on to what else is covered that day in the newspaper. and i was thinking about that when i read something that franklin delano roosevelt had said about the shared sacrifice and shared responsibilities of our country. we've been at war nine years in the middle east, iraq and afganistan. and if you look around our country, and especially look around this chamber and evaluate what we have done and what we are preoccupied with, it is very hard to see that our country is at war. oh, there are some young men and women who are sent halfway around the world to strap on ceramic body armor in the morning, get shot at in the afternoon, perhaps get killed.

they're at war. they understand sacrifice. but i wonder if it's not too much business as usual in our country and hasn't been for some long while. and i ask that in the context of the discussion i heard this weekend on the interview shows. i was not in town here this weekend, but i heard some of the discussion. and it was about, well, how about the tax cuts? who can get additional tax cuts at this moment? and who supports maximum tax cuts versus other tax cuts? well, you know, we're at war. we have people dying who serve this country on the battlefield. we have a $13 trillion federal debt. we have a $1.3 trillion budget deficit this year. and the issue is who should get more tax cuts? that's almost unbelievable to me. let me read what franklin delano roos develop said many decades -- roosevelt said many decades ago. he said that not all of us have

the privilege of fighting enemies in distant parts of the world. not all of us work in the shipyards or on the oil fields or mines or producing the weapons or the raw deals needed by our armed forces. but there is one front and one battle where everyone in the united states, every man, every woman, every child is in action, and that front is right here at home in our daily lives, in our daily tasks. here at home, everyone will have the privilege of making whatever self-denial is necessary, not only to supply our fighting men and women but to keep the economic structure of our country fortified and secure. now, i find it a little disheartening that we have so many now who have decided the biggest issue is additional tax cuts. you know, i told someone once that i travel a lot through minneapolis to get to north dakota on weekends, and occasionally at the minneapolis

airport, it will be cold. yes, it will be 40 below and the wind is howling at 35, 40 miles an hour, and you will see a group of people huddled outside the door at the minneapolis airport smoking, smoking cigarettes because there is no smoking inside the terminal. i figure somebody that goes out to smoke when it's 40 below zero and the wind is blowing 35 miles an hour has pretty much given up their claim forever that they can quit any time they want to quit. they have pretty much given up that claim. and i would say similarly those in this chamber who have talked to us about the danger of federal debt and federal budget deficits have pretty much given up their claim forever to say that they care about the economic policy and the deficits and debt that overhang this country if they bring a satchel to the floor with them that says my priority is to give tax cuts to the wealthiest americans when we are at war and $13 trillion in debt. don't tell me you have a claim about caring about federal budget deficits if that's the

agenda you're pushing. now, this question of tax cuts, let me give just a little bit of history. the last time in 30 years that we had -- i should say the first time in 30 years that this country had had a federal budget surplus was in the last year of president clinton's eight years. at that point, we had a federal budget surplus, and all of the economists and others estimated that we would have budget surpluses from that point throughout the following ten years. and so the new president, president george w. bush, said if we're going to have surpluses, an estimated $5.3 trillion of federal budget surpluses in the next ten years, let's take aggressive and quick steps to give back the surpluses in the form of tax cuts. i stood here on the floor of the senate and said wait a second, don't be quite so hasty. we don't have those surpluses yet. we have just had one year of surpluses, and the rest of them are just projections. why don't we wait and be a

little conservative? the answer was, you know what, you don't understand economics. we're going to do this because we're going to have all these surpluses. so very large tax cuts were put in place, the largest for the wealthiest americans, and at that point, we stopped seeing any surpluses at all. the tax cuts were the -- for the purpose of giving back surpluses that were to exist when, in fact, none existed. almost immediately in 2001, we found out we were in a recession. very quickly, we found that there was an attack against our country on 9/11. then we were at war in afghanistan, then at war in iraq, then a nine-year war against terrorists and all the security costs that attend to that. so there haven't been any budget surpluses. and the most unbelievable thing to me is that this country has asked men and women to go off to war and risk their lives and some have given their lives, and this government has not paid for the cost of that war. we have paid for that war in

blood and debt. blood and debt. oh, not the blood of those who serve in this chamber, but blood and debt for sure. now the question is with a a $13 trillion debt and a deep recession, the deepest since the great depression, having gone through and now starting to come out of that recession, the question is the extension of the tax cuts that were provided in 2001. in 2001, those tax cuts had a terms date, and that terms date was this december 31. so the question then is for whom shall tax cuts, if they are to be extended, for whom shall they be extended? it will cost about $3 trillion to extend them for middle-income taxpayers, and another $1 trillion in ten years to extend them for upper income americans. now, let me tell you what i mean by that. the center for budget priorities has said that if you extend them for those over $250,000 a year,

it costs about $1 trillion with interest over the ten years, and in addition, those that make make $1 million a year will get a tax cut of $104,000 a year, $104,000 a year. so here's the question: a country that is deep, deep, deep in debt and projected to go deeper into debt, should this country borrow $1 trillion in order to give a tax cut of of $104,000 a year to someone who makes $1 million a year? or should we perhaps mind the words of franklin delano roosevelt who says perhaps that front, that front in which every man, woman and child can contribute at a time when a country is at war, that front is here at home in our daily lives. here at home, everyone will have the privilege of making whatever self-denial is necessary, not only to supply our fighting men,

but to keep our economy, our economic structure of our country fortified and secure. so a young man named jacob carroll dies today. he's from clemens, north carolina. i didn't know him, nor did i suspect anyone in this chamber, but he died fighting for his country. are we to do less when we see people making the ultimate sacrifice? are we to do less than at least ask for sacrifice by all americans? or are we going to continue to say we will borrow money to continue to prosecute a war? we will send young men and women to risk their lives, but we will not pay for it. we'll just add it to the debt. and when it comes time to answer the question, perhaps in a lame-duck session, at the end of this year, who shall get the benefit of the extended tax cuts? we will also say, some would insist, that those who are

fortunate enough to make make $1 million a year in net income in this country -- quite a blessing, i would say -- those who are fortunate enough to make $1 million a year, we will say to you you are fortunate enough to be able to get another $104,000 tax reduction, another tax cut. why? because a lot of people here believe that that's the way you promote economic progress. not to me. you promote economic progress by demonstrating to the american people that you understand the kind of choking nature that this debt and deficits have on future opportunities and future economic growth in this country. we have all grown up at a time when almost always we understood just viscerally -- we didn't have to be told -- our children will have it better than our -- than we had it. we grew up at a time when it was almost inevitable and we didn't need to be told that we were the biggest, the strongest, the best. we could beat anybody in the

world at almost anything with one hand tied behind our back. but it has changed. it has changed. and now this country needs some good decisions, some tough decisions, some decisions to do the right thing. the question is on these talk shows this weekend will you compromise? the better question is will you do the right thing for a change? we all know, this country knows you can't fight a war for nine years and not pay for any of the cost of it and add it to the federal budget deficit and deficits every single year. we know better than that. that's not the way you run a country. it's not the way you share sacrifice and it's not the way you honor soldiers. you go to war and we'll charge the cost in blood and debt. that is not the way to honor those who fight for our country. now, mr. president, let me mention one final point. it is interesting to me that unless you believe that all tax

cuts that were enacted in 2001 should now be extended in this circumstance, you are a -- "liberal," unquote. you add $1 trillion to the federal budget debt in order to extend tax cuts for those over $250,000 a year or more. it doesn't seem to me like that's a conservative approach. it seems to me that's a liberal approach. if you want to add $1 trillion to the federal debt in order to accomplish that. i wish no one had to pay any taxes. wouldn't that be a wonderful thing? sign me up to say i wish no one had to pay taxes, but the cost of this country's governance, the building of roads, the schools, yes, the defense department, the payment for soldiers and weapons and so on to protect this country, all of that needs to be paid for.

and i -- i do hope that those who decide to affix labels to various positions might well understand that to borrow a substantial portion of money to provide tax cuts when the country is up to its neck in debt is not a conservative position. it just is not. and to suggest that we have fewer extensions of tax cuts for the upper income people so that we don't borrow money to add to the federal debt, that is not a liberal position. it just is not. well, mr. president, let me also mention one final point. it is the case this weekend again with the chattering class that they describe president obama's trip through north -- south korea, rather, as something less than a success because there was not a trade agreement negotiated and completed with south korea. well, that wasn't the president's fault. the fact is the south koreans

were not willing to budge on the significant issue that divides our country and south korea on international trade, and that is the bilateral trade in automobiles. and i won't give a lot of statistics except to say this: 99% of the cars driven on the streets of south korea are made in that country. is that an accident? this is not an accident. that's exactly what they want in south korea. 99% of the cars they drive on their roads are made there because they want south korean jobs to make cars driving on their highways. now, south korea ships us, depending on the year, anywhere between 600,000 and 800,000 cars a year they make in their country to sell in our country. we only are allowed to sell about 6,000 cars a year in south korea. let me say that again. 600,000 to 800,000 cars being shipped this way and 6,000 cars from the u.s. being shipped to north korea -- south korea. that is exactly what the south korean government wants: jobs there, not here.

well, you know what? the president should not have -- and i applaud him -- for being unwilling to negotiate a trade agreement that is so fundamentally at odds with the issue of having jobs in this country. this country needs jobs. we're terribly short of jobs. we shouldn't be negotiating trade agreements that would fritter away those jobs. we at least ought to require fair trade agreements with countries like north -- like south korea. at least fair trade, and that has not been the case. so the president ought not be criticized for not bringing home a bad trade agreement. he was not willing to negotiate a bad trade agreement. good for him. everyone in this country who needs a job ought to stand up and say good for him, good for standing up for this country's interests. no, it's not being protectionist to insist if our market is open to your products, then you open your market to our products. that's called reciprocal trade and fair trade. countries that don't want to do that have to understand there are consequences to that.

so i did just want to say that the president has not failed at all on this issue. when and if the south korean government decides that it wants fair trade and resich cal -- reciprocal trade opportunities between the u.s. and south korea on automobile, on bilateral automobile trade, i expect we will have a trade agreement. until that time, i applaud the president for deciding not to sign a bad trade agreement. i want the president to sign trade agreements that lift this country up and say to people who are not jobless -- and there are millions of them -- that i am fighting for your jobs. it's not protectionist. it's fighting for and demanding fair trade and reciprocal trade treatment with our trading partners. mr. president, i yield the floor and i make a point of order that a quorum is not present. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

youmr. harkin: mr. president?

the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. harkin: mr. president, i ask that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. harkin: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that joel murray, kia mohamanchi, kaelin dubois and kristin miller of my staff be granted floor privileges for the duration of today's session. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. harkin: mr. president, the day after tomorrow, on wednesd wednesday, we are going to have three cloture votes.

these cloture petitions were filed before we broke in octob october, and those will be the first three votes of -- of our returning here this fall. those three cloture votes are, of course, motions to proceed. a motion to proceed on an energy bill, a motion to proceed on the paycheck fairness bill, and the motion to proceed on the food safety bill. mr. president, the food safety bill came out of my committee, out of our "help" committee, on november the 18th of last yea year. we've been working for a year to get this up. it has strong bipartisan suppo support. we tried to get it up before we broke in october but there was an objection levied on the republican side and we were not able to move forward, even though we had been working, senator enzi and i have been working together on this, along with senator gregg and senator burr on the republican side, senator durbin, i and others on the democratic side to get it

worked out. and i believe we're there. this is a bill that has strong support from the consumers' groups, from the -- from the business and industry groups and has strong bipartisan support. so i'm hopeful that we'll be able to get motion to proceed on that. i'll have more to say about that later in the week, specifically on wednesday, but today i just want to confine my remarks to the other two cloture votes, the one on the energy bill and the one on the paycheck fairness act. mr. president, on november the 9th, a bipartisan group of us from the senate, four of us, sent a letter to the majority leader, majority leader reid, about this bill, about the bill that we are going to be voting on the motion to proceed on thursday, the energy bill. basically what this letter that is bipartisan said to our leader

reid was that, you know, the bill, we need to forward on energy legislation, we all recognize that, but there's something terribly missing from this bill. and what's missing from this bill is any mention of biofuels and what biofuels can contribute to our energy independence in this country. and so i'll just say at the outset, mr. president, first of all i'd ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed at this point in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. harkin: but what's missing, as i said, is biofuels. and so while i will certainly vote for the motion to proceed, because i think we should proceed to it, i just want to say at the outset, major changes need to be made in this bill before it could ever earn my support on final passage. let me just talk a little bit about what i think those changes r. now, first of all -- what those changes are. now, first of all, mr. president, i think it's very clear that we have to wean ourselves off of spending more

and more of our taxpayers' dollars, our consumers' dollars on imported oil. i think president bush said th that, president obama said that, so it has -- this is not a partisan issue. it is a national security issue and an issue dealing very much with our economic -- our economic security in this country. and so what's missing from the bill is really a focus, any focus at all on the one thing over the last, say, 20 years that has really decreased our dependence on foreign oil. there's only been one and that's the use of biofuels for transportation. again, we've -- we've -- there's been a lot of different alternatives proposed: natural gas, hydrogen, electric vehicl vehicles, all of which are going to be pursued in the future. but, quite frankly, mr. president, the only thing right now and in the foreseeable next 10, 15 years that's really

going to do anything to decrease our dependence on oil is really biofuels. and, quite frankly, it's been a resounding success story, a remarkable success story with biofuels in this country. here's what we've done. this chart shows that. biofuels production from 1998 up until about 2010, we had a huge increase in the use of biofuels. it's about 10 -- we're up to about 11 billion, 12 billion gallons a year. and under the renewable fuels standard 2 mandate that we passed in 2007, that is projected to go up to 36 billion gallons of biofuels by 2022. that's in the law. that's in the law. 36 billion gallons by 2022. so, again, this is really what's going to replace imported oil, and we're well on our way to doing that right now.

but right now, biofuels is facing significant market limitations. market limitations. well, first of all, about the only thing that can be used is what we call 10% gasahol, e-10. although the e.p.a. just recently came out with a new standard of -- we'll be able to use e-15, or 15% ethanol in model cars 2007 and higher. it is thought that maybe sometime next year, e.p.a. will come out with another standard that will allow maybe as much as 20% ethanol. and these are all well and good. but again, there's a couple of things that really need to be done and first of all, let's keep in mind that use be biofuels is much quicker and much easier, much more cost-effective than, say, using natural gas. for example, to use e-85 or any

blend of biofuels in the pump, it just takes a different kind of a pump. but you as a driver driving your car up there would pick up the handle and put it in your gas tank, just like you do any kind of gasoline today. but natural gas, every station would have to put in a big compressed tank, that would then have to be transferred to a compressed tank, a very strong tank in your car, it would have to be some kind of nozzle that would do that. it wouldn't be just putting gasoline in an engine. so a whole new infrastructure would have to be built to accomplish this. no new infrastructure really needs to be built to put biofuels in your car. so much easier and much more rapidly. now, a couple of things i've said about the infrastructure. first of all, let me talk just a little bit about the -- first of

all, about two things: the energy tax credit, the biofuels tax credit, the ethanol tax credit. right now it is 45 cents a gallon. so there is a lot of talk that when it expires this year, it shouldn't be renewed because it costs $5.9 billion a year. for in tax credit for ethanol. so you you might say, maybe we shouldn't be spending that. well, studies by mackenzie shows that ethanol reduces gasoline prices -- it varies -- but at least by -- by at least a conservative estimate of 17 cents a gallon. so that savings of 17 cents a gallon saves consumers in america $24 billion a year. $24 billion a year. so it's not a net cost to taxpayers but a real savings of four totime five times as much as the cost in the tax credit. secondly, on jobs, everyone is

talking about jobs, we have to have more jobs in this country. well, each one billion gallons of biofuels generates about -- anywhere from 10 howe to 20,000 jobs, a broad range. so if we go from 13 billion gallons today to 36 billion gallons in 2022, that would generate over 400,000 permanent jobs. 400,000 permanent gorks not to mention the number of jobs that would be used in building the facilities, the construction jobs during the building of t now, two other things about market problems. right now -- again we have a problem in terms of the number of cars that can be flexible fuel. every car that general motors makes in brazil is flexible fuel. every car ford makes in brazil is flexible fuel. every car that honda makes in brazil is flexible fuel. it can burn anything from gasoline to 85% ethanol, e-85.

so why aren't they doing it here? the cost is minimal. the second thing is to get blender pumps, pumps at a gas station that can take ethanol and blend it with gasoline, add any mixture that you want, and put it in that flex fuel car. we need two things, more flex fuel cars and more blender bumps. very low cost and very easy to install. senator lou began and i have repeatedly introduced legislation to accomplish this and that ought to be a real part of this energy bill that we're bringing up -- the motion to proceed on thursday. but lastly let me get to this issue. this comes up. that is red herring, comes up all the time. people say it takes more energy to produce ethanol than you get out of t, we've been hearing this for 30 years. and it's simply not true. you know, it's like the old will

rogers saying it, it is not what we don't know that hurts us, it's what we know that ain't so. and what we seem to know that isn't so that it takes more energy to produce ethanol than we get out of it. it's just factually incorrect. gasoline, for example -- now, you think about gasoline. now, this is net energy payback, for every unit of energy going in, how much do you get out? for gasoline, .813. you get less energy out of the gasoline than what you've done to drill for the oil, pump the oil, transport the oil, refine the oil, get the gasoline, pipe the gasoline -- all that takes energy. get about .8. for ethanol, 1.42. now, why is that in why would you get almost -- almost -- half again as much energy from a unit of ethanol than you put into it? very simple. the energy that's in the

biofuels comes from the sun when it is growing. and that's free. that doesn't cost anything. and this figure also takes into account the cost of the fertilizer and what energy it costs to make the fertilizer, the cost of the diesel fuel for the equipment, the cost of harvesting, the cost of transportation. all figured in th noaa this. you still get 1.42 units for every unit going into ethanol. that's just the ethanol. we know that when you take the ethanol out of certain biofuels -- say, corn -- there's something called distillers dry grain that you feed to the cattle, the livestock. if you take that into account, then you get over two times the energy output for every unit of energy you put into ethanol. but, i won't go there. that just happens to be -- i'm just talking about using the ethanol that you would put into

your car, you get a net payback. so again all that you've heard for the last 30 years about how it takes more energy than you get out of it just isn't so. so while i say, mr. president, on thursday the motion to proceed to proceed to the energy bill, fine. i'm going to support that. i want to make it clear, there are going to have to be major changes in the bill b.i.f. could support t one of the major changes is to make sure that we have a strong biofuels section in that bill. now, the second issue that's coming up on thursday that i want to discuss is the paycheck fairness act. again, this is something that i and a lot of others have been working on for a long time. i'd say the legal leaders on this have been senator mikulski and senator dodd have really led the charge on this for a long time. in 63 we passed the equal pay act, 1963. which said that a woman had to

be paid the same as a man for the same job. in other words, if you had the same job -- same job description -- you couldn't have any pay differential. that went in in 1936. however -- however, all these years later, right now a woman earns 77 cents on the dollar for what the man makes. same job. same job. now it's different than that when you're talking about different jobs. i'm talking about doing the same jobscription. why is that? why is it? well, it is because kuwait frankly this wage gab between men and women have been ignored recently and we have built in sort of infrastructures that lend itself to women being shortchanged. studies done by the academy of management perspectives in 2007

tried to explain the difference, why are women making only 77 cents on the dollar for what a man makes? well, race, 2.4%. that's interesting. whrnts they were a member of a union, organized labor. experience, and then the industry category, what industry you were in might explain the difference. for example, the construction industry more heavily for men than for women. and then occupational category, the occupational category itse itself. i've always said truck drivers tend to be men. not women. occupational category. that explains a lot of the differential. the point is that 40% -- 41.1% was unexplained. they could not explain why there was a difference between what a woman an makes and what a man

maifntle what's the difference? quite frankly, the difference is the gender. it is a gender gap. that's what it is. no other thing. nothing else explains it other than that. and the other thing we have to understand is that today two-thirds of mothers are major contributors to family income. almost 40% are the sole breadwinners. think about that. four out of ten mothers are the sole breadwinners of their families. 24% are cobreadwinners, in other words husband and wife both working together. and about 36.7% is other phak. in other words, they may be less than half or a third or something like that because of maybe part-time work or things like that. but the fact is that is not what congress intended when we passed the fair pay act back in 1963. we wanted to close that afnlgt

1973, 1993, 47 years later we still have this gap. well, the paycheck fairness act would strengthen the penalties for discrimination, it will give women the tools they need to identify and confront unfair treatment, we fund education programs designed for women and girls to support and empower them. it would increase training, research, and education to help the equal employment opportunity commission respond to wage discrimination claims more effectively. and again these are -- these are steps meant to make the paycheck -- the equal pay act of 1963 meaningful, meaningful. you know, it's -- it's like, you know, we had a lot of -- we had a lot of bills and stuff in the past on civil rights. but it wasn't until the civil rights act of 1964 that we

actually put teeth in it and made those previous laws something that really meant something. but -- so, mr. president, the paycheck fairness act is something that we can't afford to kick the can down the road any longer. and on the heels of the paycheck fairness act is what i call the faifair pay act. i have been introducing this bill every year since 1996. every session of bill i introduced the bill since 1996. it is basically to understand the gap that occurs in this. this gap right here. this occupational category. you see, there are a lot of women who work at jobs that require as much education, training and that as a man's

job, but it is in a different category. for example, millions of female-dominated jobs like social workers, head start teachers, child-care workers, nurses, nurse assistants, long-term care assistants in our long-term care facilities, they're equivalent in skill and working conditions to similar jobs dominated by men but they pay a lot less. again, this is inexcusable. and that's why i introduced this fair pay act every bill -- every session of congress since 1996. it would require basically companies to publish their job categories and their pay scales. it wouldn't require a company to say what each person is getting paid. it would just say that they would have to publish their pay scales and their job categories. that way people would know what

their contemporaries were make, at least a range of what they were make. i asked lilly ledbetter when she appeared before our committee a couple years ago if the pay -- the fair pay act had been in existence when she was discriminated against would she have been in a better position? and they said, yes. she would have known then that she was being unfairly paid less than what her contemporaries were. so again, why w while we have to move ahead on the paycheck fairness act, we can't forget that there are millions of women who work very hard. they care for our elderly, at the care for our kids, they teach our kids in many cases, they're day-care workers, nurse assistants, they do extremely important work. what we t would we do without t?

but because they're categorized as "women's jobs" they're paid a lot less. for example, i take the difference between the truck driver and a nurse. a truck driver and a nurse. they both require about the same amount of skills, education and training and physical, physical ability. they both require the same amount. a truck driver is making three to four times as much as what a nurse makes. why is that? you kind of think of truck drivers as big, burly men, but with power steering, power brakes, it doesn't require that effort any longer. but a nurse who has to turn patients over, that requires physical effort also. so that's just one example of the disparity that we have in our society. we've got to end this

categorizeation that certain jobs are -- quote -- "women's jobs" and, therefore, we can pay them less. i dare say a truck driver is an important part of our society. i make no bones about it. but so is a long-term care assistant who is taking care of our grandparents or someone on the alzheimer's unit, or a person who is taking care of our kids in the dawn of their life when they're in day-care centers. they do important work, vitally important works and they shouldn't be discriminated against any longer. again, mr. president, on just these two bills, i hope that we will move forward on them. as i said, the third bill is the food safety bill. i'm hoping that we'll move forward on that also and that we can finish that bill by the end of the week. we reported this bill out unanimously out of our "help"

committee last november 18 of last year. there wasn't one -- no vote against it. quite frankly, i dare say that if we could bring the bill out on the floor, i bet we'd get, i bet we'd get 90 votes. but there is a small group on the republican side that are basically filibustering the bill. i am hopeful that in good faith, working with senator enzi, senator burr, senator gregg and others on our side that we can break this logjam and we can get the food safety bill through this week. it is so vitally important. as i said, it's got broad bipartisan support. we worked very hard to keep it that way. we have industry support, consumer group support and certainly it's vitally important to the health and welfare of our country. our food safety laws have not been upgraded in over 30 years, and think about the changes that have taken place in the way we

grow food and ship food and prepare it compared to what it was 30 years ago. so, again, i'm hopeful that we'll be able to bring that up and pass that, not only the motion to proceed, but also the bill itself sometime this week. mr. president, i'll have nor say about that -- i'll have more to say about that on wednesday. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. burris: thank you, mr. president. i ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business. are we in morning business, mr. president? the presiding officer: we are in morning business. the senator is authorized to

speak for up to ten minutes. mr. burris: thank you very much, mr. president. every day we walk the hallowed halls of the united states capitol, a building filled with statues and busts and paintings honoring great americans -- lincoln, washington, dr. martin luther king jr. -- names we will never foth because -- forget because they are individuals who built and altered the foundation of this country. we must also never forget to recognize those americans who may not appear in our history books, but whose contributions have helped write our american story. great americans like dr. margaret buroughs who became a legend in her own time.

dr. margaret buroughs is a true american treasure, an artist, advocate, poet and progressive, mr. president. she celebrated her 93rd birthday this month, and today i ask my colleagues to join me in honoring her. born in louisiana before women could vote, dr. buroughs moved to the south side of chicago when she was five years old, eventually studying at both entkpwelwood -- englewood high school and chicago state university. politically average from an early, dr. buroughs and gwendolyn brooks joined the naacp youth council, and her ambition only grew from there. she taught at desalvo high school for 23 years and taught

humanities at kennedy-king college for over a decade. for most of her 30-year career, teaching thousands of students would be enough, but to dr. buroughs, her life in education was just one part of a story. this extraordinary woman always opened her doors to friends and colleagues. her coach house flat became social center which many called little bhemia. she worked tirelessly to establish the south side community art center, opening in 1940, and she nursed her growing interest in the arts by studying at the art institute of chicago where she earned her masters of fine arts in 1948 and established painter and print maker in her own right, dr. buroughs began exhibitions

in 1949, showing her work all over the united states and abroad. she was generous enough to make gifts of her own work to my daughter and several adorn the walls of my home and my senate office in chicago. when she found that the desabo museum -- when she founded the museum of african-american history, she established herself as one of the institution builders. she created a place where people can come together, a museum that began on the ground floor of her chicago home is now located in washington park, has become an internationally recognized resource of african-american art. dr. buroughs served as director of the museum she founded until she was appointed as a

commissioner of the chicago park district in 1985. she has always been committed to the progressive causes, and she's been a prolific writer over the long course of her rich lifetime. dr. buroughs' contribution to freedoms way, a publication founded by w.e.b. dubois and paul robeson, heroes of her. she served as art director for the nero hall of fame. -- negro hall of fame. she illustrated a number of children's book. she an accomplished poet of african-american culture and served as an often lonely pioneer of black awareness. her writings provide a beacon of hope for a younger generation. her paintings, poems and writings alone make dr. margaret buroughs an important part of american history. but her desire to pass

knowledge, hope and inspiration to future generations means that dr. buroughs will also be a significant part of the fabric of our nation. tens of thousands of african-americans have been touched by her art taught in her classrooms, motivate bid her words and inspired by the institution she helped create. in her 1968 poem, which is entitled "what shall i tell my children who are black," she writes about how we can encourage future generations of african-americans. and she -- and as she celebrates her 93rd birthday on this earth, i ask my colleagues to join me in thanking her for her service. we know that her life work will long be remembered by future generations and by an extraordinary life of an educator, as an artist, a poet,

and a person of inspiration. likewise, mr. president, i would like to express a eulogy of a second great american. many towering figures of american history have walked these halls, leaving their legacy written across our shared history. and one american whose life and works made a deep and indelible mark on this nation is bishop arthur brazer, who passed just last month after a lifetime of leadership. those who knew the bishop personally called him -- and i quote -- "one of the nation's most moral lights," a sta*lt stalwart of the -- a stalwart of the city of chicago, father, leader and friend. bishop brazer was born and raised on the south side of chicago. after just one year in phillip high school, he dropped out to

find work and was promptly drafted into the army where he served as a staff sergeant in india and in miramar, form early known as burma -- formerly known as burma and was discharged in 1945. at the age of 26 the bishop was baptized. he began to study at night at the moody bible institute, a place where my wife served as a professor at moody bible institute. and in 1952, he became the pastor of the universal church of christ eight years later he merged his congregation with the apstole lick church in wood lawn where he was a pastor for more than 48 years, building a congregation of over 20,000

members. for decades bishop brazer fought gangs and crime and pushed for more affordable homes and schools. as a founding president of the wood lawn organization, a group aimed at shepherding the south side community through racial unrest and neighborhood unhaoefl, he -- upheaval he opposed plans by the university of chicago to expand which would have displaced residents. bishop brazer taught the people of chicago and perhaps the people of the united states to always look forward instead of looking back, saying -- and i quote -- "i do not think it behooves us well to keep talking about the past. the american theme is not about -- is not the america of history. the american theme is not the america of history." so, mr. president, all americans can benefit from such a profound

legacy. the life of bishop brazer is a story of expanding equality and opportunity, of people grappling with social change and striving to live up to the promises of equality they innately know belong to them. because of bishop brazer we reminded to care for the poor, focus on spiritual strength rather than material wealth and what we can do to make a difference in our communities. bishop brazer's passing no doubt left a void in the american landscape. but because of his life, sacrifice and his great service, we have the foundation for a better tomorrow. our prayers are with his wife, isabel brazer, his son dr. byron brazer, his daughters, and the

other countless family members and friends who loved and followed this great man. so, mr. president, it is a great honor and privilege that i stand on the floor of the united states senate and speak on behalf of these two great americans, these two great chicagoans and illinoisans who have done so much for our city, our state, and our nation. it is my hope and prayer and my parting words in this united states senate that these individuals will be memorialized in the body of this great united states senate. mr. president, i thank you so much and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. reid: mr. president? the vice president: the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be terminated. the vice president: without objection. mr. reid: i ask there be order in the senate chamber.

the vice president: the senate will be in order. the vice president: the chair lays before the senate the certificates of election to fill the unexpired terms for the states of delaware and west virginia. the certificates the chair is advised are in the form suggested by the senate. if there is no objection, the reading of the certificates will be waived and they will be printed in full in the record. if the senators-elect will now present themselves to the desk, the chair will administer the oath of office.

the vice president: please raise your right hand. do you solemnly swear that you will support and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that you will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that you take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that you will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which you are about to enter, so help you god. mr. coons: mr. manchin: i do. the vice president: congratulations, senator.

the vice president: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. inhofe: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: i ask that the quorum call in progress be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: and, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that i be recognized as if in morning business for such time as i shall consume. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: thank you, mr. president. the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: well, i need to tell molly that i've reduced the length of my speech from one hour to 30 minutes. because of something that i totally did not expect. however, i think it's going to have a happy ending.

let's -- i think the bottom line in all this discussion, the earmarks, or however you want to word it, is that we've got to do something about excessive spending. it's something we cannot continue. it's not sustainable. i think everyone agrees with that. you know, it's kind of interesting to me, when i see the -- the presiding officer: the senate is not in order. the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: it's interesting for me when i see the president and the passage of such things as the $787 billion stimulus and all of that to say we're going to form a commission to see how we can keep from spending so much money. well, that's how you do it, you just don't do things like that. let me say, first of all, after this election, the tea party did play a big part in this thing. and i have to say that i was very excited about it early on. i think i might have been the first republican anyway to go to marco rubio and support him in his efforts down in florida and

several of the others. and i think it's -- it's clearly a good thing, a change. i think and the american people have clearly spoken. now, in spite of what you might have heard from the media, let me just clear up one thing. never have i once had any indication of trying to influence anyone from voting in -- in -- for or against a -- a ban on earmarks. because -- and you'll find out in just a minute how i can come to this conclusion and why it wasn't -- wouldn't really be necessary, it doesn't make all that much difference. but before i do, let me just kind of, to make sure that people understand, you're hearing these comments not just from any member of the senate but some -- from someone who probably i'd have to say has been declared as the most conservative member of this body more times than anybody else has most recently by the "national

journal," and so you're hearing this from someone who is a -- a conservative. and someone who's also lonely. you know, i go back quite aways but i can remember my two favorite senators, my mentors, i guess i should say, were jesse helms and -- and the senator from -- from nebraska, carl curtis. now, both of them deceased. it's been quite some time since carl curtis was serving. but nevertheless, i always remember, i was in the state senate -- this was many years ago -- and the -- and i was recognized as a conservative at that time. carl curtis was serving here from nebraska and he's the guy, you might remember, mr. president, who consistently year after year after year introduced the budget balancing amendment to the constitution. well, he called me up one day -- this is back in the 19 70's -- and he said, inhofe, i know that you and i share the same

philosophy, i can never get this up for a vote. and the excuse that the liberals use is that you'll never be able to get three-fourths of the states to pass a resolution ratifying the constitution. so his idea was kind of ingenius. what he said was, i'll go ahead and get started and stand behind you and we'll find you and enough other states to make up three-fourths of the states and we will pre-ratify a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. well, i didn't really understand how it would work but we talked about it for awhile, so i said, well, let me try it. and so i did. in the state senate, i preratified a balanced budget amendment to the constitution. it was really kind of fun, because after that, i started going around to other states and getting them to do the same thing. we got up to within i think four states of being able to do it before it started to unravel. but a guy named anthony

herrigan, he was a syndicated columnist from down south someplace, he wrote an editorial or an op-ed piece that got published and it was called "a voice in the wilderness." he said, way out in the state of oklahoma, there's one state legislator who's going to balance the federal budget. and so that was kind of the beginning of kind of a lonely ride that i've had. since that time, i remember serving in the house of representatives, and at that time, johns nance garner -- this was 80 years ago -- john nance garner was the speaker of the house. and john nance garner devised a system. here was the problem that he had. people were getting more and more informed on how people are voting in america, and so he had all his west texas members and they didn't want to vote for the liberal agenda of the democratic party. i mean, can you see anyone from west texas voting for gun control? it just isn't going to happen. and so he devised a system -- this is kind of ingenius -- corrupt but ingenius -- and that

was a discharge petition so that if you -- in the house of representatives, if you want to take up a bill, you have to have it either come out of a committee or, if it's in a committee, you have to have a discharge petition -- sign a discharge petition to force it to come out. now, he wants his members to be able to say that they signed the discharge petitions and yet they wouldn't sign them. and so the bills would never come out. and they kept the discharge petitions in a locked door, just like you have, mr. president, right up there in front of the whole house of representatives. and you couldn't open up the drawer unless you were signing a discharge petition. he couldn't copy down the names of anyone else who has. what i didcy set up a system where i had people go up and memorize names and then i went a hea-- went ahead and disclose al

of this. the punishment was to be expelled from the house of representatives. i said, okay, that's fine. i'll go ahead and do it anyway. let them expel me. i'll run for the vacancy. who is not going to elect someone who was expelled because he shed light on the system. and it worked. it was disdisclosed in several publications. the single greatest reform in the hour of the house. then along came global warming. we remember the kyoto treaty. back then -- in fact back during the clinton-gore years when the kyoto first came up, most people thought this was going to be something that would be ratified until they looked at it and saw what it would cost to do this. and the cost was somewhere between -- it was always between $300 billion and 400 billion. and so i looked at that and we all looked at it. we thought, do we really want to ratify this commission. well, as it turns out, we didn't. one reason is because senator byrd was the primary mover in a

motion to stop it from happening unless the developing countries had to pay the same price as the developed nations. and of course they didn't do it so it didn't happen. then they started -- several people said, let's do it unilaterally. and we had the mccai mccain-lieberman bill of 2003 and the mccain-lieberman bill of 2005. at that time i was enjoying being in the majority. the occupier of the senate has never been in the minority, so he may not know what i am talking about. in the majority you can do a whole lot more things than you can in the minority. i chaired a committee called the environment and public works committee. that had jurisdiction over all the energy issues but also over this global warming thing. i have to confess, i assumed back then -- and this is back in about 2502 -- in about 2002 that the catastrophic global warming was a result of anthropogenic

gases or man-made gas of methane, co2 and the case. i assumed that until the wharton cool came out and came to the conclusion that if we were to pass at that time the mccain-lieberman bill it would cost between $300 and $400 billion. my effort then as chairman, let's look at see where the science t that's when we got the relate real dishaition it all started in the united nations they developed the icpp, the intergovernmental panel on climate change. that was the science behind t we kept getting complaints because i'd statements on the floor questioning the science. then scientists started coming out. well, the bottom line is this: after a period of time took lace, up until a year ago right now, it looked as if people recognized that it wouldn't do any good if we did unilaterally

pass it. even lisa jackson, the head of the environmental protection agency said that they would be -- that if the united states alone passed something to stop to -- to stop the different emissions, co2 emissions, it wonk have any effect globally because that's just the united states doing t in fact you could argue it had just the opposite effect because power companies -- companies seeking power would have to go to cps countries where they didn't have these restrictions and it would actually increase co2. the bottom line was that i made the comment -- this has been now eight years ago the idea that catastrophic global warming is a result of man-made gases is the greatest single hoax ever perpetrated on the american people. everybody hated me now it looks like we won that argument. i mention this because i am very much concerned -- i understand the argument on both sides of the whole thing about the

earmarks. and i had put up my number one chart there. kay and i have 20 kids and grand kids. this little guy right here came up to me and he said, pop-i. "i" is for inhofe. he said, why is he to do things nobody else does? that's a little reason why i got into this very difficult issue. i have to say it is something that needs to be talked about today because something is going to happen this week. i think we can turn this into something that is very good. the tea party people came in. my concern has been over the last two years and longer than that, all we've heard about is people, quite frankly, demagoguing this thing on

earmarks, saying earmarks, earmarks, earmarks. all the time that happened, what happened? we ended up with the president and the majority increasing the debt to $13.4 trillion in america, and that's a larger increase than all presidents from george washington to george w. bush combined and at the same time giving my 20 kids and grandkids a $3 trillion deficit. so we were trying to look at this thing and say how we can take care of this situation and the increase of the debt was something not sustainable. i think we all understand that. i was going to try to accomplish two things to stop the disem going ting and to solve the problem and -- to stop the demagoguing and to try to solve the pron. today i have introduced senate bill 3939 -- s. 3939. now, i grant you that senator mcconnell's announcement changed the way in which i was

going to present this. but the bottom line is this: it would be nothing short of criminal to g all the trouble of electing great antiestablishment conservatives who only have to cede to president obama their constitutional power of the purse, which is exactly what happened happen, as has been pointed out with a moratorium on earmarks. i want to read one statement out of senator mcconnell's thing that i think is worth repeating. with republican leaders in congress united, the attention now turns to the president. we have said we're willing to give up discretion. now we will h see how he handles spending decisions. if the president ends up with total discretion over spending, we will see even more clearly where his priorities lie. we already saw the administration's priorities in the stimulus bill and that's become cinnamon must with wasteful spending. true. that borrowed nearly $1 trillion for administration earmarks like

the turtle tunnels and the sidewalk that led to the ditch and all this stuff we've been hearing about which i will elaborate on in just a minute. but nonetheless i think it is important that we have to look at that. now, why i thought it was wrong -- put up chart number one -- was when you describe an earmark -- i think anymor anytime you wo eliminate something, you have to describe t there was no problem until a year ago in the house, the house republicans -- you not the whole house but the republicans said resolve that the policy of the republican conference is no congressional member should request an earmark or a limited tariff bivment as such terms are used in clause 9, rule 21, of the house rules. well, if you look at clause nine, rule 21, that applies to appropriations. so what they were saying at that time, they were not going to appropriate anything.

but there's one problem with that. put up chart two. chart two is article 1, section 9, of the constitution. now, that's what we're supposed to be doing here. i want to elaborate on that a little bit because i think it fits in this debate pretty well. chart two -- the article one, section 9 of the constitution makes it very clear that we in the united states senate and the house of representatives are the ones who are supposed to be spending money. quote -- "no money shall be drawn from the treasury, but of appropriations made by law." all three of the people that were driving this thing -- the senators, by the way, that were involved in the earmark thing and giving proper credit or blame depending on how you look at it the first one is -- went back the furthest was senator mccain, then senator coburn and more recently senator demint. and they all embrace the house definition of "earmarks." i have a chart that shows that but it is not necessary to do

tsm i think everyone realize that. now, let's go back to the constitution -- well, that's right there. the constitution restricts spending to only the legislative branch and specifically denies that honor to the president. we take an oath of office to uphold the constitution. that means we take an oath of office to uphold article 1, section 9, of the constitution. it's important that we elaborate on that -- on the constitution because a lot of people -- if you get this fixed in your mind, if there's any doubt that we're supposed to be doing it and not president obama or the executive branch, then listen to this: franklin delano roosevelt said it is the duty of the president to propose and the privilege of congress to dispose. james madison said the power over the purse in fact may be regarded as the most complete infectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people for obtaining a redress in every grievance. why is that sth in he went on to

say no not just the federalist papers but elsewhere that the reason that the -- they called it the direct representative. at that time they didn't have senators. but the direct representatives were -- should do the spend something for two reasons. number one is that they are the ones who know their own state or colony or province, their own area better than the president z particularly back in those days. but it is also true today. the second reason is that if they don't like the way they're doing, if they can immediately go out and vote them out of office. look what happened november 2. that's exactly what did happen. that was made son. alexander hamilton tad said the legislature not only prescribed the purse but describes the ryes of which the citizens are to be regulate. there is no wiggle room in that. we're supposed to be asked. the supreme court -- i was talking to someone with "investors' business daily." said you probably never heard of goaf joseph story.

i wish i could remember his name. he said, oh, no he said, i live out here now but when i lived in washington, i went to a weekly meeting. it was the joseph story fan club or something like that. anyway, in his commentaries on the u.s. constitution in 1833, he states -- and this is justice joseph story, "it is highly proper that congress should possess the power to decide how and when any money should be applied. if it were otherwise, the executive would possess an unbounded power, congress is made the guardian of the trearchlt" i say all of this to make sure that, impress upon any impartial patriot that the legislative branch -- that's us -- and only the legislative branch has the power to spend money, according to the constitution. now, how does a ban on earmarks cede authority to the president? this is significant and although senator mcconnell didn't mention it this morning, let me say what he would have said had he had time, i believe.

it also will show how this can impact -- can be impacted by s. 3939. i tell you, it couldn't be a more appropriate time to introduce this in light of what's happening. prez president obama -- this is it sets up -- any president -- submits a budget to congress which congress either accepts all or part of or rejects all or part of. if we reject it we substitute what the obama requests are with what we think is better for america. the cost is the same. i've often said that stopping an earmark doesn't save any money. not many people understand this, but a it doesn't because all we're doing is taking what the president would have spent on an item and changing that spend chiewrks canceling that and putting the same money somewhere else. for example, in his military budget -- and i knew that you know, president obama doesn't feel the same way i feel about the priorities of defending america. that should be our number-one priority. i don't think he believes that. but nonetheless in his budget he asked for $300 million and

something -- plus or minus -- for a launching system that is a good launching system. it was called a bucket of rockets. and it is one that i would like to have. but when we went to the armtd services committee -- and keep in mind these committees like the senate armed services committee are staffed with professionals. a lot are former military people, scientists, people who really understand how we can best with limited resources defend this country. and so we took the $300 million for that system and said, we put that same $300 million, canceled the launching system and put in six new f-16 fighter -- f-18 fighters. they're actually f-18a & f fighters. if we substitute our appropriation for his budget item, it would be an earmark by any definition. if we place a moratorium on earmarks, we would have to

accept obama's original q this is a concern that i have, but it does lead to a handing, as you'll find out in a sefnlgtd therefore, we won't have any additional f-18's but -- so there is he no money saved. in other words, he would be doing what james madison wanted us to do. the senate is taken out of the process and cedes its power to president obama. if we had not cede that had authority previously, we would not have unmanned aerial vehicles. the air force is operating 36 continual combat air patrols in southwest asia. that was a congressional earmark. we wouldn't have it. instead we would have whatever that replaced in the budget. we would not have approved armored vehicles and add-on armor. that was a congressional earmark. we would not have mine-resistant ambushed vehicles to save lives. again, that was a congressional earmark. we would not have had $14.42

million for detection of land mines and detection of suspected bomb makers in i.e.d. makers in iraq and afghanistan. that was a congressional aoefrplt it was my congressional earmark. the moratorium would not allow us to change anything in the obama budget. it would allow president obama to perform our constitutional duties. but in a minute i'll give you a solution. and meanwhile, we cannot continue to do the big spending, and i think a ban on earmarks has at least focused right on this problem for right now. i mention pw-fd there are two problems -- i mentioned before there are two problems i have with a ban on earmarks. the other is it cedes to the

president constitutional duties. put up chart is four. i was going to say, technically by the definition, this would be true. i was going to say these were the four big of the earmarks -- biggest earmarks of 2008. they can argue they are not earmarks. they can argue this is not the intent. nonetheless by the definition i showed you, these are earmarks. let's look at what they are. this is the tarp thing. i was one of them who opposed that $700 billion we gave to an unelected bureaucrat with no oversight. the mortgage bailout $100 billion. the pelosi-bush stimulus. pepfar a program that does some good but not expanded to the point it is right now. if you total that up, that's $1.2 trillion. i'm not as smart as a lot of the

guys in this chamber, and so when i see the billions and millions, the trillions, my head starts to spin, and i'm not sure how this really affects us. put chart 5 up. what i've developed in oklahoma -- no one around here is aware of this -- is the inhofe factor. what i do is take this -- and i'll use 2009. in 2009, $2 trillion in taxes was paid by individuals across the country. $18 billion kwaeupl from oklahomaans -- came from oklahomans. the average oklahoma individual tax return for that year -- and that was 2009 -- was $11,100. therefore, the average oklahoma taxpayer is responsible for providing -- and i have the percentage down here of the total federal revenue. so for every $10 million in sphaoerpbgd in washington,

oklahomans pay a nickel. i'm taking every family in oklahoma that files a tax return. that's what it amounts. let's see the next one. continuing's -- i think it's -- if you use that -- by the way, i say to some of my friends from other states, yours isn't going to deviate too much from that because oklahoma is not that much different than some other states. what did it cost you to, on the four largest, what i call the four largest earmarks? if you apply that to oklahoma, each family in oklahoma who files a tax return, it would cost each family $5,683. that's each family that files a tax return. in earmarks, the total of all projects requested by me in 2008 was $80 million. most of these were military

things, some of which i just talked about. if you apply the same factor to $80 million, it would cost each family in oklahoma, 40 cents. look at this now, each family 40 cents as opposed to the four largest things, $5,683. i had said that because continuing's important that -- because i think it's important that we look at these things and quit talking in terms of billions of trillions of dollars and know what it is for each family. even though i'm ranked as the most conservative member by many organization, i'm a big spending in three areas. one is national defense twaofplt is -- two is infrastructure. that's roads, highways and bridges. we have a crumbling infrastructure throughout america. i think we all understand that. the governor of pennsylvania and i talked about that. we agree that infrastructure is very important. that's something government is supposed to be doing. the third thing where i could be

considered to be a big spender is unfunded mandates. i was the mayor of a city at one time. i often tell my friends in the senate, if you want a hard job, become a mayor because there's no hiding place when you're a mayor; right? so, if there's a problem, they don't like the trash system, it ends up in your front yard. it did. i was there. that was something that we should be spending. if you go back to chart 4 and put chart 4 back up, we have got to follow this kind of carefully. o.m.b. stated our earmarks for 2010 were $11 billion. they have their definition of earmarks, so people are saying that is a good definition. these four obligations -- let's say they're not earmarks but they could be defined as that. that would be $1.2 trillion. if you would take the $11 billion and do your math, you would find that the earmarks are

1/100ths of these four spending bills. the total a.2010 earmarks were only 1% of these huge spending bills. of the three drivers of the earmark wagon -- senator mccain voted for all four of these or supported all four of these. senator coburn, my junior senator and good friend, brother -- some people know what i'm talking about -- he voted for half of them. and senator demint and i opposed all four. my point is that the public has been focusing so intently on earmarks, that 1% figure, they overlooked the huge bills that spend 100 times more than all the earmarks, and we ended up with the $13.4 trillion increase in the debt and then my 20 kids and grandkids having to pay for $3 trillion of the deficit

increase. now, there are -- that kind of left out senator demint. let me say this, and i say this in love but i think it's very important that we understand there is a commitment on behalf of every senator, all 100 senators in this chamber, to help people in the states. and i have that as well as he does. so let's talk just for a minute about senator demint. in 2004, the republicans were the majority. i was the chairman of the environment and public works committee. that takes care of all the transportation, highways, infrastructure, that type of thing. when i was chairman, at senator demint's request, of south carolina, to support his commitment to highway earmarks, he promised south carolinians funding and said -- quote -- "i

am not only supporting projects but i have a good working relationship with the people to get it done." i guess it was me. subsequent to that senator demint got 13 earmarks in place in places like myrtle beach, engineering design and construction for $15 million and then $10 million for an access road. and the list goes on and on. but i tell you what, it does actually get a little bit better until we look into it, because the -- on september 30 of 2009, there was a vote on a $2.5 billion amendment to add ten additional charleston, south carolina, base c-17's. $2.5 billion. the citizens against government waste listed this as the single largest defense earmark of 2009. senator demint voted for it,

and south carolina was very appreciative. it was the largest single largest defense earmark of 2009. just last week senator demint told the greenville news that he wants to reform the harbor maintenance trust fund to get back the money south carolina contributes. he's going after specific funding, $400,000. whether the money comes from the corps of engineers or the harbor maintenance trust fund, it's still an earmark under anyone's definition. toepts put that money -- he wants to put that money into a fund and study rather than operations and o&m. he's doing what he's supposed to be doing. he's doing what the constitution tells him to do. he's looking after the needs of the people of south carolina. and i'm looking after the needs of the people of oklahoma. i'm not sure if we left this up to president obama that he would be very generous to south carolina or oklahoma.

i'm defending him, saying that he's entitled to do this and he should be doing this. this is why hamilton and madison gave the power to spend to the legislature. all those earmarks -- and you might say to senator demint, is adaptable. kind of reminds me of the guy that had been out of town for two years. he called up his dearest friends, mr. president. he said to his friends, mary, how are you doing? this is tom. she said so good to hear from you. it's been two years. he said how's old jim getting along? she said didn't you know. jim's dead. what happened to him? he went down to the garden to pick some beans for dinner and leaned over and had a heart attack and fell on his face dead. he said you poor thing, mary. what ever did you do? she said there is only one thing we could do. we had to open a can of peas.

there is one thing about being adaptable and i think senator demint is. i think we're talking about not a can of peas but a can of worms. the government does have a function to provide infrastructure, roadways and all of this. i'll mention a couple of others in a minute. people are -- they are concerned about their states. there's one significant factor that needs to be elaborated on at this point. on one of the arguments that i thought was not a sound argument they used, they said earmarks are a gateway drug that needs to be eliminated in order to demonstrate that we are serious about fiscal restraint. there's just one problem with that. it's not true. according to the office of management and budget and federal spending, watchdog groups such as the citizens against government waste, the earmarks have dramatically decreased over the past several years. o.m.b., the office of management and budget, they said in 2005, the total earmarks were $18.9 billion. in 2008, $16.6 billion. in 2009, $15.3 billion.

in 2010, $11.1 billion. wait a minute. that means that, why do you suppose they are reducing every year? they are because we are demanding more light so that people can know what they're spending money on. i'd say the earmarks are hardly a gateway drug, a symptom of federal spending run amok or underlying cause to our fiscal problem. why? because we have shed light on earmarks. let us add why it -- shining light can be the first stop. in 2009 the senate performed a rare action of considering many appropriations bill individually rather than the irresponsibly lumping them like we're doing today, into one vote at the end of the year. the value of that, considering them individually, is that it gives senators the opportunity to exercise some oversight of government programs and to monitor how federal departments spend money. so in 2009, senators could offer

amendments to cut, both cut spending and strike particular earmarks if they desired. from july until november of that year -- 2009 -- there were 18 votes specifically targeting earmarks. all the amendments failed. had they succeeded, it wouldn't have reduced the overall amount of money being spent by the federal government by one dime. instead of putting money back into the pockets of the american people by reducing spending or shrinking the deficit, these efforts to eliminate earmarks would have put the money into the hand of president obama. by allowing his administration to spend the money as he saw fit. at the end of the day none would have saved money. president obama is the winner. the american people are the loser. in another case, members offered amendments to strike funding out of the program called save america's treasures. you've heard a lot about this. specific art things around here. they offered amendments to strike them, and they did strike them. what happened?