that amounts to about 20,000 young people who are housed in crowded conditions. and if any of you have spent any time in a facility, what you know is it's not just it's a little crowded. you know that it smells, it's noisy, no privacy, and it's degrading. sometimes anecdotes show kids are put in bathrooms, in hallways and other public places. and so beyond all of these different, really inappropriate ways to house children there's the issue, there's the fact that violence is directly linked to crowded conditions. and so one of the studies we conducted was the relationship between crowded conditions and be subsequent violence in a facility. ..

one that requires emergency hospital care, which is a pretty significant step for a facility to take in terms of staffing and overtime and the like. moving on to health this chart shows across many conditions, some related to behavioral risk factors and many not. across all of these conditions, use your inner facility population are on the whole about 25% more likely to have any of these conditions.

these young people are underserved when they arrived, and in need of health care intervention. the courts say that you are legally required to provide youth with some form of health care, but the form of the health care is a standard at which it is provided, and the extent to which is provided is not really made clear. basically we can agree that there is a basement terms of the standards, and that basically is to check and make sure that the youth is mostly a lie that is going to stay that way. until the general population. and here we see using the lowest level standard possible, whether or not facilities in the united states meet these lowest standards, and what we see in the red column, and in the dark blue column our facilities that are partially or fully noncompliant with a very basic health care requirements of making sure that the youth is

not suffering. for example, from an injury or trauma or intoxicated or is at risk of suicide as they walk in the door. and surprisingly then we see in this chart that the risk of death in the facility is, on average, three times greater than that in the general population of youth. we can argue if the general population of youth is the appropriate comparison point, i myself feel that, of course, it is, but others feel that you should look at the highest risk youth as a comparison point. but nontheless, what we see is used in the system are much more likely than kids on the outside to die from suicide and from illnesses. they are not only likely -- more likely to die in the system, they are more likely to die upon release. that is a strong 90 notches in the united states but around the world. i'm going to skip that slide, and try to keep up with time

here, but one of the things that occurred to us when we are looking at these issues, if there are no real strong guidelines about how to provide health care, about how to protect youth, about how to relieve crowding, about how to -- wants the court doing and how are they responding to these issues. as you can imagine, the burden of proof is rather high, and in civil litigation which is to come point of relief for use have suffered bad outcome, in particular death and suicide, the courts are the way to go. so we looked at every single reported case that was a case related to a family or a youth bringing a charge of either negligent or failing to treat, and the outcome in each case, either a death from suicide or a serious irreparable damage from a suicide attempt. so we looked at all these 37

court cases, granted it doesn't represent the full universe of cases, and we found that across 37 cases, of all these cases, just one made it through the appeals process. so, four to six could make it through the first round in the court, but by the circuit court review, there was only one that succeeded. and the final value for the plaintiff in this case was $34,000. so it was kind of mind-boggling to realize that 37 deaths in situations that were not simple kids just taking opportunity, never finds and there were rules that have been violated, and gross negligence. they were just $34,000, which to me and i'm sure to use certainly does not validate the loss of a life of this young person.

there are differences between circuit courts and the like that are not going to deeply into this. finalizing today's lecture, is what happens if we stay status quo? what if we just didn't do nothing and we keep the system as it is? first of all we are not saving any money by continuing to not invest federal dollars. taxpayers are still going to foot the bill, regardless whether we're doing it through and hospitals, through pain through loss of community stability, through loss inability to be gainfully employed. so there's no game there. we haven't seen any reductions despite the general reductions in some areas of crime. for serious violence for youth and that's a pretty significant warning sign.

so we might be thrilled and happy that the crime rate has reduced in some areas, although if you follow this very closely, know that we've seen increases in pockets, particularly in property crime. we know that the serious violent rate for youth is not decreasing. so here's the investment is much better and prevention than it is in the so-called treatment, which is what we consider incarceration and the like. and what we also consider the fact that we have seriously underestimated the publics willingness here to pay for prevention up front. and so i think when we have lawmakers who are sticking with the slogan to get tough on crime and reform this, and three strikes back, and do all of that, we are really doing a disservice to the public and we are really underestimating their ability to understand what it is that they can contribute through

taxpayer dollars to making a better life for these kids, who at the end of the day they will be responsible for anyway. and so with a final plug, rational legislation is probably the only thing that can help us at this point. what's promised in the youth promise act is everything we need to guide states, to provide guidance, to achieve binding standards with the states and localities, to allow local decisions, to benefit from local strengths and assets, and to bolster what we've already invested in other social programs, like head start. and we can also anticipate further risks as the system continue to adjust to the loss of economic resources. so with california closing facilities, which is great news, other states closing prisons, we still are going to be addressing the ramifications, crowding and the subsequent violence that will inevitably take place, and

we can anticipate that. with that i will leave it and say thank you very much, and again, i'm very honored to be your. >> thank you very much. [applause] >> doctor, are you going to make your slides available so we can put them on our website? >> absolutely. >> they will be on our website. and also appreciate the fact that you're talking about we are already paying, the program should talk to our primary prevention which would not let reduce crime but also teen pregnancy, dropouts and a lot of other problems. you point out that we're paying already the hospital costs, the prisons, particularly youth prisons which can run $100,000 or more per year. reduction in cost for teen pregnancy, fewer medicaid and social services, and so like you said we are already paying. thank you very much. dr. leap.

>> hi. i'm jorja leap, and i am honored to follow doctor gallagher, that i embarrassed to tell you that while i am a professor, what i do, i'm going to try to move this over, okay, i am a different type of scientific i'm an anthropologist. and most anthropologists go to foreign countries and study tribes. my tribe consists of the young people who have either been in games, are in gangs, or are thinking about joining gangs. i do my best with the city of los angeles, and as you know, most people think of it as ground zero for games. one out of every gang member in the united states of america resides in los angeles. i have a lot of people to observe and i have a lot of people that i spend my time with, who i talk with, who i live with, who are my sisters and brothers, my god children,

and they are my guides. i have interviewed and done histories on over 300 gang members picket i think it's very important. we've heard a lot of stories here today and we're going to hear a lot of stories here today, but it want to mention a group that hasn't been mentioned, which are women and young girls. and i'm looking out at some of your faces, knowing that your sisters are a part of gangs or at risk of joining gangs in our country, as well as trends nationally right now. now, as i have listened to these voices that we rarely hear and we're so lucky to hear them today, as i listen to these voices that i rarely hear, there was a young man who was 18 years old, one month passed his 18th birthday, he was facing life in prison without the possibility of parole. precisely like mr. hill harper

offered the account in that letter. his entire life was gone one month after his 18th birthday. and he asked me a question. he said, why wasn't there anyone to tell me there was another way to go? and his question has haunted me. i am sorry to be here talking in support of the youth promise act. let me tell you why i am sorry. i was here over three years ago talking in support of the human promise act. why am i still here talking in support of this? why isn't it already law? why isn't it already funded? you're going to hear from panelists, and jefferson perilous you are telling the truth. they are armed with statistics. they are on with information. i can tell you what i am armed with from the streets. i in armed with these words, why isn't there another way?

i am armed with the stories of people, like a young woman i know named dark eyes, who committed her first crime when she was 10 years old. her father belonged to a game. her mother was a drug dealer. her brothers and sisters were all in a game. why wasn't there another way? and i'm not here just ask that question. for the past three and a half years i have been engaged in evaluation of homeboy industries. some of you may have heard of homeboy industries father greg boyle who is an amazing man was here on capitol hill, also advocating for the youth promise act. for three years i have studied homeboy industries. i was very honored to see one of our other speakers, frankie, come visit there. homeboy industries is the largest gang intervention agency in the united states of america. it offers all the things that we're talking about here.

mentoring, therapy, counseling, education, job training, and a place to belong. after three years. and by the way, my studies going to last at least five years, i've been following former gang members for these past three years. 300 of them. two-thirds of them have not gone back to jail. two-thirds of them have not come back to prison. [applause] >> really. and the reason why is that homeboy offers exactly what the youth promise act talks about, and it can only reach 400 people. that is all the funding they have. they need is so great. the funding is small, and we have to ask ourselves, why aren't we doing better by our children. i have also been working, i had been honored to work in jordan

downs, which is one of the most gang infested housing projects in the united states of america. every wednesday night i go there with a courageous group of men who are gang members who want to make sure that their children do not join gangs. even active gang members look for something like the youth promise act. i can tell you what it takes. it takes community involvement. it takes former gang members and former in cars rated youth to reach out, because they have street credibility. it takes professionals, therapists, doctors, lawyers who can expunge records. and it takes research like what dr. gallagher is doing, what i am doing, what a lot of researchers across the country are doing. it takes all of those elements. we know it's best practices. everyone in this audience knows it's best practices, without

having read a scholarly article or look at statistics. it is pure common sense. to incarcerate a youth in california costs $180,000. to put them through the program at homeboy industries for one year, full-time, costs $30,000. i am not a math whiz. i am an anthropologist. i can tell you one is cheaper than the other. what are we doing? why am i still here? why are we talking about the youth promise act? we have to engage and make sure this becomes public policy law and is funded. we need to think about how many poets we have lost, how many doctors we've lost, how many musicians we have lost. how many scientists have we lost. who has died because this act is

not yet law? what is the matter with us? everyone -- i want everyone to leave this room thinking of the question that was asked of me, thinking about what a young boy, a young boy it was facing the rest of his life in prison asked me. we have to all engage, and worked unceasingly to make this act law. we have to think of that question, why wasn't there someone to show me another way? we have to dedicate ourselves to the no child, no youth, no young adult ever asking that question again. i would urge you to talk one another. i would urge you to listen to these voices. i would urge you to read all of the books that are talked about.

i would also urge you to listen to what the young man had to say, and other young men like him have to say. and i would urge us all to find an answer to that question. why wasn't there someone to show me another way? i'm glad you are all here. i'm glad we are engaged in this research. i'm glad we are engaged in this kind of public policy, but we need to make it a policy of this country. we need to find the funding for these programs. we need to make sure that there are those comprehensive wraparound services here we need to make the youth promise act law. thank you so much. [applause] >> chairman scott, could we ask that doctor lee's fine presentation a request that everyone that sees or hears about this afternoon's activity

check and ask their member of congress about where they stand on this subject? >> sounds like a good idea. [applause] >> bobby kipper. >> thank you, congress has got. thank you again for having me to capitol hill to talk about such an amazing, i think legislation, that i am with dr. leap. i wonder why we continue to come and talk about this. i believe congressman scott, you and i have been doing this for about two decades. >> or better. >> maybe legislation was a proposed but we were talking a long time ago in her hometown of newport news, virginia which brings me to my remarks today. 1977 i joined my hometown police department in newport news, virginia. everybody wants to do what you want to be when you grow up. well, as a third grader i always wanted to be a police officer.

so i got that opportunity at a young age of 20. i joined a department and i saw a lot of things i found were very unusual, but also remember being judged by the number of people that we've locked up. a good police officer works on numbers. a good police officer was one who stepped up to the plate and make sure that everybody knew who he was in the community, not from a peaceful perspective but from a perspective of making sure that incarceration was at the top of your list. i went on that track for number of years early in my police career, and then i was asked by one of the supervisors to go to one of our local elementary schools. it was actually a primary, a very young primary school. on 16th street down in newport news, and they wanted me to give a talk on citizenship. so there it was, a young white male police officer going into a predominately an african-american populated school. made up many of kindergarten

through second grade students. as i walked in i learned that this was the graduation. i was told very quickly that this was the first step in a head start program, and not being very familiar with educational policy at the time, i had to inquire exactly what that meant. i was told very quickly that a number of these children had not earlier in the education showed promise to be able to achieve those early childhood educational goals. well, being a person who questions just about everything in life, i wondered how that could be. and then i was told that many of these children did not have the opportunity to have early childhood education. i began as a young police officer to really understand the terms of the justice. and it stunned me hard that day, but i did something that most people should not do. i asked at that particular gathering if any of these young people had any questions. well, as you know the class of

seven year-old children don't have questions, they have a lot of stories. they all began to raise their hand one by one. i was listening to stories about their life. i was getting way to wrap up, and one little girl at the end, i will never forget her face, she raised her hand and a recognizer. she said at night, mama forces me to sleep under my bed. and i look at her, just a surprised look thinking, child abuse or child neglect? i'm not sure what i'm hearing. so i went to her again and i said to her, what is your name? she said my name is sheila. she said that you i say what did she say. at night mama makes me sleep under the bed so when the bullets come in they won't hurt me. i don't know whose eyes watered up first, mine or hers. i realized being in that auditorium that day that what we have done and what i establish as a career goal of

incarceration was not working. i knew that day that we would not arrest our way out of the stronger that we had to find other solutions for the community. does, my career change. i begin to believe the only way to fight crime in community is by improving the quality of life in communities. it had nothing to do with who you put away. it had everything to do with who you picked up. i don't mean picked up from a police perspective, but picked up and saw that they had the quality of life to succeed. i went on a campaign as a local law enforcement officer or congressman scott will let you know that i formed a number of prevention programs in our city. we were committed to make sure that the message got out to every young person. i believe as a police officer that the power of positive messaging takes first before any warrants were served in many localities in america, that does not occur. it is not a message of hope for

young people in our community. it is a message of how quickly they can be embraced to be in facilities which we know do not work. had the opportunity shortly after i retirement, congressman scott is aware of this, to be asked to be the director of virginia's gain reduction program. had the honor to serve and the capacity for almost four years. one day i was pulled in and told that we had to put $5 million of federal money to improve the city of richmond. is a freshman at the time on my report was about the fifth most dangerous city in america, by per capita homicide and violence. i was told that either architected program, sort of engineer and effort, to bring the crime rate down. i put together a program that we sort of pushed everywhere we can go, and we sort of called it the pure program. it was originally called -- i was the director of the program.

in it i focus on prevention and intervention. i put most of our $2.5 million of public funding in prevention and intervention, and reentering. just a little bit into enforcement. because i knew that prevention and intervention and reentry would be the rule of the day to get the job done. i am proud as he did today to tell you that richmond is one of five communities in america that has been able to hold their king issues and violent crime. we cut violent crime vastly in that city over to do from one of the most dangerous cities in america to a thriving business community where people love to work, go to school and now live. many people asked me today, how did you do this, in a community, we built community. we rebuilt the dreams of people in communities. i can tell you that we took health care into private highest

crime area of that community, and we triaged over 5000 people. many of those people who i've not been to a doctor or a medical facility for years. the community started taking their own community back. they started believing that when you raise the quality of life of its citizens, when you raise their hopes, their dreams, especially when they are young, then you do get them to believe in their community and get them to believe in their own life to the point where they see their neighborhood and call it their own, and they become proud of where they live. and they do -- this is exactly what the youth promise act stands for. it is not soft on crime. it is smart on crime but it doesn't anything to do with just pushing out a program. it makes every community in america responsible for adopting their strategy. we are not passing federal legislation or asking for legislation to be passed to make

sure that this program shines on that program shines. this legislation is created in nature. it is the same creativity that i use in the city of richmond to take the city of richmond back and make it a viable place to live. i agree with dr. leap. this is a no-brainer situation and i've come. today to testify to the fact that i have been on the streets and have placed people in handcuffs myself, and i know that we like to hear the rhetoric of three strikes and you're out. we like to the rhetoric of charging teenagers at a very young age to you know what educators to me, i think this is fascinating and i will finish up with these comments, they say that they spend about 90% of their day in their schools dealing with about 10% of the population. but what's more important to that statistic is they tell us who that 10% could be added very primary age. ladies and gentlemen, that's a no-brainer situation.

we can do a lot with technology. i'm here to tell you that i've been a situation an architect in my life that we can do a lot with people, we can do a lot with communities and yes, through the evidence base that we talked about the other day and pure community strategies which is incorporated in the youth promise act we can save communities one life at a time. thank you very much up. [inaudible] >> thank you. bobby, do you want to tell us what g.r.i.p. stand for? >> be glad you. it is an intervention program. it's malkin out of the nsa's justice department office of's justice department office of juvenile justice and delinquency prevention. and we took the model and maybe a little bit different by calling it. as we moved it to other committees across america. that stands for prevention intervention enforcement and reentry. my organization at the national center for prevention of

committee files will be glad to get further information if anybody would be interested on that. [applause] >> thank you. and bobby mentioned the richmond program where he spent two and a half million dollars with a reduce over a couple of years the annual murder rate from 19 thank you. 17 fewer murders. if you think of the number of people who were shot and don't die, and multiply how many people didn't show up at the medical college of virginia emergency room, trauma unit and hospital, you obviously have probably more than two and a half million dollars in government paid or uncompensated medical care right there, to say nothing about the reduction and law enforcement expenses and not having to lock up all of those people. a very successful program. thank you, bobby. [applause] >> franky carillo. >> thank you. first of all, chairman, thank you for having me. it's an honor to be here with the youth promise act to

everyone, welcome. my story takes us back to when i was 15 years old, living in california which is a suburb just outside of los angeles. i was riding my bike in the local park with my friend, and an officer pulled up right next to us, on to the lawn, and chit chat started it or you guys from, hoosier mom, hoosier dad? what school do you go to? by the way, do you mind posing for a photograph? wielded. i think i smiled in my. what happens in after that was that photograph was used in a crime investigation about a year after the photograph was snapped, where it turns out now that a corrupt officer, deputy sheriff, coerced a few local boys in selecting my photograph, and so i was arrested. based on that moment, based on that identification of that photograph. i was soon tried as an adult.

i was in adult court, confused, not sure what was going to happen to my life, but i had a sense of justice was about and i was relying deeply on the. trial started, and it ended with a wrongful conviction. i was sentenced to 30 years to life plus life. i spent the next 20 years in prison. not until a woman, an attorney, the northern california innocence project got involved were able to prove my innocence to the witnesses two, 20 years prior, testified against the all recanted. and so here i am today. i have been home for one single year. [applause] >> to the month, i've been home for a year. my story is not basically my

story. it's the story of many people, many young men who i left behind in prison. many of those who have that enter child -- enter child damaged and hurting and maybe can never pick that up, can never really the. but there are adults now who suffer from a terrible upbringing. since my release i, i'll jump right in to i made myself a promise that if and when i would ever get out i would lend my voice, when my time and dedicate myself to issues that were close to my heart, as is the youth promise act. to my true blessing was, i came across professor scott would and -- these men embraced me and i embraced them and we embraced their mission to restore a number of issues, mainly those involving youth and the surrounding cities, mainly in los angeles.

i have been spending my time in youth detention centers, juvenile halls, going back. and what hurts me so much is to realize that not much has happened in 20 years. i was amazed at the technology that has transpired since i've been gone. unit, graffiti has dropped in los angeles. it seems a lot cleaner. everything seems to have evolved, but at least in my opinion how we handle youth and how we make the mistake of thinking that youth can can figure it out themselves and will just can't stand back and let them make a mess of it. and then complain. on the way in today, i saw the statue but i'm sure everyone walk by and didn't even a knowledge it was there. but there was a statute of lady liberty. there's a young child, and there was engraving, the spirit of justice, and it struck me

because there was a child there and this inscription of come and grading, excuse me, the spirit of justice. and there it in marble form. it bothered me that here i am, this young boy, actually partner, i feel like a young boy, a grown man who maybe never imagine being here on capitol to witness something of that magnitude of beauty, but there it is. and i think that one of the things that i could do is liberate that child and that woman and allow that to just be part of our everyday community. and i think about my youth, and they think about how easy it was for not only myself and mike energy to take on the behavior of a sheep, and be heard around and brought it along and eventually end up and made to feel insignificant, make you feel that our voices were not allowed to be heard over we shouldn't even raised our hand.

and to hear the panelists talk about in their own form what it is to support this, -- to connect with brian, that i was brian. i am brian. it breaks my heart, but the relief is, hope is on the way, and the message that this deal passing can definitely be paddling for those people have committed themselves to reform but also to the children who are definitely paying attention. and i guess i will close with my new life. you know, i have been, it's an honor to then accepted as loyola mayor motte university. i mean i've only been home for a year, and -- [applause] >> i think about, you know,

where i was just a year ago. 20 years of my life in prison. and i think about even as a man, i behave like a sheet. i behave just like -- how simple it is to acknowledge. and of all things, i think the university -- just reason i was thinking about the fact because of this amazing opportunity to because of what's going on in my life, i cannot beat and the courageous like a lion and embody what that means, no longer be a sheep, and because of that, because of that framework in my mind that i am adopting, i'm here supporting this bill. and anything else that i can be part of that will cause change and make change and support any cause that is close to my heart,

which is anything to do with youth. thank you. [applause] >> thank you. please give all of our panelists another round of applause. this has been tremendous testimony. [applause] >> and if there are questions from the audience, if you'll step up to the mic right before you. is the mic on? check to see if the mic is on. yes, sir. [inaudible] >> just a minute. check to see if the mic is on. >> this is a question for doctor lee. can you repeat the question that you said, that the young man said? >> the young man asked me why

didn't anyone tell me there was another way for me to go? spent young men can't wish for to come to them. he has to look for an answer. and that's what i wanted to say. >> i really appreciate what you're saying. i think he was looking for it, truly, and i think no one answered him. i think he was looking for it. sad part of the story was he was a young man who did very, very well in school, who was very smart, and he wanted some guidance. it never came. and i'm so glad you are saying what you are saying, because i believe that you are a young man who sounds like you will look for that guidance, you will seek it. and hopefully there will be more young men like you, and there will be people who answer that through guidance.

>> thank you. >> thank you. [applause] >> hey, congressman. and economists once called an invitation like a killing adding that the one drug -- [inaudible] would legalizing drugs such as marijuana -- why not legalize drugs to drop the prices down, possibly using the tax money to fund these programs in the act? and have the tax revenue what it can only go to these cannot be used for any other reason. >> anybody want to respond to that? let me say one thing. one of the focuses of the youth promise act is it puts our resources more on prevention, early intervention and rehabilitation, rather than

incarceration. so before you even get to the question of legalization, there are things you can do in the present system that you can do. and the focus of resources, if you put all of the study show for example, that drug courts significantly reduce drug use, and reduce crime, and costs about one-fifth the amount that it costs to just lock somebody up it but one of the first things we have to do is to acknowledge that there are allocation of resources in the wrong direction. >> mr. chairman, i would like to recommend that a question of this importance be the subject of another forum that you can convene. because the legalization is far too complex for us to just give an opinion by a few of us today. it's a huge issue. and i think it needs all of our

careful study, research and attention. the one thing that hangs over battle question, of course, is that if we legalize drugs, would we not turn millions of people into drug addicts, because it's illegal. but i don't want to try to resolve it this afternoon. i would be willing to work with the chairman if such a forum would to be considered. >> we have an expert who has taken the mic. judge barnett. >> for the past seven years i have been on sabbatical from the bench. and like congressman conyers, we have urged and, indeed, supported a bill to set up a

commission that would indeed hold a hearing that would go into the issue of the medical consequences of the use of drugs. and to what extent was the use of drugs explode or not explode to a point where it would have problems like with alcohol. the automobile accidents and injuries and a consequence, and the concerns that conyers talked about increase the use of drugs. indeed, we see now from evidence that some studies report, where medical marijuana has been authorized, whether has been an uptick, a serious uptick in the last two or three years of the use of drugs on the basis that it's no more harmful than doing, smoking tobacco. i think we need scientific medical evidence and not just popular beliefs on what the

actual realities would be with reference to the use of all these type of drugs. and i have been supported in fighting that battle with the house judiciary committee. for now six or seven years, since about 2004. on the other issue dealing with the issue of prevention, and so as a judge who has been on the bench 40 years, i totally agree, indeed i have submitted written testimony to you congressman scott. and, indeed, i think this program this afternoon should be seen on cnn and everybody in the nation, to what we have been exposed to. brother, we need to encourage

people to vote, but vote intelligently with the realistic appreciation of the costs of doing things, and the cost we will save and offset the we had an effective prevention and intervention program. for the last seven years i've been developing and designing such a program. we have developed a program -- [inaudible] so my recommendation is an of course many of us put our lives on the line with the civil rights struggle to get the right to vote, get the right to be elected officials, and to eliminate discrimination. i personally at 19 years of age or six months was under death threats. as you know, congress and scott, i -- thurgood intended to bring me to compel the university of

virginia to admit me in the fall of 1955. the only reason that did not happen, my case was settled because of the governor in arkansas and thurgood decided they didn't have enough money to go forward in virginia, and arkansas at the same time. i went to nyu law school, ended up working with attorney general robert kennedy in the civil rights movement with martin luther king. so i have lived the life and walked the walk. and the wisdom he recommend all of america ought to realize and appreciate. thank you very much. >> thank you very much. and in the last congress when i was chair of the subcommittee we passed the web bill through the house. and also c-span is covering this hearing now, and we're also taping it so it will be available on my website,

www.bobby scott dot house.gov. so we will be there. thank you all for your contribution today. i feel like energy in this room is tremendous. every single one of you contributed so much to the conversation right now. >> you want to identify yourself? >> sure. my name is erin. i work with peace alliance. one of the grassroots groups been working on this bill for quite some time. my question is to mr. pendergrast in reference to your profession, to complement the work that you do with mentoring which is a movement builder, and so has been able to build public -- my question to you is what are your thoughts and how we can build public will to make this an issue that does go on cnn and away the focuses on solutions, not just problems?

>> well, i think the good news is that in every community there are so many people who are doing really interesting, innovative things. that's what the youth promise act is going to build on, it's all the innovation that occurs at the local level. so just like what we do in terms of movement building for the human rights issues in africa, which is what you're sort of, question is implying, we go to local areas around the united states where people already care about what's going on in these places. student groups and churches and synagogues and other places where people are already concerned and care, and he believed that we are in some way, shape, or form our brothers and sisters keepers, brothers and sisters keeper. and so i think the same thing would apply here is that you would want to invest a lot of time in building those local coalitions that as has been the

case with what congressman scott has tried to do with this bill, build up slowly, steadily and build those local coalitions to statewide coalitions to the national coalition, and thus, movement. and going to the segments of the community, the constituencies, the voters that are concerned about these kind of things, it is usually these through these kind of social issues, the religious communities and students, and finding like-minded folks who are willing to help, put some of those building blocks together for movement building. there already is the outlines of that, and you're part of that, and i think that getting people like hill who has face and name recognition and is able to articulate the answer to some of these issues in such profound way, there is a personal way and there are lots of other guys, people out there who have

various constituents, whether their ministers or, like the judge there, or other people, politicians, who have already involvement, welcoming them into a broader coalition, figuring out a few events that will get attention to your cause, and build from there and use the youth promise act as the centerpiece because that's what i think everyone wants to see pass some time this legislative calendar so we can actually see real change on the ground. >> you want to mention your website? >> sure. our website is the youth promise act.org. and organization for youth alliance. >> thank you. >> any other questions? yes, sir. any other questions after this? okay, the last two questions. >> thank you, chairman. [inaudible] >> can you speak into the mic?

it will help. >> yes, sir. my name is edward hettinger. i am an army wounded warrior. and i guess my question has to come back to, coming back from iraq i have done a lot of work with wounded warriors, and kind of dissemination with lessons learned. obviously, some of the best mentors out there, some of the best experts, you know, the information all other times as problem getting to those youth. and i guess my real question would be, with the passing of the fact, how we envision i guess more of us and oversight in a way to make sure that if we have somebody, you know, go to the program and been a really great success, then where some of these panels have been, you know, have the background education, how do we, how do identify those people, how do we

look at those lessons learned and disseminate that information to empower them so that if they come out from these kind of conditions, are able to go back and help prevent, like we're talking about the gang members not wanting their children to go through the same situation. unit, myself when i got back from iraq, a lot of different issues that i never foresaw, you know, that i had to kind of overcome on my own. and now i'm kind of trying to give back. i guess, i guess what would be the real vehicle, or the oversight i guess, how would you envision really getting that kind of information back to those that do the most good with that? >> the format of the youth promise act is first a locality or a neighborhood with designated jurisdiction, and you would get together, everyone in the area that has anything to do with young people getting in

trouble, that would have law enforcement, school system, afterschool programs. they basically into the business community, mental health, everybody who is anything to do with the young people getting in trouble. and first of all, find out what the problem his. one of the things we need to find out is how much money is spend it on people in this neighborhood going to prison, how much are you spending on teen pregnancy? how much to get an idea of what the problem is. and then fashioned a locally tailored program, evidence-based, comprehensive that covers from teen pregnancy, prenatal care up to the time it you get into college or the workforce, as hill mentioned, he want to convert the freedom to prison pipeline to credit to the workforce, cradle to college. we have found that once they get

into college or once they get on the job, the crime rate plummets. so their goal is to get a comprehensive evidence-based trajectory from all the way up until they get to college. the format of the plan, comprehensive. then you find out if it's going to save money. because after you're going to fund the plan, you don't want it to come back to the government next year or the after that to say you have to find it again or have it collapse. you will find out who saving money, and as we mentioned the medical college of virginia may be saving hundreds of thousands of dollars in uncompensated medical care. the prison system will be saving lots of money for fewer people going to prison. medicaid, social service will be saving money because fewer girls will be getting pregnant. on and on, figuring out who saving money. and we found that you don't have to get all of them. in pennsylvania, they have

funded about 100 programs, $60 million. then he went back a couple years later and found out that they save 300 million. each you can get a portion of what people are saving, kicked back into keep the program running, you can keep it running. it is locally tailored. it's not one size fits all, one community may find they have plenty of boys and girls club's but no big brothers, big sister to others may have plenty of big brothers, big sisters but no boys and girls club's. so you have to look and see what your situation is, where your problems are, what your resources are, and put together a comprehensive package. and that package is the funding mechanism is actually a first award would be a funding, a planning grant. getting all this information and getting an evidence plan together, evidence-based plan together, we put evidence-based in the legislation. you wonder, well, as opposed to

what? as opposed to the slogan and the soundbites people have any plan if he didn't put evidence-based in there. and so you have a cover into the evidence-based plan of action, and putting that together is a significant job and you have funding to get the plan put together. then if it is successful you will have an award to get the plan implemented. after it is implemented, as people are saving money, they will kick back into keep the program running. but what you would do would be in your locality, helped put together the plan, help figure out what the problems are, what your resources are to deal with it, and what additional funding could do. >> last question. >> i'd like to say thank you for putting together this committee, and all these members who are

doing your work and helping to uplift humanity in general. i'd like to ask a question, how much effort has been put into researching our loss of national identity, especially in the people of african-american descent community? the loss of national identity has contributed to the high incarceration rate, and what remedies are being taken to help rectify that? because, in our organization, and i'm a member in agrippa stasia 1913 who helped teach our people of african descent their true national identity. we found that 1865 at the end of the institutions slavery when our people were emancipated, from 1865 until 1925, which is what we call spirit of public slavery and join the reconstruction. no, that the traditional system and the justice system as we know, the correctional system was put into place based on the

act of our people, based on the action of our people going for uplifting for themselves, and it seemed that every step we took to uplift ourselves, along with me demanded that. so what and how much energy and effort is being put into correcting that and helping to uplift our people in the communities around the nation? thank you. >> one of the things we are doing research on is the building of new identities in former gang members, which include young black men and black women who have never known national identity. because of this we have done an exhaustive literature search on the building of national identity within prison systems and jails. and i'm here to tell you that there is no, absolutely no literature on any program to do

so. there are isolated programs that have been studied, ad hoc, and i would be happy to give you my card afterwards. i can tell you that the lack of identity, including a national identity for young men and young women of color is one of the principal pieces of why youth, for example, who i see, join gangs in neighborhoods. i've had the honor of working with several individuals from your organization or affiliated with your organization in los angeles, who have worked on this process. because what we all work on, and to bring it to the youth promise act but also to what your organization is doing, is every young person needs an identity, and they need the right identity. so i'm sorry to say that research is not there, but the

effort is. >> thank you. give our panelists another round of applause for the tremendous information that we have had a blog that. >> -- [applause] spent and as represented congress have suggested that you do, everyone should contact their members of congress. to see that they can show support for the youth promise act. anymore? if not, the briefing is adjourned. [inaudible conversations]

>> the u.s. senate is about to gavel in for the day. members will be working on a bill that would roll back tax breaks for the five largest oil company's. they will break at 12:30 and don't take the official senate photograph today. and now to live coverage of the u.s. senate here on c-span2. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order.

the chaplain will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal father, who changes not, thank you for your mercies ever changing, ever new. teach us to be thankful for the changing faces of nature and the blessings every season brings. as we are grateful for the warmth of spring, so may we be joyful when winter comes and the harvest is past. through days of warmth or chill, through hours of happiness or

adversity, may we walk with you as with a friend known of old. today, use the members of this body for your glory. purge them of all that makes for discord, that in unity they may be prepared for your service. we pray in your sacred name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c, march 27, 2012. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable jeff bingaman, a senator from the state of new mexico, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: daniel k. inouye, president pro tempore. mr. reid: mr. president, i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. reid: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, following any leader remarks, the senate will be in a period of morning business for an hour. the republicans will control the first half, the majority the final half. following that morning business, the senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to the repeal big oil tax subsidies legislation. this will be post cloture. at 12:30 today, we'll recess to accommodate the weekly caucus

meetings. senators are reminded that the official photograph for the 112th congress will take place at 2:15 today in the chamber. mr. president, s. 2237 is at the desk and its due for its second reading, i understand. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the title of the bill for the second time. the clerk: s. 2237, a bill to provide for a temporary income tax credit for increased payroll and extend bonus depreciation for an additional year and for other purposes. mr. reid: mr. president, i would object to any further proceedings to this piece of legislation at this time. the presiding officer: objection having been heard, the bill will be placed on the calendar. mr. reid: mr. president, the senate yesterday took the first step toward repealing wasteful taxpayer subsidies to oil and gas companies. i was pleased that my republican colleagues joined senate democrats to move this debate forward. the country deserves to hear the truth about double dipping,

double dipping by oil companies. they take taxpayer money with one hand and raise gas prices with the other hand. there's never been a more perfect illustration of this than what's happened recently. the country deserves to hear the truth about these oil companies. but don't be fooled by last night's bipartisan vote. senate republicans would never, ever side with the american taxpayers against big oil. it's against their nature, it's against their political philosophy, as indicated by the numerous votes that they've taken against this. they proved yesterday with just rhetoric, they proved exactly what i've said. they proved it last year with nearly a party-line vote against legislation to roll backhandouts to oil companies who were making record profits then. the records have been broken. there's a handful of those oil companies, one handful. last year they made $137 billi

$137 billion. despite this rhetoric of the republicans, americans understand it will take more than a bumper-sticker slogan to stop the pain at the pump. we have to reduce the nation's reliance on foreign oil. but committee can't drill our way to -- but we can't drill our way to energy independence. we're doing better. we've done so well during the obama years. every year he's been president, production has gone up, and the use of oil has gone down. we must continue looking for responsible, new domestic oil sources but we must also invest in clean energy technologies of tomorrow and create good jobs for today. repealing almost $24 billion in wasteful subsidies to oil companies would pay for these clean energy investments, with money left over to do something about the deficit. america has less than 2% of the oil reserves in the world but

consumes more than 20% of the world oil supply each year. so drilling on american soil alone won't solve our reliance on foreign oil. last year, america used a lower percentage of foreign oil than at any time in almost two decades thanks to president obama's policies. domestic oil production, i repeat, has increased every year during the obama administration. meanwhile, the american dependence on foreign oil has decreased each year. yet prices at the pump have continued to rise. here's why. for every penny the price at the pump goes up, the major oil companies -- there's five of them -- make an additional $200 million in profits each quarter. so let's say that again. for every penny that you pay extra at the gas pump, these five oil companies make $200 million. well, it doesn't take a lot of math to understand that gas prices have risen 62 cents this

year. so take $200 million times 62 and you've got a huge amount, billions of dollars. every time a penny is added to your sale of a gallon of gas, the oil companies make $200 million. so 62 cents, they've made billions this year. last year, they raked in $137 million in profits. they're on pace for another record-breaking year. astronomical profits. so it's beyond ridiculous when republicans argue that oil companies need billions in taxpayer subsidies each year. middle-class families are struggling. oil companies that last year raked in $261,000 a minute 24 hours a day, 365 days of the year, are not struggling. mr. president, listen to this again. oil companies last year raked in

$261,000 a minute 24 hours a day, no weekends off, no holidays, they did it 365 days a year. they're not struggling at all, and that, of course, is a gross understatement. that's why this matter is now before the senate. another topic that is extremely important, mr. president, i've talked about how obvious it is america needs to reduce its reliance on foreign oil. but if anyone needs another reason, just look at the regime as that benefit from global addiction to oil. for example, iran. iran uses profits from global oil sales to support its terrorism around the world, its nuclear weapons program. so it's critical that the senate act now and act quickly to further tighten sanctions against iran. these sanctions are a key tool as we work to stop them from obtaining nuclear weapons, threatening israel and openly

jeopardizing u.s. national security. mr. president, this country is so fortunate to have someone who is leading the central intelligence agency, general david petraeus. i had the good fortune yesterday to spend an hour with him. he's a good man. he understands what's going on in the world. and we must be vigilant, as we are, about what's going on in iran. i repeat, we must act now and act quickly to further tighten sanctions against iran. these sanctions are a key tool as we work to stop them from obtaining nuclear weapons, threatening israel, and further terrorizing other parts of the world. the only way to get sanctions in place now is to take up a bipartisan bill that passed unanimously out of the senate banking committee. unfortunately, i would like and i am going to move to this. my staff has alerted the

republican leader. i'm going to ask consent soon to moving forward on this unanimously reported bill out of the banking committee. unfortunately, i have been told that my republican colleagues will object to moving forward with these new sanctions because they want to offer additional amendments. mr. president, i have democrats who want to offer additional amendments also, but we don't have the time to slow down passage of this legislation. let's move to the next step. when we put this away, we're not going to be finished with iran. there are a number of democrats, i repeat, who would also like to offer amendments to this bill. but in an effort to get sanctions in place now, democrats have agreed to streamline the process and refrain from offering their amendments. we can't afford to slow down the process. passing this bill now will help prevent iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon and that's a goal we should all agree on.

mr. president, would the chair announce the business of the day. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will be in a period of morning business for one hour with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each, with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the republicans controlling the first half and the majority controlling the final half.

mr. reid: note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from maryland is recognized. mr. cardin: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cardin: mr. president, i rise today to discuss the tragic

death of trayvon martin and the larger issue of racial profiling. on monday i spoke about this issue at the center for urban families in baltimore. joining me were representatives from investigator just -- various faith and civil rights groups in baltimore as well as graduates from the center's program. this weekend we saw numerous rallies across the united states including rallies called million hooty--hoody marchs. i was touched by what president obama said on friday about this case. he said if i had a son, he'd look like travonne. i think every parent in america should understand why it is absolutely imperative that we investigate every aspect of this. i think all of us have to do some soulsearching to figure out how something like this happened. that's why i was so pleased that

the justice department under the supervision of attorney general eric holder has announced an investigation into the avoidable shooting death of trayvonne martin on february 26, 2012. as we all awl know from the news, not unarmed martin, was shot in sanford, florida on his way home from a convenience store by a neighborhood watch volunteer. i am pleased that the civil rights division of the justice department will join the federal bureau of investigation in investigating the tragic avoidable shooting death of trayvonne martin. in particular i also support the justice department's decision to send the community relations service to sanford to help defuse tensions while the investigation is being conducted. i join all americans in wanting a full and complete investigation into the shooting death of trayvonne martin to ensure that justice is served. there are many questions that we need the justice department to answer. one is whether trayvonne was the

victim of a hate crime by zimmerman. one is whether trayvonne was a victim of racial profiling by the police. in other words, was he targeted by mr. zimmerman because he was black. was trayvonne treated differently in the investigation because he was black and the aggressor was white? would the police have acted differently with a white victim and a black aggressor? the department of justice has the authority to investigate the potential hate crime as well as whether this is a pattern of misconduct in terms of applying the law equally to all citizens and not discriminating on the basis of race. tom perez is the assistant attorney general of the civil rights division of the department of justice. i want to make sure we have both federal and state investigations that ultimately prosecute offenders to the fullest extent of the law as well as make any needed policy changes

particularly to local police practices and procedures. trayvonne's death leads to a discussion of the broader issue of racial profiling. i have called for putting an end to racial profiling, a practice that singles out an individual based on race or other protected categories. in october of last year, i introduced legislation, the end racial profiling act, s. 1670 which would protect minority communities by prohibiting the use of racial profiling by law enforcement officials. the bill would prohibit state and local law enforcement officials from using race as a factor in criminal investigations including and deciding on the scope and substance of law enforcement activity following the initial ininvestigate today ga torre procedure. this wail would mandate grants by local and state law enforcement.

finally, this will would condition the receipt of federal funds lie state and local law enforcement on two grounds. first under this bill state and local law enforcement would have to maintain adequate policies and procedures designed to eliminate racial profiling, and second, they must eliminate any existing practices that permit or encourage racial profiling. the legislation i introduced is supported by the naacp, the aclu, the leadership conference of civil and human rights and numerous other organizations. on april 18 i look forward to the advocacy day these civil rights groups are planning on capitol hill to lobby on racial profiling issues and raise awareness about this issue in the legislation that i've introduced. racial profiling is bad policy, but given the state of our budgets it also dwertsz scarce resources from real law enforcement. law enforcement nationwide already have tight budgets. the more resources spent on investigating individuals solely

because of their race or religion, the fewer resources we have to actually deal with illegal behavior. racial profiling has no place in modern law enforcement. the vast majority of our law enforcement officers who put their lives on the line every day handle their job with professionalism, diligence and fidelity to the rule of law. however congress and the justice department can and should take steps to prohibit racial profiling and finally root out its use. the 14th amendment to the united states constitution you constitution guarantees equal protection under the law to all americans. racial profiling is abhorrent to that principle and should be ended once and for all. as the late senator kennedy often said, civil rights is the great unfinished business of america. let's continue to fight here to make sure we truly have equal justice under law and equal protection of law as guaranteed by our constitution. mr. president, with that i would yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee is recognized. mr. corker: thank you, mr. president. good to see you there. i rise to speak about the subject that our nation is focused on as the supreme court takes up some of the constitutional provisions of the health care law that was passed a couple years ago in this body, and, mr. president, obviously the courts will decide whether this law that was passed is constitutional. there are a number of challenges that will take place by the end of june, according to what we hear. secondly, there is an election process underway where the nominees running -- or the candidates running for the republican nomination have talked about the things that they will do in the event they are elected as it relates to the health care bill. mr. president, i want to talk about the fact that regardless of the supreme court and regardless of what may happen in the electoral process, i have

yet to meet a person on either side of the aisle and maybe today will be the first time that believes this bill can -- can work as it was passed. and what that leads me to say is that regardless of what happens, i think most of us are aware that the financial data that was used to put together this bill is flawed, and the fact is that it's not flawed, it won't work over the longer haul for the same reasons that i railed against the highway bill for breaking the budget control act that we just put in place last august, i voted against this bill. the fact that we used ten years' worth of revenues and six years' worth of costs which greatly exacerbate the problem in the out years, the fact that we took $529 billion in savings from medicare to create this problem and yet left behind the issue that we deal with in this body almost every year and a half, which is the sustainable growth rate that we deal with physicians. and thirdly, the fact that we

placed an unfunded mandate on states. the state of tennessee has actually been highly progressive as it relates to health care in the tof tennessee --, state of tennessee dealing with citizens that are in need, created a program called ten care, went through lots of problems but over the last several years has been functioning in a stable way. but what this bill did was mandate to the state of tennessee that in order to keep the medicaid funding that funds tencare, the state has to on its own accord match federal grants with over $1.1 billion in costs. so from 2014 to 2019, what this bill does is mandated that the state of tennessee use $1.1 billion of its own resources to expand the medicaid program to meet the needs that this bill has put in place. this is the point of my being on the floor here today, mr. president. again, i don't know of anybody here who believes that this bill

will cost only what was laid out as we debated. as a matter of fact, we've had so many people, mckenzie group, others have laid out how many -- how many private companies in our country will basically get rid of their health care and put people out on the public exchange. the cost of that is going to be tremendous. our own governor, a former -- our former governor, a democrat, who spent a lot of his lifetime in health care, on health care issues, projected that the state of tennessee if it decided that it wanted to put its own employees out on the public exchange, the state of tennessee could save $160 million by putting its employees away from its own health care plan and out on the exchanges. obviously, i doubt that's something states are going to do but his his point is this -- in a free market system people are

going to respond based on what is best for their company and what is best for their employees. if you look at the subsidy levels that this bill lays out, up to $400 billion --, 400% of poverty, we're talking about people earning over $78,000 a year. when you look at the subsidies, what employers are going to quickly find especially because we put a subsidy in place on one hand and, on the other hand, because this bill lays out the type of coverage that companies have to have in place, there are attributes that cause those costs to rise and we've seen it happening throughout the private sector, i think that's undenial. what is going to happen, the companies are going to say we would be better off to pay the $2,000 penalty, our employees get these massive subsidies, by the way, that are paid for by all taxpayers in america, and what that means is that there's

going to be far more people out on these public exchanges than ever were anticipated when this bill was being put in place. my point is that the bill when it was being constructed used ten years' worth of revenues and six years' worth of costs. anyone -- and that made it neutral. anybody can see in the outyears that's obviously going to create a 2re tre problem, a fiscal problem for this government, for our country. but the problem is when it was laid out, the amount of people that were then thought to go on to the plan is much lower than actually is going to be the case of the again, i think what you're going to see throughout our nation if this bill stays in place as it is, you're going to see a massive exodus by private employers from the health care business, but what that's going to do is put them on these public exchanges with the subsidies and, in fact, what it's going to do is drive up the

cost even more than people ever anticipated. so this is my point. there is going to be a supreme court judgment this june and none of us know what it's going to be. we have pundits on the left who say that they're confident that the bill's going to stay in place. we have pundits on the right who say they're confident that constitutionally it's going to be overturn. we're going to have an election in november that may change the course of history as it relates to this bill. even if those two events have no effect on this bill, i want to come back to my base premise. there is no way, there is no possible way that this bill is going to work as was laid out during the debate. there is no way that the projections that were laid out as to what the cost of this bill is going to be are going to be what the actual costs are. and so what i would say is, regardless, this body -- this body is going to be pressed with replacing this legislation with

something that makes common sense. there was actually a lot of bipartisanship prior to us passing this piece of legislation about what those commonsense measures should be. we ended up instead with something that was far more sweeping, something that most americans find offensive, something that no question is going to cause this nation tremendous fiscal distress. and so my point is, yes, we're going to be watching this june as the supreme court rules. yes, we're going to be paying attention to the elections in november. regardless of those outcomes, it is my belief that this body will have to come together and put in place a different piece of health care legislation that actually fits these times, fits the american people, allows the freedom and choice that american people are accustomed to and is built on premise as that will cause our country to be fiscally sound. and i stand ready to work with

people on both sides of the aisle when that time comes to make that happen. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. mr. cochran: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from mississippi is recognized. mr. cochran: mr. president, the harsh realities of the recent action by the congress in passing legislation on expansion of the federal guarantees of health care are coming home to roost. my state is bracing for the impact -- the impact of the so-called affordable care act. under the health care reform bill, enrollment under an expanded medicare -- medicaid program is projected to increase in my state of mississippi by as much as 44% in 2014.

thousands of people will be forced on to the medicaid rolls in my state. the legislature is wrestling with the serious budget pressures from the costs of the medicaid program. mississippi has the highest federal matching assistance percentage in the country at approximately 75%, but over the course of the next ten years, our state's match requirement will increase by $127 million each year for a total of $1.3 billion by the year 2020. our state's budget can't handle that burden. other states are facing similar constraints. the affordable care act is essentially taking aim at state governments.

the maintenance of effort requirements for the medicaid program are particularly restrictive. they inhibit a state's ability to spend taxpayer money wisely and they ignore the inherent problems within the medicaid program. mississippi faces the prospect of expending all of its resources, keeping up with an unfunded mandate that increases its dependency on the federal government while being forced to cut other important services, such as education. in addition, physician services cannot keep up with the demands of an expanded medicaid population. this law does nothing to address the decreasing physician participation rates and quality of care issues that are rampant in the medicaid program. another charge to states in

these difficult fiscal times is the creation of health insurance exchanges. my state's efforts to develop an exchange began well before the affordable care act was enacted and the state is on track to set up a health insurance exchange by the january 2014 deadline. we're committed to creating an exchange that can serve mississippians well. but it needs flexibility in order to do that. the mississippi department of insurance is working to avoid defaulting to a federally run exchange, but red tape in the bureaucracy is defaulting to a federally run exchange. bureaucratic red tape threatens to hinder their progress. i'm concerned that the deadlines put forth in the affordable care act are unrealistic due to the

amount of time and resources that are required for such a large project. these are just a few of the problems that the affordable care act poses for my state and others asl as well. it is proving to be an increasingly expensive statute that is making health care more costly for individuals, businesses, and state governments. it is my hope that relief can be found at the supreme court to avoid the potentially devastating impact of this law. mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. bingamanquorum call: mr. rockefeller: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia. mr. rockefeller: which one? the presiding officer: the senior senator from west virginia. mr. rockefeller: i see. all right. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. rockefeller: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for up to or perhaps a minute over or two over 20 minutes. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. rockefeller: i thank the presiding officer. mr. mr. president, this week there is plenty of drama unfolding at the supreme court, the stately building across the whatever it is, the mall, where we now -- where we now stand. so the justices are deliberating

inside the building. there's a lot of shouting and clamoring outside. that's to be expected. but i'm here today to encourage all of us to pause for a minute and to step back from the hype and to really think about what the broader health care reform means to so many americans, not just the citizens that the presiding officer and i represent but americans across this country. i do think, because i believe strongly, that the rhetoric surrounding the issues has become so polarizing that many people routinely overlook the profound ways that the law has already made life better for so many americans. let's remember why we started down this path of health reform at all. and let me say, for the record, that this was a path that has been well trodden over the years by both democrats and republicans. in fact, over the last century.

but we had never managed to enact meaningful reform in our system. yes, we'd added on some extraordinary things like medicare and social security and medicaid, but reform of the system we had not done. and so we rejoiced in what happened in the mid-1960's, but that didn't help us in terms of the overall disposition of the system. when we renewed this debate about how to fairly make sure that everyone in the country can get the mch health care they ne, we actually at the time, as we starred, had 46 million uninsured americans. now, to be uninsured is not pleasant. it is a fearful condition. employers had been dropping coverage for a decade due to skyrocketing health care costs. people were losing their jobs and, with them, their coverage. even those who had coverage were being saddled with horrendous

bills and they were thrust into bankruptcy even though many of them thought they had coverage that was protecting them financially. they didn't but they thought they did. and some of those with preexisting conditions couldn't get back into the system at any cost whatsoever. preexisting conditions is something you have. tens and tens of millions of americans have those. americans thought that our system was broken and unfair and they thought it was time to finally achieve our shared goal of access to care at a more affordable system. that was sensible. let's start by looking at part of the law that protects those with preexisting conditions. as i've just mentioned, there are about 133 million americans, individual americans, they live every day and they live with chronic illnesses, or they fail to live because of chronic illnesses. what happens to them when insurance companies refuse to cover their illnesses even while

the insurance companies are collecting premiums from them? that's called rescission. it's a dirty trick that the insurance companies have been doing to us in america for years and this law stops that. before health reform, millions of americans, including children, could be denied the health care they needed due to preexisting condition. i mean, they might have had asthma. hi as many when i was 12 years old. i wasn't worried about insurance, i guess, or anyway i didn't get sick but i couldn't have gotten insurance in those days because i had a preexisting condition. if you have a c-section, you have a preexisting condition. if you have acne, you can have a preexisting condition. if you have almost anything, you can have a preexisting conditi condition. if the insurance company decides that you do. so then they can cut you off. it's called rescission. they cut you off even though you're paying premiums. and that's sort of unfair. i want to talk about what this has meant to real people every day. it means that people have lived

in fear of losing their employer-sponsored coverage or even leaving a jo job to start their own business for fear that they couldn't get coverage. it meant that if somebody did get coverage, the insurance company could just carve out their condition, in other words, just get rid of them, dump them. what's the practical implication of this insurance company abuse? you could get -- now, consider this. you could get coverage if you had cancer but the cancer wouldn't be covered. not good. and a preexisting condition doesn't have to be as complex as cancer. insurance companies could deny coverage for something as simple as allergies. before health reform, insurance companies could even deny coverage to a woman if she was a victim of domestic violence and had to be treated. that's unimaginably cruel but it is a fact -- was a fact.

well, mr. president, that is no more. under the health reform law, preexisting conditions will no longer be a barrier to quality, affordable health care. that's over. they can't do it. it's against the law. the law which so many are trying to repeal. is there anyone here who would like to go back to the old days, those good ole days, when individuals, including millions of children, were punished for things they couldn't possibly control and they were subject to devastating medical costs without the benefit of insuran insurance, their families were? and i don't think people would want to go back there. but, of course, that's what will happen if we abandon all of this. now, let's talk now about another piece of this great effort that also is often overlooked and it's the coverage of young adults under the age of 26. and i know that's a particular matter that the presiding officer likes about this bill. in the past, many young adults

in my state and everywhere have gone without health insurance as they make their way into the world after graduation. now, that's a ticklish time. most of these young adults are not slackers, as they have sometimes been called. many simply start out in low-wage or part-time jobs that typically don't offer health coverage. and because they are over the age of 18 and, therefore, technically adults, they were not able to maintain coverage under their parents' health insurance plan. well, this meant that many young adults would forfeit basic things like checkups or put off seeing a doctor when they had health problems in the hope that it would go away. but that's no way to live, particularly not when 15% of young americans, mr. president, suffer from a chronic health condition like depression or diabetes. yes, that young. not when a staggering 76% of

uninsured adults report not getting needed care because of cost. before health reform, young adults represented one-third of our nation's uninsured population. people always think of young people as healthy. not so. they take risks. they end up in the emergency room often. their about how many young adults and their families are so much in a better position. now, why is that? that's because the law now allows young adults with no coverage of their own to pay premiums and to stay on their parents' health insurance policy up to their 26th birthday. this applies even if you have no longer -- you no longer live at home, if you're no longer a student, and you're -- or you're no longer dependent on your parents' tax return. in other words, you are covered. you are covered up to the age of 26.

as a result, we've -- we -- the results already, over 2.5 million young adults have gained coverage who did not have it before. that is a fact today. including more than 16,000 young adults in west virginia. now, those families have the peace of mind that their families will be financially protected should an injury or an illness occur. it's important to know that young -- young people suffer a lot of mental health conditions maybe a little bit more than the rest of the population. we don't think about that because they're young and, therefore, also eboulant. no, they're young and often troubled, trying to figure out what life holds for them. and these conditions can cause them problems. they need health insurance and now they can get it. so right off the bat, parents like sam hickman from west virginia were able to get young

adult coverage. isn't our country really a better place, it would seem to me, when people have the security of knowing that they're covered in case of illness or injury? to me, it just kind of makes sense. and maybe, importantly, to the people it brings peace of mind. that's not all. the law provides access to free preventive health services and easier primary care, as well as increased financial assistance for students through new scholarships and loan repayment programs to build a stronger health care work force. this is a major part of this bill. in west virginia, as the presiding officer knows, and all across the country, particularly in rural areas, we have a shortage of various kinds of necessary physicians and health care providers. in fact, one of my favorite parts of this law are the significant new financial incentives it creates to encourage young adults to go into primary care, dentistry,

pediatrics, nursing and mental health to precisely address those shortages. it's in the bill. doesn't it just kind of make sense, given the shortage of skilled health care professionals in this country, to make it easier for young people to get into those well-paying, stable jobs? health care job growth continues to be a major stabilizing factor in our economy, creating additional jobs in our local communities is something many in this body have fought for in all kinds of ways, tax credits and plans and all kinds of things. but in the meantime, health reform tackles that problem, too, just inexorably. health care jobs continue to grow year after year after year. most of them private, obviously. just look at the numbers from the month of february of this year. the health care sector once

again led the nation's job growth last month, adding about 49,000 jobs, which was about the same as the month before. health care is the economic engine. in fact, mr. president, that kind of undergirds our economy. it's silent, it's relentless and it will not stop, because health care is something that people cannot walk away from. the receiving of or the providing for. another important group helped by health reform are our nation's seniors, starting with lowering the cost of their medicare prescription drug coverage. that's very important in west virginia, as the presiding officer knows. thanks to the new health care law, almost 40,000 people with medicare in west virginia received a $250 rebate -- they already got it -- to help cover the cost of their prescription drugs when they hit that famous doughnut hole in 2011.

i wouldn't bother to explain that. 2010. in 2011, more than 36,000 west virginians with medicare received a 50% discount on their covered brand-name prescription drugs when they hit the doughnut hole. that's called very good news. and then we go on to close the doughnut hole entirely so this discount i'm talking about resulted in average savings of $653 per person and total savings of $23.5 million in our state of west virginia, mr. president. by 2020, the law will close the doughnut hole completely, and i think that's rather accept sayingal news for seniors. but closing the doughnut hole is not all that this law does for seniors. under the new law, seniors can receive recommended preventive services.

we talk about that all the time and we always think it's not in a bill. preventive services such as flu shots, diabetes screenings, as well as new annual wellness visits. all things that seniors should do but often decline to do because of lack of access or thinking they have to pay for it and they don't have the money. so now they can get all of these screenings for diabetes and flu shots and all kinds oof things -- of other things free. free. so far, more than 32.5 million seniors, mr. president, nationwide have already received one or more free preventive services including the new, as i indicated, annual wellness visit which is a very good idea for any person. in 2011, more than 230,000 people with medicare in our west virginia, mr. president, received free preventive services such as mammograms and

colombian scoppies or -- colonoscopies and 54 million americans with private health insurance gained preventive coverage with no cost including 300,000 people in our state of west virginia. now, the new law also provides new grants and incentives to improve health care coordination and quality as well as a new office, the federal coordinated care office. have to have that. kind of wish we didn't have to, but we do. because it's a new science. this is trying to get away from the health care system as usual, so we do have that one little addition, and sort of managing care for seniors and managing care for individuals with disabilities and importantly, eligible for both medicare and medicaid. that, obviously, is known as

our dual jibleses which -- eligibles, they're poor enough to be on medicare and old enough to be on medicare so they can't life so to speak. they need help, they need health care under this bill they get that. there are about eight, nine, ten, 11 million of them in this country. many doctors, many hospitals, many other providers are taking advantage of new options to help them work better as teams to provide you the highest quality care possible, that's called coordinated care. it's new, it's important, and it's going to be really helpful. that's good news because many chronic illnesses can be prevented or managed better through this coordinated care. it means doctors doctors actually talk to each other. they don't -- you know, you get your -- an x-ray taken by a dentist or by somebody else. the way it is now you have to carry that x-ray with you if you

manage to get your hands on it to go see another doctor as opposed to a system where through telemedicine and all the rest of it you just -- and, you know, the technology it can just shoot right over the internet and the doctor you're going to see next already has that. so he's thinking about what he's going to do or some of his people are. so important. you know, talking to each other. we don't. doctors and hospitals often operate as in a vacuum. sort of taking a case-by-case basis. it's bad for patients. now, the health care law, mr. president, also helps stop fraud with tougher screening procedures. and stronger penalties. and new technology, new technology can catch all kinds of things. thanks in part to these efforts, we have recovered -- please listen -- $4.1 billion

in taxpayer dollars in 2011. that was last year. the second year recoveries hit this record-breaking level also. west virginia tax dollars shouldn't go to pay for criminals who are defrauding the system and the administration is cracking down on this, believe it or not it is. and i'm not done. in just over 18 months a new competitive health insurance marketplace called the exchange, so it has everybody nervous for no reason at all. for no reason at all. it's great news. and it will be up and running in west virginia and all across the country where individuals and small businesses can shop for coverage. in the private health insurance market. this is not government. it's all private. all of it. an estimated 180,000 west virginians will be eligible for

$687 million in premium tax credits to help cover the cost of private health insurance in the year 2013 when the exchanges start. and families all over the country will finally have more power when it comes to buying the health insurance that works for them. having more power is a big deal. if you're trying to shop for insurance. thanks to a clean, transparent summary of benefits -- yes, you actually get to see the choices that you can pick from. got to list out all the services they're going to provide, required by law, can't cheat, can't just say we'll take care of you. sign up with us. we're a big company. insurance company. so they get the transparent summary of benefits and coverage that will let them compare benefits on an apples-to-apples base which will come standard with every single private insurance plan which is what makes up the exchanges. then they will go through that,

they will pick out what best suits them. in fact, it's quite telling that little-known provision i've just talked about is the single most popular one in the entire law. i didn't know that. 84% of americans think that's really good. they like the idea of being able to choose what they are going to get in health care coverage. and the insurance companies, of course, hate it and have been fighting it with everything they have bun but we've been beating them back, mr. president, as you would expect us to do. that tells me that people are frustrated and fed up with confusing information they've been getting from had their health insurance companies and they're tired of guessing games about what's actually covered. they have a right to know. now they can. so i look forward to september of this year when every health insurance company finally has to come clean about what benefits

are actually covered in the products they are selling. come clean. it will be there in black and white. you can read it. and families have, obviously, therefore much more purchasing power in their hands. what is wrong with that? another point: while opponents have gotten used to talking about how the law costs too much, in fact, it has great provisions that not only improve the quality of care but also save hundreds of billions of dollars. oh? yeah, that's true. that's true. it's a fact. like the average, for example, $2,500 discount that thousands of west virginia small businesses received last december as a result of the medical loss ratio rule. that is what followed the public option. everybody so loved the public option, they throt it was wonderful. but couldn't get votes in finance company so didn't get down here so we invented something called the

medical-loss ratio. totally ununderstandable, right? but it's not a question is it understandable, it's does it work, does it help people, and it does because it says that insurance companies are required to spend at least 80% of small businesses and 85% of large businesses, health insurance premium dollars on actual medical care. not on administration, not on marble pillars, not on c.e.o. calories, they've got 20% or 15% to do all that. but if they fail to do that, they have to rebate to the consumer, to the patient who has -- who has been paying the premiums the fact that they haven't been abiding by this 80% or 85% law, and that is probably going to be several billions of dollars. at the very least hundreds and

hundreds and hundreds of millions and that's kind of like billions and it starts this year. i'm delighted. now, the independent payment advisory board or ipab is another example. ipab is not well understood and therefore is not well received because what is not understood is generally not well received. that doesn't mean it isn't good. ipab will be made up of smart doctors, nurses, other health care experts and others who will figure out ways to improve the quality of medicare services and make sure that the medicare trust fund stays strong. stays strong. and ipab is legally forbidden in this law that the folks across the street are now considering from recommending cuts to medicare benefits or in any way increasing cost sharing on the part of medicare recipients. that's in the law. cannot cut benefits, no cost

sharing. and yet the house just last week rallied behind an effort to repeal ipab. they didn't know what it was. or they had really bad dreams about what it was and so they repealed it and felt better. the house vote is a good example of what happens when special interests win and seniors lose. the independent -- the independent payment advisory board was created to protect medicare for seniors by improving the quality of medicare services and by extending the life of medicare. for years to come. instead of making medicare better, house republicans want to decimate the program forcing seniors to pay much more and giving private health insurance companies and other special interests the authority to raid the medicare trust fund which they will do in order to pad their bottom line, which they love doing. this would take us exactly in the wrong direction every single senior in america should be outraged.

even simple things, mr. president, like better information about private health insurance. you know, you can get that, you dial up on your web site, healthcare.gov, helping people to shop for better coverage today. information is out there. there's so much more that has already happened and more to come, things like the nearly $70 million in grants that west virginia has already received for things like community health centers. we put aside $10 billion in the bill for maybe up to a thousand new rural health care clinics across america. and you know very well the presiding officer like the lincoln county -- you know, so many in west virginia, people don't want to go to hospitals but they'll go to clinics happily because they're the first floor, tend to be in buildings that used to be stores or whatever, and they get good medical care right there.

so, in closing, why would we want to throw this law out the window? knowing at least just these facts. think about it. the reforms here are the most significant reforms of health care in several generations. it's an effort that 50 years from now history will record the same way as we do social security or medicare as programs. as an essential part of the implicit promise to care for its citizens, to allow people to age with dignity and define -- to find ways to make our society a better place. so as we mark the two-year anniversary of the health care reform law becoming the law of the land and the folks across the street will decide if that stands up or not -- i think when thil -- they will -- i for one am proud of my role in passing it and grateful congress came together on such an historic issue.

i thank the presiding officer and yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. kyl: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. kyl: mr. president, i ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kyl: and unanimous consent that i be allowed to speak in morning business for up to ten minutes. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. kyl: thank you, mr. president. actually, mr. president, i'm going to address the bill that's going to be before us in just a little bit. the title of the bill is repeal big oil tax subsidies act. that title, i think, begs the question what is a tax subsidy. most americans would define a tax subsidy as a payment of cash such as through a tax credit from the government to a particular industry. does this bill address subsidies? the answer is absolutely. but instead of repealing tax subsidies, it actually creates more of them. under this bill, the government would subsidize particular industries or activities through a host of tax credits.

these subsidies range from tax credits for energy-efficient homes, alternative fuel vehicles, plug-in electric vehicles, sell iew loss particular -- cellulosic vehicles, and the list goes on and on. in other words, the tax code would be providing special breaks for specific industries, and the one thing that's common to all of these is that they are the so-called green energies. they are the ones who would receive the special tax treatment to the tune of $12 billion. there are even direct cash grants from the treasury department for industries that invest in green energy so that companies don't have to worry about whether or not they have a tax liability to take advantage. direct cash grants. these are clearly subsidies aimed at particular industries, the very thing that the president himself has said we

should avoid if we want a simpler tax code with lower rates that doesn't pick winners and losers. so yes, this bill deals with tax subsidies. it creates a bunch of them, and they are in a very specific area, $12 billion worth. what about oil and gas? well, it turns out that there are no special tax provisions for oil and gas. there is no special oil and gas loophole or giveaway, as somebody called it. oil and gas companies use the same i.r.s. code that other kinds of companies use. they pay taxes under those provisions, they get deductions or credits under some other of those provisions, but nothing that doesn't apply to other industries the same way. in fact, what this bill does is to take away the rights of oil and gas companies under some of these provisions and leave those provisions intact for others. in other words, it discriminates against specific companies

within a specific industry. there are four particular areas. the first is section 199 of the tax code. this is the basic code under which all producers, people who manufacture things, who produce things, are allowed to take what's called a manufacturing deduction of 9%, except that we have already discriminated against the oil companies. they can only take a deduction of 6%. but it's the same for the other industries. otherwise it's 9%. but this bill would eliminate that deduction altogether for the larger oil and gas companies, the so-called integrated companies, but not for other domestic producers. so it's discriminatory twice over. and remarkably, therefore, companies like the venezuelan company citgo, a large oil and gas producer, could continue to take the deduction, but u.s.-based companies could not. now, how is that for double discrimination? first, all other companies in

the country get to deduct 9%. big oil companies only get to deduct 6%. and this bill would eliminate that deduction for some of the american oil producers. how about intangible drilling costs? this is part of the so-called r&d or research and development tax credit. research and development is something that many, many businesses do, and when they do it, they get to deduct those costs as against their tax liability. for the oil and gas industry, the research and development is called intangible drilling costs. those are part of the oil -- of the r&d exploration for energy. now, again, the oil companies are actually already discriminated against, whereas other businesses can expense 100% of these r&d costs, the oil and gas industry, we have said,

can only expense 70%. so they are already being discriminated against to some extent. this bill would further discriminate against them by expensing -- by eliminating the expensing altogether. in other words, whereas most companies can expense 100% and smaller oil and gas companies could still expense 70%, these larger companies could no longer expense any of it. their deduction would be gone totally. the third area, this is in the area for businesses that have operations abroad, in other countries, and who pay both taxes and royalty. they are called dual capacity companies. there are a lot of dual capacity kinds of businesses. oil and gas is one of them because they pay both taxes and royalties. casino operators are another, just to give you another example. well, in order to prevent double taxation for american companies that pay both foreign taxes and

american taxes -- and obviously, they are competing against companies that only pay taxes once to their own country, in order to mitigate that, every american company, oil company, any other kind of company, they are all allowed to take a foreign tax credit for foreign taxes paid. so whatever their american tax liability is, you get to take a credit against that for which you have already paid to another country in tax liability there. so if you owe $100 in taxes and you have already paid great britain $70 in taxes in great britain, then you get to deduct that -- or take a credit of that $70 against the $100 american liability. that's the way it works for all businesses abroad, including the dual capacity taxpayers. this bill would eliminate part of the foreign tax credit for the large integrated oil and gas companies, therefore putting our companies at a severe disadvantage with other oil and gas companies doing business

around the world. of course, oil and gas businesses are all around the world. you go where the oil or the gas is and you extract it and then ship it to the user. why would we deliberately give foreign competitors an even greater advantage in foreign markets than they already enjoy. as i said, this bill singles out oil and gas companies and would not extend the same discriminatory treatment to other dual-capacity taxpayers, such as, i mentioned, casinos before. so, again, it's -- it's a double discrimination against oil and gas companies. finally, you have what's called percentage depreciation. every company, including oil and gas companies, that extract minerals from the earth or other substances from the earth, are allowed to use the so-called percentage depletion method for calculating their taxes. but, again, for the last 30 years, we have said oil and gas companies can't do that. the large integrated oil and gas companies can't do it. so they are already prohibited

from using this method while this bill repeals it again. so we're going to repeal something that's already been repealed. i guess that's okay. it's not necessary. it's just a way to further, i guess, kick somebody in the rear end if you don't like them. and the question is therefore why should we be doing this to oil and gas companies? "the wall street journal" pointed out in a recent editorial, and i quote -- by the way, it's the title big oil, bigger taxes. that the oil and gas industry is subsidizing the government, not the other way around. because of the amount of taxes that oil companies pay far more than other companies, we're actually subsidizing the u.s. government. oil and gas companies paid almost $36 billion in taxes in 2009 alone. that's just one industry, the oil and gas companies, $36 billion. and according to the american petroleum institute figures, oil and gas companies had an average effective tax rate of 41% in 2010 and paid more in total

taxes than any other industry. so for those folks who somehow suggest that oil and gas is getting some big break, that they're not paying their fair share in taxes, this evidence clearly refutes that. and you know, remember the president's buffett rule, everybody should pay at least 30% in taxes? oil and gas companies already pay at the rate of 41%, so it's not as if they are getting off here with some kind of special break. generally, our tax code allows companies to recover their expenses. it allows businesses, and that includes oil and gas business to recover their costs of doing business. as i said before, the oil and gas industry is already discriminated against. they can't recover all of their costs. under section 199, for example, other companies get to deduct 9%. they can only deduct 6%. this would remove all of the provisions that allow them to

expense. and so the code which already treats them the same or worse than other industries would now treat them substantially worse. yes, of course, oil and gas companies have profits, and in some cases they are large profits, but they are large in scale because their businesses are large in scale because they have to be in order to compete. it costs billions of dollars just to invest in one oil rig out in the gulf of mexico, for example. according to industry estimates, it costs between $1.3 billion and $5.7 billion to produce oil in one deepwater platform in the gulf of mexico. now, think about it. if you're making $200 a year, obviously, you can't do that. it takes companies that make an enormous amount of money to spend $5 billion on one oil platform to try to see whether or not they can find oil and gas. don't we want companies like that to find oil and gas so that we can get more of it on the market so they don't have to pay

as much when we try to fill up our car at the pump? well, what would happen if we used the tax code to further penalize oil and gas companies with these massive tax increases? does anybody think the costs aren't going to be passed on? according to congressional research service, tax increases like the ones in the bill, and i'm quoting -- would make oil and natural gas more expensive for u.s. consumers and likely increase foreign dependence, end of quote. everybody talks about reducing the price of gas at the pump and reducing u.s. dependence. what these tax increases would do is to further that dependence and increase the prices at the pump. i mean, this isn't like shooting ourselves in the foot. it's like shooting ourselves in the head. why would we do this? we would have less domestic energy production, obviously taxing activity means that we will get less of it. how about jobs? well, the oil and gas industry supports more than nine million american jobs. the american petroleum institute

estimates that one million new jobs could be created in the next seven years if punitive new tax increases and unnecessary new regulations are avoided. now, we desperately need to create jobs. these are good american jobs. why would we want to destroy jobs by imposing an unfair tax on an industry which is producing something that we desperately need? foreign oil companies such as those based in russia and china and venezuela would have an even greater competitive advantage over american companies in these overseas markets if we impose these taxes on american companies. and finally, we would hurt tens of millions of americans who invest in these companies through pension funds, retirement accounts and mutual funds. in other words, mr. president, this bill would eliminate tax provisions that are not giveaways or subsidies to producers in the united states in order to pay for tax subsidies that would be given to

specially chosen industries, the so-called green industries. in the process, we would get higher fuel prices for consumers, less domestic oil and gas production, more dependence on foreign oil, fewer jobs, less american competitiveness and less retirement savings. this does not sound like a deal worth making. the presiding officer: the senator from nevada. mr. heller: thank you, mr. president. so here we go again. once again, washington is doing its old familiar song and dance. pushing another fish, very light on solutions.

the triewmg is the measure we're debating today will not help anyone struggling with rising gas prices. it is past time for congress to get to work on solving our nation's most pressing issues. nevadans have already been hit hard by this economic downturn. gas prices are only making a tough situation worse. congress should do everything within its power to provide relief to americans who are already struggling to make ends meet. in las vegas, theage of price of -- the average price of gas is $3.90 a gallon. up north in reno, gas prices are already more than $4 a gallon. and in the rural towns of elqo an-- elco, gas prices have increased by 48 cents just in the last month. i received a tax message by a

prominent businessman in my state. "he says regular gas prices at $4.56 per gallon in southern california beginning to really affect our businesses." this is an issue, mr. president, that congress has ignored for far too long. instead of addressing gas prices, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are retreating to failed policy, in hopes of distracting americans from the dramatic price and rise of prices at the pump. they're merely following the lead of this administration, whose own secretary of energy statement before congress indicated that their overall energy goal is not to lower gas prices. unfortunately, my colleagues fail to understand what the american people have understood all along, and that is to have a healthy economy, we need affordable energy.

developing domestic energy resources, building the infrastructure to get it to market, would not only create jobs but will bring more energy resources to market. nevada still has the unfortunate distinction of leading the nation in both unemployment and foreclosures. whether you live in the vast expanses of nevada, gasoline prices disproportionately affect my home state. the current state of our economy and the rising gas prices represents an extreme blow to many se sectors of nevada's ecoy and tourism in particular. tourism and the job dependent on that industry will be further deaf statuted as gas pricings increase at a time when nevadans are hurting most. additionally, nevada is roughly 110,000 square miles.

high gas prices mean more vacant hotel rooms. it means more empty restaurant . it means more closed small businesses. many of my constituents must travel great distances to work or for the basic goods and services. at a time when middle-class families across nevada have already been forced to tighten their belts, the last thing they immediate is to feel the -- they need is to feel the squeeze of higher gas prices. we need gorks not policies that make job creation more difficult. i believe that continuing to develop renewable and alternative sources is important to nevada for clean energy and job creation it brings. the development of renewable energy is something that i have long advocated for but, however, our nation must have a diverse energy strategy. a truly comprehensive approach to our domestic energy security will create jobs and improve our

economy. we must develop all of our resources, and i would argue that the positive impact increased domestic production would have on our economy in terms of jobs and revenue would actually facilitate the development of the technologies of the future. there is no doubt: alternative sources of energy are our future and while we work to develop and perfect those technologies, we need to secure our economy now by having an energy policy that respects the cause of the problem, and that is supply and demand. what concerns me is that we are not debating a bill that today provides solutions. today's debate is about a bill that is merely two failed policies repackaged as a political stunt. congress should not double down on failed stimulus programs that have put nevadans out of work and have done little to salvage our economy.

americans do not want more political gimmicks. what they want are solutions. what congress needs to focus on are policies that will lower gas prices for americans and fuel job creation. for this reason, i have authored an amendment to this legislation that is truly a compromise containing solutions to the issues we are facing today. my amendment, the gas price relief act, would relieve gas prices at the pump, increase domestic energy production, and close tax loopholes. under the gas price relief act, every american who drives a car will reap the benefit of tax relief. my legislation closes tax loopholes for the major integrated oil companies and cuts the gas tax while ensuring revenue is still being delivered to the highway trust fund. my amendment also provides for

domestic energy production and infrastructure, which will create jobs and at the same time increase supply. it is truly a commonsense, all-of-the-above strategy to provide for the development of our domestic energy resources in order to meet our energy needs. it is imperative that washington takes on our nation's most pressing issues, not simply instigate partisan fights. washington should not continue to play politics with americans' paychecks. the longer congress delays in making tough decisions, the more people in nevada and across our nation suffer. in my home state of nevada, gas prices have more than doubled since 2009. higher energy costs impact every aspect of life from the confirmf food and clothing to virtually every service we rely on. expanding domestic energy production, improving our energy

infrastructure, and passing savings along to the american people are the right objectives to meet our nation's immediate and future energy needs. let's move beyond the partisan fights of today, start producing the results nevadans and all americans are asking for. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: