quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. harkin: mr. president? i ask further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. harkin: mr. president -- mr. president, i ask consent that my statement that i'm about to give appear as if in morning business but not connected to the motion at hand. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. harkin: mr. president, last week our nation lost one of its most determined and courageous advocates for the rights of people with disabilities: katie beck ket. i'm proud to say katie was a

native iowan, born in 1978 and contracted viral encephalitis. she had a seizure and went into coma for ten days. this illness caused damage to her brain which left her paralyzed and unable to breathe on her own. katie was placed on a ventilator, was fed using a tube. initially coming out of the coma she could not move at all. slowly much of the paralysis receded but she was not able to breathe on her own until she was two years of age. during that time she lived on a pediatric intensive care unit. her family wanted her out of the hospital and wanted her home. by her third birthday katie's private insurance reached its tkhr-rbs 1 million cap -- $1 million cap and began to receive medicare. doctors determined she could leave the hospital with proper supports at home. however, here's the catch:

medicaid refused to pay for such care. even though it would cost one-sixth as much as hospital care. medicaid would pay for institutional care but not for in her own home. she only received care at a hospital or nursing home and get it covered. so katie's predicament began to receive attention. thanks to the intervention of many people including then-congressman tom tocke, who was katie's congressman at that time, who began to speak out about this and who brought it to the attention of then-president ronald reagan, and many in congress, and because of that president reagan spoke out about this, and a new home and community-based waiver was created to allow children in katie's situation to receive their care at home rather than in hospitals. this new program was called the katie beckett waiver.

at the time it was thought the program would benefit only a few hundred children. however, since 1982, over half a million children have benefited from the katie beckett waiver including 11,000 in iowa. katie and her family were true pioneers in changing the institutional biases in medicaid and permitting children with disabilities to receive supports and services in their own homes rather than a hospital, nursing home or other institutional setting. so under the new program, katie went home almost three full years after she was admitted. at that time she was able to be off her ventilator for six hours a day. so what happened after her discharge? well, she started school. while her fellow students considered her different because of her medical condition, she never needed special education services. at an early age she became a passionate advocated for home and community-based care.

while in high school she testified before congress, met with governors and, as i said, even the president of the united states. she served as an intern at exceptional parent magazine, living in boston. that summer between her junior and senior year of high school, katie learned to manage her own medical care, directing the nurse who is provided her treatments and managed her ventilator. katie considered advocacy to be her vocation and chosen path. in particular, helping to raise the consciousness of other young people about disability issues. even though she found this work rewarding, she sometimes felt uncomfortable in those pre-a.d.a. days, as we say, pre-americans with disabilities act, to be singled out because of her disability. all she wanted with was, as shet it, to fit in and be normal. her first job was at a music store at a local job. she got the job by virtue of her

knowledge and interest in music. but as katie said -- quote -- "advocacy is in my blood and my soul." so she looked for work that would allow her to help other people. she had been volunteering at the local ywca in the secondhand shop that supported the only homeless shelter for women and children in eastern iowa and was then hired for the receptionist job at the y. the skwrop title re -- the job title receptionist did not describe her true job responsibilities. katie was the first responder to sexual assault victims. she helped with the neutral exchange program where divorced or separated parents could drop off their children without having to encounter each other. she learned to quickly assess the needs of others and to help connect them to appropriate services and supports. she also helped with the supervisorsed visitation program -- supervised visitation program and was soon promoted to be the assistant supervisor of that program.

later katie worked with her mother, julie beckett to help establish the kids as self-advocates network, a group designed to help children and youth with significant medical needs to speak up for their own care and support. working through family voices, another organization spearheaded by julie beckett, katie helped to teach hundreds of young people how to advocate for their own health care. she served as a senate appointee on the ticket to work and the work advisory panel which provided advice to the social security administration, the president and congress on work incentives, employment and other issues facing people with disabilities. katie beckett graduated from mount mercy college in cedar rapids, iowa, in 2001. she took writing courses in kirkwood community college. she was close to completing a novel. a series of illnesses obliged her to put off returning to college and take the classes

necessary to become a teacher. katie treasured the freedom to engage in the kinds of activities so many of us take for granted, including eating at red lobster, going to the shopping mall, and recently moving in to her own apartment. katie will be greatly missed by so many people all across america. she will be remembered for her determined advocacy and that of her family, which has changed countless lives for the better. she inspired a whole generation of young people with disabilities by showing that an ordinary person can accomplish extraordinary things through great spirit, determination, and persistence. mr. president, dr. martin luther king jr. once said "life's most urgent and persistent question is: what are you doing for others?" during her memorable but very short lifetime, katie answered that question in powerful ways. as an agent for change and a determined advocate.

her living legacy is the program that bears her name: the katie beckett waiver which will continue to improve the lives of children and young people with disabilities far into the future. mr. president, i see my colleague from iowa here, who has also been a friend of the becketts, has been very supportive of katie and her work and julie beckett, and this has truly been a bipartisan, bicameral support for this wonderful, wonderful family. katie's funeral is this friday. we're all going to miss her. as i said, when you met katie beckett, you were inspired to do more than you thought you could do. she was a wonderful, wonderful person. and it's just tragic that her life came to, came to such a short close just last week. but she's going to be remembered. as i said, she changed so many

lives in this country, so many lives for the better. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. grassley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i thank my colleague from iowa for his very nice remarks about katie beckett. obviously i come to the floor for the same reason, to celebrate the life of katie beckett. never has the word "inspiration" been used more appropriately in describing somebody, and today i'm grateful to be able to recognize the inspirational life of katie beckett. mary catherine, nicknamed katie beckett, was born in cedar rapids, iowa, march 9, 1978. five months after she was born, katie contracted encephalitis followed by grand mal seizures.

encephalitis caused damage to her central nervous system and her respiratory system, and she was attached to a ventilator. she would be almost two years old before she could breathe on her own. under medicaid law, at the time, as senator harkin said, katie could only receive care through medicaid if she remained in the hospital, even though she was able to receive the care at home. iowa congressman tom tau k*e heard of katie's situation and realized it made no sense to keep a child in the hospital who could be at home with her family. better quality of life as well as saving the taxpayers' money. congressman tauke worked to convince the administration that the system should be changed to allow states to provide medicaid to children receiving care in their homes. ultimately president reagan took up katie's cause, intervening so

that katie could receive treatment at home and still be covered under medicaid. this change in policy became known as the katie beckett waivers, and to date more than half a million disabled children have been able to receive care in their home with their families rather than being forced into hospitals and institutions. but katie's story doesn't end there. as katie grew up, as she battled to establish her own place in society as a young american with disabilities, she -- she realized she had an opportunity to serve others who face similar challenges. in her own words -- and this is from a piece katie wrote in the year 2002 titled -- quote -- "whatever happened to katie becket," end of the title, so i quote -- "i started by advocacy career at age 10. it was not my choice but rather a path chosen for me.

it was not until i was 12 or 13 that i realized the important work i was able to do because i was who i was and how much this work helped other kids end of quote. katie graduated with a degree in english from mount mercy college in cedar rapids. she lived in the community. she wanted to be a teacher and write novels for young people. she was fiercely independent, sometimes to the consternation of her mother julie. she was quick witted and funny and loved a good cup of coffee. she lived her life as a tireless advocate for the disabled. she testified before congress several times and was contribute ing voice on numerous groups dedicated to disability policy. when we took up policy proposals like family opportunity act and money follows the person, we wanted katie's perspective and we depended upon her advocacy in

the community to get those laws passed. katie was the living embodiment of a person with disabilities participating and contributing in society. mr. president, on friday, may 18, katie went home to be with the lord. she leaves behind thousands of lives touched by her presence. a light may go out but a light lives on in those of us fortunate enough to have known katie becket. we remain inspired to work every day to create opportunities for the disabled, to participate and contribute and live the life of service and dedication that katie did. so obviously, even though not alive today, katie will remain that inspiration for many people for a long time to come. thank you very much.

i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north carolina. mr. burr: i ask to speak as if in morning business, please. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. burr: i think i can say i was blessed to be here before the speech was gave about katie. although her life was cut short, her impact is felt by many. mr. president, i rise today to speak on a bill that i introduced last week, s. 3084, the veterans integrated service network reorganization act of 2012. this legislation would significantly reorganize the structure of the departments of veterans affairs or v.a. in their veterans integrated service networks or visns. to make these networks more

efficient and to allow resources to be moved to direct patient care. the veterans health care system in our country was originally established through combat-related injuries and to assist in the recovery of veterans with service-connected disabilities. since its start, the scope of veterans' health administration or v.h.a. has expanded and now treats all veterans enrolled in the health care system through hundreds of medical facilities located around the country. prior to 1995, v.h.a. was organized into four regional offices. these regional offices simply channeled information between the medical centers and the v.a.'s washington, d.c., headquarters office. since the regional office's duties were to pass on information to the facilities, they had little ability to exercise independence in implementing policies based on the need of the veterans in their regions. so in march, 1995, based upon the recommendation of former

under secretary of health, dr. kenneth kaiser, v.a. underwent a significant reorganization of its washington, d.c., and regional offices. basically, the v.h.a. health care system was divided up into 22 geographic areas, now 21, with each region having its own headquarters with a limited management structure to support the medical facilities in that region. the goal of the reorganization was to improve access to, quality of and the efficiency of care to veterans through, and i quote, patient first, unquote, focus. this structure would improve care by empowering visns with the independence of how to best provide for the veterans in their region. this change also would have made the most of spending for patient care by suggesting that visn management be located on a v.a. medical center campus. the aim was to provide better

organized system that would have oversight management responsibilities of the medical facilities through a new structure called the veterans integrated service network. this new system intended to offer a clearer picture of what the duties were of both v.a.'s central office and visn headquarters. going forward, v.h.a.'s central office responsibilities included changes to v.a. policy and medical procedures and monitoring the facilities performance in providing care. each visn headquarter's primary function was to be the basic budgetary management and planning units for its network of medical facilities. because the scope of their task was limited, it was expected that a visn headquarters could be operated with seven to ten full-time employees for a total of 220 staff for all visn headquarters nationally. any additional expertise needed was to be called up for the

medical centers on an informer basis, but i believe the v.h.a. has significantly strayed from behind the initial concept of the 1995 reorganization. while some growth in the visn management staff over ten years is expected, the growth and duplication of duties we have seen at visn headquarter offices and medical facilities is troubling. examples of such duplication are coordinators for homeless veterans, veterans, women veterans that are present at both the medical facilities and the visn headquarters. this duplication has not only redirected spending away from medical centers, it's caused a bloating of the numbers of staff across 21 visn headquarters. visn headquarters have grown well beyond the 220 staff proposed by the 1995 reorganization to a total of 1,340 staff for 21 visn headquarters today. an increase from 220 to 1,340

employees today. these staff are performing functions that have little to do with budget, management and oversight let alone direct health care for our veterans. it appears the v.h.a. has allowed visn headquarters staff to increase without the necessary oversight of an assessment of the impact on the original purpose for visns. also left unchecked are the changes in the veterans population and how veterans have moved between states to determine if there is a need to adjust the visn boundaries to best serve the veterans seeking care. this bill, my bill, would bring about a much-needed change to the visn structure. it would, one, consolidate the boundaries into nine visns. two, move some jobs back into the v.a. central office. three, reduce the number of employees to 65 per visn. and, four, require v.h.a. to

review the visn staff and structure every three years. what a novel suggestion that we would actually review the progress that we make. my colleagues may find it a bit odd that we could reduce the staff of visn headquarters while also increasing the size of the veterans' population and facilities from some visn headquarters, but because we're reducing what the task that the visn headquarters perform transferring several jobs to new regional support centers or r.s.c.'s, visn headquarters staffs would be more productive in carrying out the simple budget, management and planning duties that they were originally tasked with in 1995 in the reorganization. while the consolidation of visns would result in the closure of nine visn headquarters, no staff would lose their job as a result

of this legislation. staff whose jobs would be eliminated because of the consolidation would have a chance to be transferred to other positions within the v.a. staff who performed the oversight functions that would be moved to the newly created r.s.c. would be given the opportunity to continue to work at the r.s.c. this legislation also returns the idea that visn headquarters should be located on v.a. campuses by directing that visn headquarters, if possible, be located on a v.a. medical center campus. relocating to vacant space on a v.a. medical center campus hopefully would reduce the cost to v.a. in the long run but more importantly it would bring the headquarters staff closer to the facilities they oversee. mr. president, i realize this would be an enormous change in the way v.h.s. does business, yet i believe that this can be accomplished without any changes to how v.a. provides treatment

and care to our nation's veterans. in fact, i believe it will improve how v.a. cares for veterans by increasing the resources directly available for patient care. it's important that v.a. not lose sight of its primary mission as stated by abraham lincoln, and i quote -- "to care for him who shall have borne the battle." unquote. and to that end, v.a. should redirect spending away from bureaucrats and back to the direct care of veterans. i believe the visn reorganization act of 2012 would provide a more efficient and effective health care system to our veterans, and i hope my colleagues will see it in that light and support this effort at reorganization that is way past good. i thank the chair. i note the absence of a quorum.

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. bennet: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. bennet: thank you. i ask the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. bennet: thank you. i came to the floor tonight and i'm going to relieve you in a few minutes so i promise i won't go on for very long, to talk

about the f.d.a. reauthorization bill that's before the senate. i was sorry that we couldn't get it to a vote today. i'm hope thankful tomorrow we will be able to, because from my perspective as someone who has only been here for a few years, the process, the committee process that led to the creation of this bill i think is a model for how this town ought to be working. the conversation we've had here for so many months and even years has felt decoupled from the conversations i've been having in my town hall meetings and across the country about the challenges that we need to address. this gap has been miles apart but in this piece of legislation we've actually found something responsive to patients, responsive to consumers, and responsive to the bioscience industry that's so important to my state and so many states across the country. chairman harkin and ranking member enzi deserve enormous

credit for running an excellent process that's naibledz -- enabled this senator and i think others on the committee to be responsive to what our constituents say they want, which is a modern f.d.a. with improved patient safety and innovation. we've also had committee members who were interested in rolling up their sleeves and doing hard work together, irrespective of which party they were in. and we've been able to work through a markup with virtually no partisanship. this has been a uniquely fine process, which is why we've had such great momentum toward a full extension and in what i call the land of flickering lights because the standard of success around here has become keeping the government running one more month, keep this extension in place for two more months. we actually have on the floor a rational and responsible bill that's a five-year extension of

the food and drug administration. tonight i only want to talk about two aspects of the bill. there are a number that we worked on, but tonight i'll spare you with the rest because i have to replace the presiding officer. in 2010 i introduced a bill called the drug safety and accountability act. chairman harkin and ranking member enzi took notice and we were able to form a working group to address serious problems in the f.d.a. statutory authority. f.d.a. laws that are supposed to protect our domestic drug supply were created in 1938 and desperately needed to be updated for the 21st century. back then, the lines of commerce were based on 48 states. now we live in an era where over 80% of the active ingredients of our -- in our pharmaceuticals in our drug supply are being manufactured abroad. dhawm with the f.d.a. laws that force them into expect american

facilities every two years but have no mandate on how often they inspect facilities overseas, the g.a.o., the government accounting office, has found f.d.a. could only keep pace with inspecting the most high-risk overseas facilities, the places where our moms and dads are getting pharmaceuticals for our children, once every nine years. once every nine years. so patients taking their bills have -- pills have no idea whether the ingredients in their drugs were made in china or in india or if they were ever inspected. our american manufacturers are operated on an uneven playing field. they have to expect a surprise f.d.a. inspection every two years on average here to make sure they're following all their good manufacturing practices when their foreign counterparts don't have to worry about f.d.a. visiting them for a decade, if ever. because they can delay or refuse f.d.a. inspections because they're overseas.

patients groups and the industry came together to try to change that, and this bill does change all of that. it would implement a risk-based inspection schedule for both foreign and domestic manufacturing sites, it would make sure that drug manufacturers know who is in their supply chain every step of the way, and for the first time, if you're abroad and you refuse or delay inspection without a fair reason, the f.d.a. can refuse to let your product in this country. these are all the steps american families already think we have in place to protect them. i can't tell you how many town halls i've had where people have been shocked to learn that the products that they have in their medicine cabinets have never been inspected by anybody. this will change that. and it's a thoughtful, commonsense approach that i think all of the constituents to this debate support. so we need to make sure that happens. i also want to talk about something called track and trace. american families also want to

know what happens to their pills, pills that can mean the difference between life and death, once they leave the manufacturer, enter the country, and change hands several times. right now we can know a lot more from a bar code on a gallon of milk than there a bar code on medications. and that seems be absurd to peoe at home. and i want to take a moment again here to thank the chair and ranking member for their commitment to working together to meet the challenge of developing a uniform traceability system. this is something that has been worked on for over a decade in this town, and we are finally this close to making it the law of the land. and i want to thank in particular my colleague, richard burr, a republican from north carolina, for being such a great partner in this work. f.d.a., the help committee staff, pew, and other stakeholders across the supply chain have been week meeg for

works with my staff and with senator burr's staff all in good faith and our groal is to finalize a plan after we wrap up the senate bill. since i see there is no one else on the floor and i have a few more minutes let me talk about another very exciting part -- oh, sorry, my colleague from new hampshire is here so i'm going to yield to her. but i will tell you that if we pass this bill for the first time the f.d.a. is going to be able to apply 21st century science to the approval of drugs, particularly drugs that are breakthrough medications, drugs that we know will work in one subset of population even if they might not work so well in another. this is very important to cancer patients all across the united states who are looking to access these breakthrough therapies. so from the standpoint of driving an industry in this country that in my own state has median salary of roughly $74,000, and for the point of view of patient health and

protecting our supply chain, this f.d.a. reauthorization is a must-pass. i thank the members of the committee and especially the chairman and the ranking member for -- for establishing a model really for how this senate should operate. and with that i yield the floor to the senator from new hampshire. and i thank her for her patience. mrs. shaheen: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. mrs. shaheen: i ask consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. shaheen: before i do, i should say i applaud my colleague from colorado, senator bennet, for the work that he's done on this f.d.a. legislation and as he pointed out, the good work that's been done by our colleagues on both side of the aisle to get this bill, to move it forward and to have a responsible and reasonable amendment process. so i hope that we can move it forward this week and actually

see its passage on the floor because it is so important to so many people who are dependent on what the food and drug administration does in this country. but, mr. president, i actually came to the floor to speak on another topic this afternoon. this week we celebrate national small business week. small businesses are so important to job creation in this country, so much of the innovation that takes place in this country happens as a result of the work of small businesses. two-thirds of the jobs that we expect to be created to lead us out of the recession and through this recovery are going to be created by small businesses. and it's important that here in this chamber we do everything we can to support small businesses. i'm pleased that i've been able to be a member of the small business committee, and i

applaud the leadership of senator landrieu and senator snowe, the chair and ranking member, for all of the good work they've done to support small business. i can tell you from my own personal experience just how important small businesses are. my husband and i started our married life and for eight years ran a family business. it put us both through graduate school, gave us a down payment on a house, it employed a number of young people for eight years, and i understand -- it taught me a lot about meeting a payroll and making sure that we can take care of our employees, help make sure that they have good jobs, and so i've had that personal experience to make me understand just how critical small businesses are to our economy. i also want to -- i'm sheer on the floor also to -- i'm here

on the floor also to talk about bipartisan legislation that my colleague from new hampshire, senator ayotte and i are introducing today to boost small business exports. just as small businesses are the backbone of so much of this country's economy, they are clearly the backbone of new hampshire's economy. it should come as no surprise to all of our constituents in new hampshire that both senator ayotte and i serve on the small business committee because we know just how important those businesses are to our state. we both recognize how critical it is for us as a delegation to work across the aisle and across chambers when possible to help the small businesses in new hampshire provide the good jobs that the residents of new hampshire need. so i'm glad that senator ayotte and i are working together to introduce legislation to help remove barriers to exporting for small businesses in new hampshire and across the united

states. the bill we're introducing today, the small business export growth act, is the result of a small business committee field hearing we hosted together in manchester, new hampshire, last august. and we held that hearing because we recognized that exports offer a tremendous opportunity for small businesses. unfortunately, for so many small businesses, those foreign markets have remained an untapped resource for most of them. over 95% of the world's customers live outside of the united states, but only 1% of our small businesses export. that's a particularly shocking number when you compare it to large businesses, because over 40% of large businesses sell their products overseas. so we've got to do more to help our small businesses get into those international markets. at our field hearing, we heard

about some of the barriers that our small businesses face when they try to go global. and our legislation is an attempt to remove some of those barriers so that small businesses can access new sources of revenue and are create jobs. one of the problems we heard about is that navigating the federal bureaucracy can be a special challenge for small businesses that wish to export. i know that the president and i can both appreciate that because we know how hard it is for us to navigate the federal bureaucracy senator ayotte and i heard from two such new hampshire companies that rely on state and federal offices to help them export. and i want to talk about one of those companies specifically. it's a company that's called secure care. secure care has developed a technology that protects alzheimer's patients who may wander away from their home or their place of residence, and it

also protects newborns who are still in maternity wards. grace breaston, who is the -- grace preston, who is the international sales manager for secure care, told us that the company has significantly expanded its growth by selling overseas. grace also told us that secure care couldn't have done that without federal and state export programs working together. in new hampshire, we're very fortunate because our state and federal export services work seamlessly and that's been really important in helping our businesses grow their exports. in 2010, new hampshire's exports grew about 40%. that was almost twice the national average and the most of any state in the country, so it's been very critical to our small businesses. but we also heard that state and federal agencies don't always have that same collaborative relationship in other places

across the country. according to our former new hampshire trade director, don wibble, these services sometimes in some places can overlap or, even worse, sometimes there are agencies who trophy work together. -- who refuse to work together. our bill attempts to require better coordination to make more successes like secure care a reality across the country. our bill also encourages the federal government to do more to promote the opportunity of exporting and to get the word out about federal export programs. mr. president, foreign markets can be daunting for small businesses but that shouldn't stop our innovators from trying to compete. our small businesses must be assured that the federal government will help them when considering exporting, that part of our responsibility is to try and do everything we can to put in place policies that help

small businesses when they want to try and export. so i want to thank senator ayotte for her cooperation, for the work that we've done together, both senator ayotte and her staff, along with my staff, for working on this issue. i look forward to advancing this legislation in the senate and to continuing to recognize the important role that small businesses play in our economy. thank you very much, mr. president. i yield the floor. and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. brown: thank you. i ask unanimous consent to expense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: and i ask unanimous consent to address the house as if in morning business for no more than 10 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. last week the vice president of the united states was in my state in ohio in the youngstown area in northeast ohio and he saw what i've been seeing in my state for the last several months and he heard what i've been hearing from so many ohioans in the last several months. he went to the lordstown auto assembly plant which makes the chevy cruze and he saw what we've been seeing in my state, where manufacturing finally is coming back.

from 200 to 2010, from early 2000 to january 2010, the manufacturing sector in this country lost a huge number of jobs, more than 5 million jobs. now, the -- about the 35 years before that manufacturing jobs in this country were pretty constant. they were up and down, but in 1997 oar 1998, we had about the same number of manufacturing jobs in america that we had in 1965. a smaller percent of the workforce, a smaller percent of g.d.p. perhaps, but roughly the same number of jobs. but from 2000 to january 2010, we lost some estimates were as high as one of this thir one-thr manufacturing jobs. we know it was as least 5 million jobs and some 60,000 plant closing.

it's almost impossible to ascribe that, at least in part, to -- it's certain to be able to ascribe that at least in part as trade policy and tax policy. tax policy that far too often gives manufacturing companies an incentive to shut down and move overseas. if you shut down a plant in warren, ohio, or springfield, ohio, and move to wuhan or she hasn't or shanghai, you could save on your federal taxes and it is thoord do anything but ascribe at least in part some of the trade agreements we've signed -- nafta, that the presidents of both parties -- and i was just as critical of president clinton as i was of president bush on cafta. we know what pntr with china did, where we went to not much more than a $10 billion trade deficit in 2000 to atrade

deficits that were $15 billion, $20 billion, i believe $10 billion to $15 billion a month with china later in the decade. but we -- and we know from the policy of tax cuts are that went overwhelmingly to the wealthiest americans that passed i passed 1 and 2003, going into two wars and not paying for it, a medicare drug law that in the name of privatization basically gave away huge incentives to the drug and insurance companies -- all that played into an economic policy that didn't work for the american people. more than 5 million lost manufacturing jobs, 60,000 plant closings between 2000 and 2010, what happened in 2009 and 2010 to finally turn that around is in the house and the senate and the president of the united states rescued the auto industry. we know the kind of job loss we were seeing. and now look what we have. it's not great yet.

we're not seeing huge growth in manufacturing. but almost every single month since early 2010 in ohio and across the country we're seeing job growth in manufacturing. so far since early 2010, after that 5 million manufacturing job loss from ear early 2000 to eary 2010, more than 5 million manufacturing jobs lost, we've seen 400,000-plus net work increase in these two years since then. it's too anemic. it is not enough. but it is the direction we need to go. let me give you a couple of examples what this has mefnts -t this has meant and why the auto rescue has meant so much to the united states of america. the jeep wrangler and jeep liberty assembled in toledo, ohio. prior to the auto rescue, these workers assembled the wrangler and the liberty, assembled them with only 50% american-made components.

after the auto rescue today, about 75% of the components that go into the wrangling and go into the jeep liberty assembled in toledo, ohio, come from products, come from components made in the united states of america. look at what's happed happening in lordstown, ohio. the bumper comes from northwood, ohio, the transmission comes from toledo, the speaker system comes from springbore row, ohio, the aluminum comes from cleveland, ohio, the stamping is in parmo, ohio. this is put together -- all these parts come together in lordstown, ohio, nearly youngstown, assembled by 5,000 workers on three shifts. almost none of that would have happened without the auto rescue. you know what else the auto rescue is all about, it didn't just help cries will he and g.m., which had in fact go into bankruptcy. it also was supported -- the auto rescue was supported by

foonders honda in my state -- we have huge ford and honda investments in my staivment why would they have supported the auto rescue when the loans from the government went to chrysler and g.m.? because they knew the importance of the supply chain. because the supply chain for chrysler and g.m. had collapsed, as it would have if those two companies had gone into bankruptcy and not been restructured and financed so they could come out of bankruptcy. ifed that harntiond then the supply chain for ford and honda also would have partially collapsed. we see evidence that. the evidence of that of what happened with the tsunami in japan where honda and others had to shut down for a period of time because they couldn't get the supplies components manufactured. theyed intoed some of them from japan. the point is we stepped in with the auto rescue not just for chrysler and g.m. not just for honda and ford in

my state where 800,000 jobs -- it is officially estimated -- are affiliated with the ro auto industry. but it also meant these jobs in tier-one suppliers. some of them were about to collapse. we -- the rescue of the auto industry also directly helped to rescue some of those tier-one suppliers. magnum in a suburb of toledo, johnson controls bhaiks seats. in warren, ohio, which makes seats for the chevy cruze. all of those tier-one suppliers were in trouble. we also knew that the tier-two, three, four suppliers making components you might not recognize if you held them in your hands what they exactly were but that go into the cries lettered and ford and g.m. and honda -- in those tier-two, three, four supply chain --

tier-two, three, four supply companies were not able to get financing all the time. we helped in the auto rescue to be able to do that. what vice president biden saw in youngstown, in lordstown, ohio, what he hear in dayton and columbus and mansfield, and in toledo and rossford, in perform arma, when i hear these workers say they understand that this auto rescue, where the government invested -- these companies are paying these investments back, but the government invested because nobody else would have -- it saved all these jobs. it's why manufacturing is beginning to turn around. there are other factors, of course. one of ne them is the the persis enforcing -- one of them is because the president of the united states is enforcing new trade laws. the preyed stood up to the chinese when the chinese were

gaming the system on tubular steel used for drilling natural gas. all of that has mattered to this manufacturing job growth. we're not there yet. we need the administration to step up on a real policy for manufacturing, a real strategy. i think they're starting to do that on better tax law, better trade larks better enforcement of trade laws, on sages manufacturing when we can partner with them, not picking winners and losers but understanding that manufacturing to create wrelt -- you either grow it, mine it or make it. my state does all three, does all three very well. will continue do with this kind of partnership as we move forward. mr. president, you i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll quorum call:

brown mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the quorum. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: i understand there are two bills at the desk. i ask for their first reading en

bloc. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the titles of the bills for the first tied time. the clerk: s. 2330, a bill to amend the fair labor standards act of 138 to provide more effective recommend dpis to victims of discrimination in the payment of wages on the basis of sex and for other purposes. s. 3221, a bill to amend the national labor relations act to permit employers to pay higher wages to their employees. mr. brown: mr. president, i ask for a second reading en bloc and to be my own request en bloc. the presiding officer: objection having been heard, the bills will be read for the second time on the next legislative day. mr. brown: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate adjourns -- completes its business today, it adjourn unt until:30 a.m. on wednesday, may 23. following the prayer and pledge, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, the majority leader be

recognized, the firings hours following the remarks of the majority leader and republican leader be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees with the republicans controlling the first half and the majority controlling the final havment further, that the majority control the time from 1:00 p.m. until 2:00 p.m. sphir officer without objection. mr. brown: it is the majority leader's intention to resume consideration of s. 3187, the f.d.a. user fees bill when the senate convenes tomorrow. we're working on an agreement for amendments to the bill. we hope we can reach an agreement and avoid filing cloture on the bill. if there is no further business before the senate, i ask that it adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until 9:30 a.m. tomorrow.

to be track drugs different bottles of drugs with a serial number as they pass through the system. we're going see some amendments on prescription drug employation and giving the fda more power to investigate things and give the employees lower protection. >> what's the overall purpose of this fda reauthorization? >> the purpose of the user fee program is to give them more money to conduct and review the products like drugs and medical devices. they get money from the companies who are applying to get the drugs or producted arrived. the fda said they need the money. they count on it to be able to do the thicks they do to approve

the new productings. >> let's cig a little bit deeper in some of the amendments that we're likely to see in debate. >> we are definitely going to see from senator john mccain that's importing lower cost drugs from canada. it's been a long-time dole goal of his. he has sharon brown from ohio on. that's something that a lot of senators support. i don't expect it to be adopted this bill. we have other amendments from the bernie sanders have amendments on clinical trials. we're going it see a lot of different things. we might see a flood insurance program from david. it doesn't have anything to do with the fda. it's something that he's trying to pass. >> the "cq" article rights about the sub screen. >> it's right. some democratic senators want the fda to have stronger labeling issues on sunscreen. it's summer i hope more of us will get to the beach and be

using the products. they want the fd a a to have tighter restrictions. >> how about fda officials spobledded to the senate bill. >> fda officials very much want the senate bill to come through. they have worked out agreements with the industry and lawmakers. they have been working it almost two years. they want it to get through as quickly as possible. the authorization doesn't expire until september 30th. they're trying to get it done quickly as possible. there's no doubt it -- >> for what we have seen so for a is the house bill being developed significantly different than the senate bill? >> there are only a few places that are different. overall, they are very similar. there is probably going to have to be a conference committee. we have seen some issues with the antibiotics language. that's between the two bills. it's not too far apart.

it's nothing different that would keep them from becoming to a final agreement. when do you expect the senate fish the bill? >> we hope by thursday or possibly friday. they're recessed next week. before then. they want to wrap it up and get it over with. the house is going to take the bill next week. >> reporting on the fda bill in the senate this week. emily ethridge joining us from capitol hill. thanks for being with us. >> thank you. to learn about the senate c-span congressional directly is a complete guide to the 1 congress. you'll find committee assignments the directly includes cabinet members, the supreme court and state governors. you can get a copy for $12.95 plus shipping and handling. order it online at c-span.org/shop. you're watching c-span two.

weekdays featuring live coverage of the u.s. coverage. watch key public policy events and the latest non-fiction authors and books on book tv. you can see past programs and get our schedules on the website. you can join in the conversation on social media sites. international monetary fund managing director christine today said fiscal policies substituted by britain's government had averted a larger financial crisis. he recommended the nation adopt for stimulus measures. she discussed to the british and european economy including the possibility that greece might leave the europeanonon. her comeants cram from london. had -- this is over a hair hour. >> welcome to the treasury. i'm delighted to welcome christine and her team from the ims for their annual assessment

of the u.k. that's -- the scrutiny of the world economy is a vital part role of the ims role in supporting global stability. before i hand over to her to set out the recommendations to the u.k. in detail, let me say a few words about the economic position at home and in the eurozone. the ims could not be clearer today. britain needs to deal with the debt and the government's fiscal policy is the appropriate one and a essential part to the road of recovery. it enables interest rates to stay low. it means we can use the credibility we've earned for of the government's balance sheet to support lending businesses new houses and more infrastructure. i welcome the ims continuing support for the u.k. debt reduction plan. they agree that reducing the

high struck roral -- fiscal con consolidation to be appropriate they have also this morning backed our fiscal plan. now some have argued that events in the eurozone demonstrated europe including britain should borrow and spend the way out of the debt chris sis. i agree with the point that christine made a few weeks. the debate versus deficit reduction is a false one. this morning we have a news inflation is down, and within 1% of the bank of england's target. falling from 3.5 percent to 3%. it means since the first time since i became chancellor, i have not received the bank of. indeed since 2009 this has happened. this brings welcome relief to families on tight budgets. and theback of england expect

inflation to fall further over the next year or so. unemployment has also fallen this month. but it remains too high and we need to do even more to help. the ims welcomed today the government's announcement last week it will use the credibility of the balance sheet to go further for businesses, housing, and infrastructure. the ims identified setbacks from the your row area as the economic process expects and financial stability. in the u.k. we have a flexible exchange rate and independent monetary policy which allows us to ease the lower exchange rate and supported monetary policy. the ims has advise for the bank of england on that today. we have to deal with high budget deficits without the support. it's clear we're now reaching a critical point for the eurozone. europe and countries need to stand behind the currency or face up to the prospect of

greece exit. with all the risks that could involve. the british government is doing planning potential outcomes. it's our responsibility to ensure while we work for the best, we prepare for something worse. the ims must also compare for the consequences if members in europe do not follow the advice. let me ask you all to welcome kristin who set will center the findings in much more detail. she will answer your questions afterwards. thank you very much. good morning, thank you very much chancellor. i'm particularred pleased to be here in london on the day when the inflation number is announced. i did not come for that purpose. i came for the con delusion of the ims mission and the annual conservation that we do. just to give you a bit of background in terms behalf that

is. it takes a team of more than 7 members on the two-week admission and they spend those ten days roughly, talking to multiple stakeholders, officials, nonofficials, checking numbers, obviously, confronting views and debating policies that have been in place and policy recommendations. so it's a very ant mated exercise that was cupghted as is always in the case in the u.k. now, the global -- as an island with the long trading history, if you understand better the benefits of and cost of leaving in an interconnected world that night u.k. the authorities are for well understand the challenges and opportunities of policy championings in the world where what happens in one country affects all others. it's therefore welcome that the u.k. authorities policy approach has reinforced credibility at the time of intensified global

uncertainty. the government is implementing strong fiscal con sol days to risk fiscal risks. the bank of england has been using follows support growth. the policy makes for one second, you have to appreciate that we do not exam or assess the validity of -- policy, and policies mix to us is really one of the reason why this policy nix in our view has been good. i just want to go back to my text. that has been dropped very, very carefully and, you know, sensibly by seven different drafters. i don't want to betray them. [laughter] so the bank of england has been united stating monetary policy

to support growth. it helps to rebalance the economy and external demand. unfortunately, the economy recovery in the u.k. has not yet taken hold and uncertainty bound. the choices in the your row area affect the u.k. through many channels. growth is too slow and unemployment including youth unemployment too high. policies to both the demand before local becomes entrenched unneeded. unencouragerred the prime minister recently emphasissed the need to use the hard-worn credibility of the government's balance sheet to help the economy grow. i'm encouragerred by the outcome of the g8 leaders summit last week and the leader's results to promote growth and jobs while supporting found and fiscal consolidation policies. hence any position certainly a couple of weeks ago that growth austerity is stale and fails

debate. we should recognize that policy 0 options in this regard come with risks. however, the risks need to be weighed against the -- of growth. to the end, monetary easing is required. underlying inflation pressure is weak, and such easing should be consistent with inflation returning to the 2% target in a reasonable time frame as indicated by the trend this morning. the slope fiscal consolidation appropriate, indeed the structure really a adjustment this year of half percent gdp is below the 2 percentage point. that's an issue that is often understating or hardly ever mentioned. that the fiscal consolidation has progressed a rate of 2%. it was a very significant exercise and thanks to the good decision that was made in

november, 2011, the fiscal consolidation abated at the rate of approximately half a percentage point of gdp which is pact i are the right way to address the current situation. therefore, the fiscal cob sol dedication has embedded flexibility that allow for the slowing of the fiscal consolidation. that is right. but the quality of fiscal adjustment can be improved to provide support for growth. and this includes budget neutral shift toward more infrastructure spending and measures to shield the poor. if the economy turns out to be significantly weaker than forecast, fiscally easing should be considered. again, the measures would have to focus on supporting growth and encouragerring unemployment. the delay in fiscal consolidation in the circumstances would give use of the hard won credibility of

fiscal policy and institutions in the u.k. i shall also mention that the u.k. has a financial sector had a financial sex or -- assessment last year. the program has been made to implement the recommendations. some of that work concluded on stimically important financial institutions, is still underway. and i cannot stress the importance of robust regulation and sorption for global financial such as the u.k. and is indeed a global public good. i would like also, and conclusion to express my thanks to the authorities for their contribution of additional lending. to the ims resources, to help strengthen the global economy and financial stability in interest before all members. and the very courageous stand off chancellor osbon has been appreciated in that regard.

and trying to strengthen the ability of international institutions such as the ims to protect stability overall. again, thank you very much to all the authorities, the treasury, indeed, the bank of england, and the financial stability authority for their cooperation and the good spirit in which this work has been completed. i'm sure you will have some very pressing questions. i'm going to go back and for the questions, highly technical and terribly complex. i have the great support of the admission chief sitting next to me. can you state who you are. some of you i know, some of you i don't. >> chris, fox news alert times. -- fox news alert times. financial times. which graph you are you talking about?

the latest one, i guess. >> yeah. >> the one you handed jo now. the bank of england has been opposed to doing it things like and said repeatedly said it didn't think it should that. given the bank has been rather firm in saying that it won't do it overloan how do you expect the british authorities, how do you recommend the british authorities should actually go ahead with doing this meeting this recommendation? >> well, my understanding from the team that i will let the team express additional views. it could not be done by the bank of england carrying the risk on the own balance sheets. it would be the bank of england acts as agent on behalf of the treasury. so that's the approach that would be acceptable. is that right? >> that's absolutely correct.

what we're trying to get at over here is that high funding costs are constraining the credibility to the economy, and so in the context, any policieses that lower the funding costs would be very valuable. the way these are designed should be specific will to u.k. circumstances. and as managing director just said, and as we said in the draft, the point is to utilize the government's balance sheet to do this so the instruction would be for the bank proposing is this is pursued the instruction would be that the bank would act as the agent also the government. i think -- the initial point i would note over here. there has been experience with these schemes here in the u.k. in the past. the sgc and so on. it's a a matter of designing schemes that are appropriate for

the u.k. circumstances. >> skyy news. clearly one of the biggest -- not the biggest thing in the u.k. is the your row crisis. the remarks that the european or the eurozone needs to stand behind the currency. we echo those words. what is your current advice as to what the europeans need to do to sort out the crisis? >> well, i would first of all, acknowledge the work that has been done by the members of the eurozone. i'm -- when i say that. i was myself in the -- to significant improvements in the governance in particular the

eurozone. the governance changes that has gone clearly by beyond, number one, clearly expecting some of the nations to do very, very serious technical adjustments strawrl reforms, phis fiscal consolidation. i'm thinking of countries such as spain and italy. have gone into strong programs of their own, if you will. second, they decided on the 30th of march to build a more series fire wall than the ess set forth in the past. this is clearly work in progress. and it is good. third, the european central bank has gone into completely different policies, by the way, of a expand the collaterals by cutting the interest rates several times. and clearly by going into the long will have term refinancing

cream. so all of that together is a serious improvement relative to anticrisis situation. but we consider that more needs to be done. and particularly by way of fiscal liability, sharing, and the multiple ways to do that. more needs to be done in relation to supporting growth, particularly by way of strarl reforms. certainly not by way of suggested stimulus. we do not think that the fiscal position of the states can bear that on aning a gait basis. there is work underway. we certainly hope that the monetary zone than built for the last ten years will continue to be developed to be strength end and that the political world of the members will be conducive to that effect. >> naturally the point of your question. was it? you wanted to know what the your

row members would do to consolidate the currency zone. >> good morning. you said if the economy weakens further the authorities should consider the fiscal stimulus. the ims saying it supported the fiscal stance of the government but said there were risks. if the risk materialized you might have to consider a different path. every time it said that, the risk has been materialized the full cost have been reduced since last year, the full cost for this year has been more than halved. how much work does it have to get for you to feel that enough downside risk has materialized? >> well, you know, ever since we are said that. more than have been taken. that was my point about the policy mix. because it would be actually shortsighted to exclusively look

at the fiscal policy. i'm not suggesting that you are all at. we look at the policy mix. and what has been done bit bank of england in particular to use the monetary tools that are available to actually facilitate and ease liquid i did are the measures that were to be taken. they were taken in due course. similarly, the decision that was made by the u.k. government in november to not add to the fiscal consolidation measures despite the fact that the fiscal deficit had been reassessed was the right decision and as a result has pride half a percentage point of fiscal con disol dedication as opposed to the two percentage points that had been harvested in the two previous years. so that -- decelerated consolidation was

exactly appropriate. the monetary policy tools that were used were also the appropriate measures. what we're saying now is that there are more tools that can be used from a monetary policy point of view. we have discussioned that with the bank of england. we believe it has qualititive easing measures available. that could be resumed. number one, we also believe there is, you know, interest rates that could be used as well prior to considering the improved fiscal consolidation at budget neutral spaces. in addition to the measures that were just commented about which are really to use the government budget, and the extremely favorable financing terms and the -- to actually try to support the by facilitating the financing by

facilitating the financing of households in order to stimulate the economy. you see, the gain that resulted from the fiscal consolidation that was decided over two years ago, has been that result, the credibility of the u.k. government, and the ability to borrow at extremely favorable rates. it's sometimes you feel like you could look back and wonder what if, and when i think back myself, you know, may 2010, when the u.k. deficit was 21%. i try to imagine what the situation would be like today if the fiscal consolidation program had not been decided. i shiver. >> in the last two years on europe in the impact of fiscal consolidation on growth. >> yeah. >> how has the staff view of the

impact of on con consolidation and the cuts -- compared to two years ago because of what happened. do you think that had larger impact on growth than you might have expected two years ago? >> i'll tell you something. as i said, the main -- there's no question that fiscal consolidation has affected and will effect growth. as a general principal. but there's no question either that the fiscal consolidation measured that have been adopted across europe have actually improved credibility of the governments that decided them in due course. that is the case with the u.k. what we have said, and you're right. we've cutting conducted a lot of research and analysis. what we have said consistently the fiscal consolidation is not a matter that can be decided across the board in a one-size fits all principle. but that is to be tailored to the specificities of each and

every economy. what we see at the moment throughout europe. it is broadly appropriate under the present circumstances. and in the current outlook. >> and there's no question that come countries have to take front-loaded measure and they have because the financing pressures of such they are have to result to that. >> yes? >> alex brommer with the daily mail. in paragraph 13, you refer possibly to -- >> 13 you say? >> i think it's paragraph 13. you refer to the possibility of tax cuts. i wondered, what areas you might consider were appropriate if the government were to take that course. >> i'm going to give the floor to my colleague. but generally when you do that, you try to focus on the tax cuts that will reduce the higher or the highest possible multiplier effect. i'm going to turn to my

technical expert here who has conducted the mission. who know it is better when it comes to the specificity of the u.k. economy. >> i think the sort of measures that we have in mind, are one could consider cutting the value-added tax. one could consider the payroll contributions because these can be incredibly temporary. the emphasis is is on temporary. those are the measures we have in mind. [inaudible. ings] >> consolidated from bloomberg news. on the same point on point 13. at what point does the deterruation, at what point should the action kick in going forward is is it another cause for recession. is it growth below your own forecast? the government's forecast.

when should we have the extra fiscal action that you're calling for. >> well,, you know, i don't have a present, you know, either term or threshold or deadline. it's always country specific. it's a matter that assessed on the basis of the entire environment, the demand that is addressed to the country. and it's really at the time when it's falls significantly below forecast we think the measure should be adopted. as i said, bear that in mind. there's a lovely tendency to focus on paragraph 13. it so happens, there are what 17? 17 paragraphs. i hope that you don't exclues liv focus on that one will in our view is the fourth in the line of possibility additional new policies that should be considered. >> "wall street journal." i'm going to go to the least

favorite subject. do you think that the financial system especially the the eurozone can afford a greek expert if you quantity fied the damage. if for the sake of government, greece remains in the eurozone, do you think that it can keep on going without an official? have you considered that? >> well, it might not be one of your favorite answers. since it's not one of my favorite questions. ly simply tell you that, you know, the clear preference on the method the interest of stability is appropriate implementation of the program be endorsed by whoever of the political forces that will result from the election of june 17th. and that those political forces will engage in a constructive dialogue with both the euro area

partners as well as the ims in order to proceed to the implementation. now, failing that, obviously, as i have mentioned in the past, the job of the ims is also to look at all possible technical options and all possible alternatives and this is what the ims has to do. >> one more question. >> i'd like that return to the fiscal easing suggestion. >> paragraph 13. >> yes. i'm -- the con try diction between your suggestion that there may be cause to ease back on cuts there are in the u.k. and the saying this morning this are is no room to ease back. how could you explain that contradiction? >> the passing of time. i just said it.

you're year analyzethe n y n in a particular at the a particular time whi is probably what the osed is doing. what we do is come annually. we view what has been in the last year. what the inflation forecast is, what the policies have been. and we try to consider what is likely to happen in the future and make some recommendations. hence that sort of forty different steps and four different policies we have identified as possible options depending on the circumstances. but we don't always agree with the them. we respect each other always. we don't look necessarily at the same time frame in particular. my name -- i'm from greek and a radio station. the question is whether you agree with the officials warning that the greeks will effectually be voting on the euro membership

on the 17th and whether if the democratic elected government comes and asks for your negotiation on the fiscal program. what will your reaction be? the .. so we have to operate within those two parameters. we already engage in discussions with the democratically-elected governments but on the other

hand we apply the same principles and we don't discriminate neither federally nor unfavorably with any member. so, if any democratically-elected government in greece has better ideas to reach our targets, our objectives, then what we have put in place and you know very thoroughly explored and negotiated with the then authorities, will be very pleased and inrested to hear about it. flat, there is a huge productivity gap. there is a competitiveness issue. there are structural reforms that need to be put in place. there is tax collection that has to happen. >> isaac from greece --

[inaudible] after two and a half years, the greek economy is worse and most importantly the greek people are worse off than ever. [inaudible] if yes, are you going to do something about that? thank you. >> first of all i would like to say that under previous governments -- government, but both under the government of mr. papandreou and mr. -- multi-efforts have been undertaken and the consolidation that has taken place in greece is very remarkable. second, q. no, you just have to look at the numbers and there is still work to be done, and there is still efforts and

implementation to be had. the structural reforms have to be implemented. taxes have to be collected. the civil service has to be improved, in its efficiency. there is a lot to be done and with it under a memorandum that is heavily criticized and often use as escape goat or under any other regime the same reforms will have to be made. >> hello, ben from the independent. there is no mention of the word recession in this document. i was just wondering if you could explain why that is despite recent estimates that the u.k. is in a double dip? is? is this because the imf leaves along with some other that the situation is not as bad as official figures are showing or is it some other reason?

>> well, official numbers are very often revisited and revised and we have tried to take a bit of a longer-term view when we do not necessarily focus on two quarters numbers or sort of preliminary numbers. we try to look at the sort of annual forecast. we will be raised at the -- revisiting our forecast by july 2012 but yes, ourlat t recast for 2012 in particular does not mention recession for a good reason. because we don't see a negative number four for 2012. >> did you want to add something? >> thank you ever so much. [inaudible conversations]

>> vice president joe biden told supporters today in new hampshire that republican presidential candidate mitt romney's experience at bain capital the private equity firm he cofounded does not make and qualify to be president. his remarks are 30 minutes. [applause] >> thank you. i am joe biden, molly's friend. [applause] thank you very much. now i don't know if you have seats behind you but if you do, please take the seats. ifdon't, i see some over here. [laughter] yes, we will. ladies and gentlemen, -- [chanting] thank you. [laughter] i think we can too.

folks, it is really -- ladies and gentlemen, it is a pleasure to be with you and whomever is chanting. folks, i would like to, especially for those of you standing, what i would like to do is -- folks, i like to have a straightforward discussion with you as straight as i can be and make it plain as i can. and i would like to give -- get right to the heart of the matter. you all know what we inherited, and what governor romney's line of argument is. he says, he says that since we have gotten into office, things have gotten much worse. he says our policies are the

problem. as a former senator pat moynihan, good friend of mine, used to say, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. they are not entitled to their own facts. so folks, folks -- [applause] i would like to just talk about the facts for a moment if i may. copy of is graph, i nt to before y came in. i would ke look at that. it say job creation between december of 2007 and april of 2012. the red lines are the jobs that we lost. the blue lines are when we started adding jobsk into the economy. in the first -- in the last six months of the bush of administration, we lost 3.5 million jobs. as a matter of fact, that magnificent day on january 20,

and some of you were there and i see so many great old trends that i see out here and by the way, as you know i don't want to -- but i really love keane and i love being back here. at such a great city. it such a great town. [applause] some of you were there on that bitterly cold day on january 20 when we were sworn in. before i lowered my hand that day after taking the oath that month we had already lost over 760,000 jobs that month by january the 20th. ladies and gentlemen, we lost 3.5 million jobs before we were sworn in and before any of our economic policies could be passed and put into effect, we lost another 4000 jobs. that is what this red line here is. the red line is the bush and the blue line is us. you can see all the jobs lost

and the job loss in the first several months of our administration. that is before any of our policies were put into place. you can see these jobs were lost on the republican launch as a consequence of a republican induced recession. not we, the president and i, the nation inherited. so, oncee have not had a single one of our policy issues passed yet and already there were almost 8 million jobs that have been lost. but look what happened. once our policies began to be put in place, we signed the recovery act. we signed a -- we save the automobile industry. we gave tax cuts to businesses and homeowners and things began to change. the loss of jobs began to change only ended up in positive territory. as a consequence of these actions you can see things have markedly change.

we climbed out of the god awful god-awful hole this economy is thrown into and had been pushed into and instead of losing jobs, the private sector, the private sector as the senator just said, has added over 4 million new private-sector jobs and for the last 26 months, each and every month, and as you know, we kept pushing. in march of 2010 we gave tax breaks to companies for hiring unemployed workers. in august of 2010, the president signed into law and a provision to lift the state higher and rehire over 100,000 educators that have been laid off because of state and local budgets that have been crunched as a consequence of this recession. in december of 2010 we pass the payroll tax that gave each and every american an average of $1000 in tax cuts, $1000 less was taken out of their pay and payroll taxes. we repassed that not long ago,

allowing and another $1500 to go into people's pockets, instead of going into taxes. 98% of the american people, they get a pay stub. they pay payroll taxes so when you cut taxes for people with a payroll tax, 98% of the american people will get a tax cut. we gave tax breaks to businesses. we hired un veterans and it was fight but finally pa repuican friends agreed. look at the results. 26 straight months of private-sector job growth. more than 4 million private sector jobs, 1 million of those jobs created in the last six months and as was pointed out a moment ago by molly, manufacturing is coming back to the united states of america. 480,000 new manufacturing jobs since we -- in the last year or so. that is the strongest growth in

manufacturing since 1990. 1 million jobs saved as a consequence of the auto rescue and by the way, you hear these guys say well you know, we didn't bail anybody out everything would be okay. the chairman of ford motor company said privately in public and by the way they are investing another 16 or $17 billion, ford is calm and new factories, plants and equipment. he said if you had general motors, general motors and chrysler not being saved, ford would have gone under. the reason being they supply chain would have dried up. and we added since they came out of recovery, since they recovered, 200,000 new decent paying jobs. autoworker jobs that you raise a family on, a middle-class. and imagine what would have happened had they passed their jobs bill. independt resource would have

added another 2 million jobs. they refuse to let us pass it. a match and imagine where we would need if the republicans in congress hadn't played rinks midship with our national debt last august, cauing us for the first time in our history to have a united statesgold standard, the gold standard is our full faith and credit etched in gold, p in jeopardy. we were downgraded. the economy took a hit and jobs took a hit and by the way, if you listen to speaker boehner now, what is he saying? when he met with the president last week, he said there is going to be another showdown on the debt limit. the reason being they want to change social policy. they can't get it done legislatively so they are threatening to change the policy and less we change policy. they are going to not vote to pay our natial obligations. imagine where we would be if the

tea party hadn't taken control of the house of representatives. a group, honorable people buddy group said on obstructionism. they have one of -- one and only goal, prevent barack obama from a second term. with no apparently, no cure for care of the consequences to the economy. and folks, we have persevered but more importantly you, thee and people, if are severe through all of this. that doesn't mean a lot of people aren't still hurting. and we are determined. we are determined to change that. we have made important progress but there is much more to do. the progress you can measure. just look at the chart. progress that cannot be denied. progress you can see, progress people forman or woman going to bed at night, staring at the ceiling, wondering whether they are going

to have their jobs tomorrow or wondering whether or not they will be able to stay in their home has their houses underwater through no fault of their own. for that person, for that person, it is still a dire circumstance and we are absolutely determined. we are absolutely determined that the turnaround. so in november, the american people are going to be faced with a stark choice as to who is best prepared to lead this nation. for the next four years. i think the choicean be simplified. obvisly i'm prejudiced. [laughter] but i will try to a as straightforward as they can on this. i think th are going to have a simplestark choice. are we going to continue to move forward with the initiatives and the type of approach we have taken, or are they going to move back? it is really that simple. the good news is, the choice has never been more clear for the

people in new hampshire and the people in the united states of america. in that is because governor romney in this new republican party, they are not hiding the ball. they are not pretending. if you listen to those whatever, two, five, 20 debates they had its hard it's hard to believe the things they said. [laughter] i am not joking. even your republican friends. we were debating about whether or not a woman has the right to contraception? i mean you know, these things, talk about going back to the future. that look, governor romney is telling you exactly what he would do. exactly what he believes. governor romney says he wants to go back to the good old days on wall street and i might add, when the economy crashed in 2010. he wants to get rid of the commonsense reforms that were put into effect in 2010.

to allow wall street to serve its function as a single greatest allocator of capital and the history of the world. he says wall street should have fewer regulations like the good old days. luck, in spite of the deficit we inherited from from the last of administration, large a consequence of too unfounded wars, and unfunded prescription drug plan and a trillion dollar tax plan, not a penny of which was paid for, and that tax plan by the way giving people making er $1 million, $800 billion in tax cs, and he wants to double down on it. in the next 10 years. in addition to that, he proposing, and i'm not making this up, he is proposing that, romney, is proposing another trillion dollar new tax cuts which will mean, for people make in a minimuma million dollars, they will get another

$250,000 a year on average tax t, otop of the bush tax cuts. to paraphrase president clinton who you all know and love, he wants to not only go back to the last administration, economic policy, he wants to do it on steroid. [laughter] folks, the governor's philosophy seems to be, whatever the last administration does, let's do it into more. literally, think of anything new he has suggested that deviates from the policies that got us into this hole, ceptore of the same. ladies and gentlemen, you know, these are the guys that ran us into the ditch and they began to sound a little like the horse that just won the derby and preakness, "i'll have another." [laughter] except the horse is a real winner.

[laughter] governor romney's prescription of trillions of dollars in tax cuts for the very wealthy eliminated rational wall street regulation and making the middle class pay for it, has put forward as a new idea. he is arguing this is a new idea. folks, like something we haven't seen before. we have seen this movie before. and we know it doesn't end very well. let me tell you what independent experts have said about romney's economic plans. they say his tax cuts alone will cost $5 trillion over the next 10 years. and they are talking about the deficit that we inherited by and large and the recession that forced us to continue to increase it. so that is going to force the governor if he sticks with his 5 trillion-dollar tax cut, it is going to force him to do two things. it is going to balloon the

deficit, and it is going to require draconian cuts. it will cost trillions of dollars, cut out of programs for the most vulnerable americans and the initiatives that have always found the american economy. investment in research and innovation, infrastructure, roads, bridges, dams and things that provide for productivity keep the economy moving. as well as education. we ranked 16th in the world in the percent of population we graduate from college. how when the lord's name can we lead the world in the 21st century ranked 16th in the world? and folks, it will take us back, it will take us back to a world where nothing is secure about retirement, where medicare as we know it will no longer exist, replaced by a voucher plan, wherecial security isut an pped for the next generation

of retirees. that is what he calls for. is called cutting cap. and a buddy 50 years of older ll cut-and-cap or you get which means you are going to get a lot less, a lot less than you thought you are paying for. and deep cuts in medicare will push americans out of nursing homes. 75% of the people in nursing homes are women who have lost their husbands, who couldn't be there but for this medicare. and they are cutting it by close to 40%. ladies and gentlemen in a nutshell, i think our philosophies can be summarized in two ways. republicans believe, the new republicans, this is not your father's republican party. these new republicans believe in a government where there are no rules for the big guys, no risks r the powerful and no accountability when they fail. we have a very different approach. what i call a basic american commonsense approach, an american idea. the idea is, when everyone, when

everyone is in the deal, and everybody is in the deal, the country benefits. the idea that everybody deserves a fair shot, a fair shake and everyone should play by the same rules and everyone should be held accountable. everyone should be held accountable. an idea that says when the middle class does well, america does well. [applause] everybody does well. [applause] folks, not just the middle-class. when the middle class class does well for the wealthy do incredibly well. it will help the economy. but governor romney thinks he has a trump card that he plays as to why he should be president. whether or not you agree with his economic philosophy. he says he is better qualified to be president and commander-in-chief because of

his business experience. that is why -- well, it is not an irrational argument, but depending on the business. and your success in the business. ladies and gentlemen, that is the crux of his rationale. he is not out there if you notice talking about he is qualified to handle foreign-policy or national security. he is talking about he is better qualified to be president because of his business experience. so look, let's take a look at his business experience. as straightforwardly and fairly as can be done. obviously, i'm going to be looking at it and the folks who will watch this on television will say obviously biden is a democrat and he won't be fair about it. let me try to be as fair as i can about it and take a close look. you hear all the stories about his partners buying companies from amp had another companies where they load up a tremendous amount of debt, the companies go

under and everybody loses their job in the community is devastated but they make money. they make money even when a company goes bankrupt. when workers lose their jobs and pensions are wiped out. look, folks. the fact of the matter is when they succeed, and the company succeeds, they make money. when the company they get involved with sales, they still make money, a lot of money and here is the very -- dirty little secret. when the company still a cost to taxpayers the taxpayers money. a cost taxpayers money and unemployment research and we all pay for that person who is unemployed. it costs other businesses money, because we have a thing of national pension funds for other companies pay into. it's called the pension benefit guaranty corp. so a company goes broke and lose is your pension there is this fail-safe or at least some of the pension you are entitled to can be made good on. so somebody pays for this.

somebody pays for this. not romney's investors. some of romney's defenders, they say and it's legitimate, it's not fair to criticize governor romney for the work he did in the private sector. that is true. they say it wasn't romney's job or bain capital's jobs create jobs. absolutely true. they say it's the job of his private equity companies to create wealth for his investors. that when you provide what private equity firms are supposed to do is make wealthy the investors. exactly, exactly. that is their job and it's legitimate. it's legitimate. but folks, making money regardless of the consequences for the workers, the companies they acquire or the communities that get wasted, that's another

question. folks, making money for your investors, which romney did very well, is not the president's job. the president has a different job. [applause] so romney says we are bashing private capital, that is not true. the guy they quote now as saying we shouldn't be criticizing romney, when i made the same talk a couple of weeks ago on morning joe, said biden is right. biden is right. i'm not criticizing rabid equity firms, but i'm suggesting the people who run them come the same quality and objective in running the private equity firm is not what qualifies you to be president. when you are president your job is to see to it that companies can make a profit, but not maximize profit at everyone's expense. your job is to think about the workers who get laid off and

what you can do to retrain them and get them rehire. your job is to think about communities, they can get back up on their feet and get a new start, creating new businesses. your job is to try to set an equitable tax system so everyone gets a fair shake. your job is to have a tax system -- [applause] your job as president is to have a tax system that rewards entrepreneurs and investors, who invest in science and technology. your job, your job as president is to promote the common good. that doesn't mean the private equity guys are bad guys. they are not. at that no more qualifies you to be president than being a plumber. and by the way, -- all kidding aside, it's not the same job requirement. so it is totally legitimate for

the president to point this out. to quote president obama, if your main argument and this is quoting the president. he said this yesterday. if your main argument for how to grow the economy is quote, i know how to make a lot of money for investors, then you've are missing the point of the job of president. [applause] folks, our focus, our focus and this is the other thing i want to hit directly. our focus and some of you have known me for most of my career. what have i always talked about? the middle-class. not because i am class joke. i do very well. you pay me a lot of money. [laughter] you pay me a lot of money but i was raised at a middle -- as a middle-class kid. i don't have a savings account or stocks or bonds.

i put everything i have in my house because i thought that would eliminate conflicts of interest so i kept buying up houses. my house, the one i live in. i have a beautiful home. i don't live like i did when i was growing up. i have a beautiful home. you pay me a lot of money but i remember, i remember. ladies and gentlemen, i find it fascinating that we raise the middle-class as the objective. we are told by the other team that this is a class argument. we are engaging in class warfare. ladies and gentlemen, our focus on the middle-class is not a class argument nor is it a political argument. our focus on the middle-class is a reflection of the fundamental economic story of the journey of the history of this country. that is what will this country. that is not some -- thing. that is what happened. this is why we are strong.

[applause] as i said earlier when the middle-class does well, everybody does well. ladies and gentlemen, everyone who is willing to work hard and willing to be held accountable should have an even chance, and even opportunity to make a living. ladies and gentlemen, i haven't even touched on romney's foreign-policy. [laughter] where he says for example that russia is quote are our number one geopolitical foe. where he says we should be keeping thousands of troops in iraq, where he criticizes us for setting a date to turn over responsibility and afghanistan to the afghanis so we can come home. [applause]

i haven't even touched on romney social policy either. one that says a woman should no longer get to make your own decisions about her body and her health. one that says it's okay for an insurance company to charge women more for health insurance than men and count pregnancy is a preexisting condition. [laughter] i know this sounds like fiction. [laughter] [applause] ladies and gentlemen, the new republican party's attempt to unravel the bipartisan consensus on something that i wrote and i'm proudest of in my whole career, the violence against women act. the violence against women act. [applause] the violence against women act

has become part of our popular culture. businesses, everybody has embraced the notion that a woman has a right to be free of violence and intimidation on the street, in our own home or wherever it is. these guys in the house just voted down our version of the continuation of this existing act. they cut out big chunks. folks, this is not your father's republican party. and what romney is talking about, all these things, i will be having plenty of discussions on foreign-policy and social policy that ladies and gentlemen let me make one clear thing, absolutely clear to all of you. we will not go back to the 50s and social policy, to cold war

in our foreign policy and the policies of the last administration on our economic policies. [applause] we will not do it their way again. we intend to move forward. we intend to rebuild the middlelass. we mean it. as the president said, when addressing the congress, there's a basic american promise that if you work hard, you can do well enough to raise a family, own your own home, put your kids in college and put away a little money for retirement. he went on to say, the defining issue of our time is how we keep that promise. that is why we are running. [applause] folks, many of few, many of you

know me too well. you know i'm an optimist and you are thinking genetic with me. i am not an optimist. my grandpa would say, i love the sony pic of the national press they referred to a white house optimist like my grandpa would say, i am the guy who just fell off the turnip truck yesterday. i am an optimist because i know you. i am an optimist because i understand this country. i am an optimist because the american people given half a chance have never ever, ever let their country down. but they need a chance. >> they needed an even playing field. they need an opportunity. and ladies and gentlemen, the deck has been stacked on them. and we are on stacking it. folks, you know, you know first-hand, you know when you give people a chance. you have seen it right here in new hampshire, right here in

keene. you watch what happens when you give people an opportunity. you watch what happens when you create the environment to people to take advantage of new technology and re-invite companies and people who have new ideas to come in. you have seen it. ladies and gentlemen, the whole country is ready. the whole country is ready. all we have to do, all we have to do is level the playing field. not punish anybody. ladies and gentlemen, i get a kick out of it and i will conclude with this. you know, as i said, you read about me. i middle-class joe. i am a kid from scranton who climbed out of a coal mine with a lunch bucket in his hand. ladies and gentlemen, what i find and i resent are those people who talk about we are engaged in -- and class warfare.

they don't understand in your house and mine, middle-class neighborhoods, we were raised by people who not only wanted to live in a decent neighborhood in baby on their home and not rent etc., they also had dreams for us. daydreamed that their kid could start a business someday and maybe be in a new job, maybe be the new multimillionaire or billionaire. maybe being a woman or man who helps find a cure for cancer and maybe be president some day. in my household, my mother and father never doubted that i could be president of the united states or vice president of the united states. they never doubted my brother could do his own business and make money and leave in -- live in the even better life. they never doubted my sister had the ability to be an officer in a corporation. these guys don't understand this. they think somehow, we don't

dream like they do. ladies and gentlemen for our dreams to be realized, you have to apply the middle-class but warm where you can live a decent life first. that is what this race is all about. that is what this is going to be all about and ladies and gentlemen, i have faith in the people of new hampshire. i faith and the pele of the united states of america and i have faith in you. ladies and gentlemen, we will win because we happened to be right on this subject. thank you all very much and may god bless our troops. thank you all. i appreciate it. thank you. [applause] thanks. ♪

>> monday retired supreme court justice john paul stevens -- and redistricting cases. his remarks by bye bye the american law institute's annual meeting in washington d.c. are 20 minutes. [applause] >> thank you, thank you roberto. before i read you my prepared remarks, i have to acknowledge what a nice introduction that was because i remember that occasion very well too and that is part of the reason that i was very happy to be privileged to talk at the american bar association convention in florida when roberto was the first woman chairman of this association. and it reminded me it's not particularly relevant but it did remind me of the fact that i sort of specialized in talking at bar association occasions

honoring first women president, because i had previously talked to the chicago bar association back in the 19 seventies, when mr. kagan became president of the association and she was then the first woman president of a major bar association. of course roberta followed up and have a great -- told me the time she was going to have a sensational career, which of course was obviously correct prediction. but this afternoon i thought i would make a brief comment on bush against gore. because there have been so much discussion of the remedy issue in that case, in which a majority of the united states supreme court issued a state stay that halted the recount of florida votes in the presidential election of 2000. the significance of the courts per curm opions reliance on the equal protection clause of

the 14th amendment has been generally overlooked. as you may recall, and the 2000 election, florida use voting machines to help balance on which voters had used a stylus to punch a hole in the small circle opposite the preferred candidate's name. voters who successfully followed the written instructions punched a complete hole in the ballot and their votes were accurately counted by the machines. the voters whose votes were not counted by the machines fell into two categories, so-called overt votes and under votes. the over vote category included ballots on which the voter tried to vote for two or more caidates for same office. the under vote category included ballots on which the voter had designated just one candidate

but had failed to make a complete hole in the ballot. there were two subcategories of under votes, hanging chads and dimpled chads. in the hanging chad subcategory, the punched out piece of the ballot remained only partially attached whereas the ballot with the dimpled chad contained an indentation but no hole. the florida supreme cohort -- court ordered a manual recount to be conducted according to the quote intent of the voting standard established by florida law. that did not require a recount of over votes, presumably because a re-examination of those ballots would sell seldom reveal the identity of the voters preferred candidate. the question with respect to undervotes however was who the -- whether that voter

intended to vote for any presidential candidate at all. the typical case, either a hanging chad or a dimpled chad office at the name one candidate would both identify the voters preferred candidate and indicate his or her intent to cast a vote. during the recount election, officials differed on the question whether to count both dimpled chads and hanging chads or just the latter. in other words, those for which light could be seen through the edge of the chad. in palm beach county for example, officials began to follow in 1990 eline that drew a distinction between hanging and dimpled chads, but they ultimately ended up counting both subcategories of undervotes. in his per curiam -- opinion the united states supreme court described that change in a way that gave the reader the

impressions that the officials had engaged in a standardless endeavor. the opinion stated, quote, palm beach county for example began the process with the 1990 guideline, which precluded comments completely attached chads, switched to a rule that considered a boat to be legal if any light could be seen through a chad, changed back to the 1990 rule and then abandoned any pretense of a per se rule only to have the court ordered that the county considered dimpled chads legal unquote. the paragraph is misleading in two respects. first, what it describes as switching to a new rule was in fact only a clarification of the original rules that considered only hanging chads as valid

votes. the new rule clarified that a hanging chad was one through which any light could be seen since that evidence that the chad wst completely attached. second, with the paragraph describes in changing back to the 1990 rules was just a continuation of the practice of not counting dimpled chads. of most significance however is the fact that the county ended up treating dimpled chads as valid votes before the united states supreme court rules. in the courts per curiam up in the end is misleading in other respects. for example it's implicit suggestion that the failure to order a recount of the estimated 110,000 over votes was aired, despite the lack of evidence or argument suggesting how one could tell which candidate the voter intended to support. the principle point i wanto make this morning concerns the

absence of any coherent rationale supporting the opinions reliance on the equal protection clause. the equal protection clause requires states to govern impartially and in protecting the right to vote. there must be a neutral justification for rules or practices that discriminate for or against individuals on the basis of identifiable characteristics, including groups of individuals that are defined by race, by political affiliation or by their residence in a particular location. the one person one vote rule for example prohibits states from giving greater weight to folks in rural areas than two votes in densely populated cities. in residents of palm beach county or perhaps members of the democratic party were more likely than other voters to

produce dimpled chads rather than hanging chads. there might be reason to hold that's counting the two subcategories of undervotes differently would violate the equal protection clause. but there was no claim for anyone in the case that variations in the method of counting undervotes of any systemic significance. the mere possibility that accidental and random errors might occur during the voting and recount process would not establish any intentional discrimination against pre-identified, a pre-identified group of voters and would not even establish any unintended impact on either candidate. and surely there would be nothing even arguably discriminatory and applying a rule that counted dimpled chads just like hanging chads. perhaps the florida supreme court's opinion ordering a statewide recount of undervotes

was flawed because it failed to state expressly the dimpled chads as well as hanging chads should be counted as valid votes. if that omission was a flawed it could have been remedied on remand by quoting the following two sentences from an illinois case decided a decade earlier. the objection to be counted, the chad should be fully punched out or at least there should be a hanging chad on the backside of the ballot would set to -- rigid standard. many voters could be disenfranchised without their -- if for example ballots with only perforations on the chads could be regarded as indicating the voter's intent to vote, unquote. i had never thought the florida supreme court's opinion was flawed, however, because it seems obvious to me as it did to

the unanimous illinois supreme court, that the quote intent of the voter unquote standard on which the florida supreme court relies was sufficiently clear to encompass dimpled chads. my principle purpose and calling your attention to the courts reliance on the equal protection clause in bush against gore is to emphasize how that provision of our constitution properly construed would invalidate an invidious form of lyrical behaviors that remains popular today. if a mere defect can -- voting recount practices and violate the state's duty to govern impartially, surely it must follow that the intentional practice of drawing bizarre boundaries of electoral districts in order to enhance the political power of the dominant party is unconstitutional. in recent cases however, members

of the majority of the supreme court have written opinions concluding that the absence of manageable standards precludes judicial review of even the most obvious gerrymanders. several separate opinions of members of the court, including one written by judge lewis powell in davis against vanderlinden in 1986, as well as several of my own, have identified such standards for reviewing partisan gerrymandering and even a majority of the court have applied manageable standardin cases involving racial gerrymandering. the unwillingness of the supreme court majority to recognize those standards has left the category of intentional discrimination against voters unchecked. so long as the discrimination is predicated on the basis of political party and not raise. for example, just last year, a

three-judge district court rejected a challenge to maryland's redistricting plan because the plaintiffs quote had not shown that the state moved african-american voters from one american -- from one district to another because they are african-americans and not simply because they are democrat. even though the plaintiffs claim that democratic politicians that draw district lines reduce the number of republican held congressional seats was, in the words of the court, quote, the easiest claim to accept factually," , the court declared claimed legally because the supreme court had declared partisan gerrymandering. i will refrain from repeating the arguments that i made in my opinions on this topic but it seems appropriate to remind the members of this distinguished audience that both legislators and courts have adequate power

and should recognize their responsibilities to curtail this insidious practice. the tools for doing so as a judicial amateur have already been developed in the supreme court's racial gerrymandering jurisprudence and in a number of separate opinions by members of the court discussing political gerrymandering. thank you for your attention and for continuing their efforts to improve the law. [applause] [applause] [applause] >> justice stevens i think it's tomorrow that we go to our election project so we will do

so with some serious words in our minds. justice stevens very kindly said that he might answer a question or two. i told him that there might be some reluctance of people to raise their hands having listened to oral arguments on at least the radio. but if there are people who would like to ask questions, please stand at one of the microphones. and identify yourself. >> you my name is paul molitor from chicago. did you see this morning that the supreme court summarily affirmed the decision and the league of women voters and illinois versus the quinn case? that was another partisan gerrymandering case. >> is there a follow-up

question? >> i wondered if he had -- >> all i can say is, it's news to me. >> or bad news. >> yes, sir? >> could you speak up a little bit? >> justice stevens, send your analysis of the supreme court opion in bush versus gore indicates how seriously flawed that opinion was, do you think that politics played a part in the majority decision? >> i don't know. [laughter] [applause]

>> if there are critical questions at the three microphones, three, five and whatever microphone that is, four. >> john oakley from davis california. for nearly 40 years, since the 1974 decision in element versus jordan, the supreme court by a 5-4 majori, no matter who seems to, and who seems to go has great difficulty getting the law of state sovereign immunity right in the famously said in your dissenting opinion in state school hospital versus halderman that the courts amendment law eliminates the character of an institution. i have always wanted to ask you to expound on that analysis. [laughter] >> well i've written a great deal on that issue and i am sure i don't have much to add. i would really recommend that

you read a book called five chiefs which has a lot to say on the issue. [laughter] >> good afternoon justice. i was wondering if you had any thoughts on if you think the direction that the eighth amendment jurisprudence is likely to go in the coming years or at least a framework for how the eighth amendment might be looked at in the coming years? in the supreme court. >> course that is a very difficult question because it depends on the attitudes of who is sitting on the court at a particular time and the particular issue. i really think that with regard to the death penalty, which i am sure is in the back of your mind in this question, i am not sure that the democratic process won't provide the answers. i think there is a really a

significantly growing appreciation of the basic imbalance in the cost versus benefit analysis and the applications definitely do a lot of harm, really does very little over and beyond the imposition of the sense of life without possibility of a role and it always includes the continuing risk of an incorrect conclusion. the death penalty having been rejected and in michigan on the basis of the fact that two men have been executed and ateit was established that they were innocent. i think the likelihood is that the public generally will come to realize that it's a tremendous waste of resources in administering the death penalty and on a state-by-state basis they will reach the conclusion which i think the constitution would also --.

>> thank you, justice. [applause] >> you michelle fields from washington d.c.. can. i get your thoughts on the supreme court's impending health care decision and whether you think -- [laughter] it looks good or bad for the administration? >> that is really an easy question to answer because i have not read the briefs. i have made a very conscious effort not to try to decide difficult issues without hearing both sides of the issue. [applause] >> justice stevens i want to tell you that i finished reading five chiefs last week and what i hope that everybody does is not only get the book and read it but it is the perfect look for people who are not lawyers. it's the most amazing, accessible explanation of the really profound importance of the court and its decision in

our country, and it includes -- so many people having never read it, the united states constitution. so i give it a five-star amazon review. [laughter] ladies and gentlemen and justice stevens, what an amazing event for all of us to have you here. thank you. >> thank you. [applause] [applause] [applause] [applause] ..