representatives and 100 senators. it's essential that we maintain that kind of vibrant dialogue, this deliberative democracy as some would call it. it's east we maintain the highest levels of integrity in order that this great republic can continue on the path that has been chartered for it by so many of our founding fathers and predecessors who emerged, however difficult the process might have been, they emerged and led this nation clearly along a path, a higher road. and that higher road has been the road that held our own members accountable for the highest standard of ethics as well. we have an ethics committee here in the house. i recall much of the debate that took place here on the floor back during the 108th and 109th congress when allegations were made about members and their level of integrity.

. and i remember many charge being filed in the ethics committee against members of congress who seemed to be their only transgression was they were effective in advancing -- advancing the conservative cause. i recall, madam speaker, that when nancy pelosi was the leader and not the speaker, she gave many speeches herself and alleged over and -- speeches herself and alleged over and over again, elect us into the majority and we will come in and drain the swamp, madam speaker. well, here we are now, majority has changed, the promise apparently is drifting away and there are questions that continue to emerge and questions about the standards that are being adhered to or not being adhered to by certain members of this body. questions that are raised by publications that have a strong afintive for the majority party

in this congress, those who made a living out of attacking and criticizing the republicans when they were in majority and republicans when they were in the minority. now are raising ethics questions about the activities of the members of this new democratic majority who is now in their -- halfway through their third year. so 2 1/2 years into this majority we're starting to see that the allegation about draining the swamp was only an allege about using ethics charges to attack republicans. i'm not seeing this same level of leadership, regardless of the promise made by the speaker, to scrutinize the members that are under the public scrutiny now. and some who are reported are under investigations by the f.b.i. now, i'm going to be a little gentle about how i discuss some of these issues, madam speaker, because it is a delicate subject. but it's essential that the subject be raised and that we have this debate and this dialogue here on this floor

because in the end the not going to be the conscience of the people that are crossing the line or allegedly crossing the line. they aren't going to wake up in the night and have an attack of conscience or an epiphany and come down here and say i'm going to clean up my act, i've gone too far, i slipped into some things that i shouldn't have been involved in. that is not going happen. that's not what human nature does except in very, very rare circumstances. no, what will happen is, if this is to be cleaned up, if it's to be addressed, the ethics questions, the cloud that hangs over member after member after member here, influential members, members of the appropriations committee, chairs of the appropriations subcommittees, that exert significant influence over where the taxpayers' dollars go, this cloud that hangs over is only going to be cleared if the speaker of the house follows

through on her promise to drain her swamp or if the public becomes so outraged that they demand that the situation be cleaned up. now, we have had for a long time in this house, and i can think back at least 2 1/2 years, we've had a dysfunctional ethics committee, a committee that was a black hole, that if there was a charge that was filed it went in and was never acted upon. and they could investigate in complete confidentiality so no one could look over their shoulder. a committee that was balanced and nonpartisan in such a way that was immobilized and couldn't take action at all i cannot remember the last -- at all. and i cannot remember the last action of the ethics committee that had any effect in a constructive way of providing more cleanliness here in the house of representatives. just a moment, madam speaker.

now, if i get to these posters, i go through some of the things that are constantly in the news and this summary comes out to be this, this is the draining the swamp leadership hour of the republican leadership and we have a pattern of ignoring the corruption, there's a pattern of practice for speaker pelosi, we have eight appropriators who it's report ready now under investigations for potential conflict of interest violations with the nation spend -- nation's spending out of control and trillions going to special interests, we have questions and challenges that are coming up, flowing throughout the media. let me say that new allegations of these defense millions that are funneled to aides and relatives, contractors, are now charged with kickbacks. we've seen thousands in defense contractor dollars going to -- go through p.m.a. and out of

there came donations to the appropriations chair of the armed services committee. then we've seen $250 million in earmarks go back through that lobbying firm, p.m.a., which is reported clearly under investigation and a lobbying firm that has been closed down because of the investigation and those activities that are the subject of f.b.i. investigations that have shut down the lobbying firm, p.m.a., a defense contractor lobbying firm, have implicated a significant number of nancy pelosi's chosen chairs, people whom she has handled the gavel to. this list is long and i think it's expressive of what is going on. we had one of the committee chairs, appropriation chairs, who stepped down from the ethics committee because of reports of ethics investigation, but found himself chairing the justice

appropriations committee, the people that were reportedly investigating him. holding onto the gavel in one hand to control the appropriations and justice probes, at the same time holding the purse strings of the f.b.i. who is reportedly investigating the chairman of the justice of appropriations. this goes on in the united states is of congress and the american people aren't outraged? i think they are. they have so many things to be outraged about that they can't bring their focus on one subject or another because it comes at them over and over again like a trip hammer. these allegations that are documented, the same member, chairman of justice of appropriations, received a $70,000 donation to his family's foundation, the same time millions were earmarked to the west virginia high-tech consortium. that's just a touch of what's going on there, madam speaker. and as i've watched this for four years to five years, it just gets worse .

when we see a chairman of justice of appropriations, for example, with 50 earmarks in a bill, and the bill that are on the committee are afraid to challenge him for fear that their district will be punished, a certain culture grows up within the appropriators in this congress, when their fear that they will lose their leverage and not be considered to be a loyal member of that committee, might be considered infective if they are to raise the issues that they know should be raised, what what happened to the altruism that i read about in our history books? the altruism that i was convinced existed in and burned within the heart of all of our predecessors and they shaped this country? yes, they disagreed on policy but i didn't think that they disagreed on ethics and we have a situation also -- that's the chairman of justice of appropriations. we know what the appropriations chair of armed services and that connection with the earmark to the unused airport, i think we ought to take a code l. to that

-- code l to that airport. we have here a situation that has to do with the c.b.c. as we call it here, the congressional black caucus, madam speaker, to those who are not on a day to day basis dealing with the ac roism ins of this -- acronyms of this house. and the a separatist group that has formed themselves in a way that if it were any other group of people they wouldn't be allowed to have an organization like this. but it's a matter of record that the congressional black caucus took some trips down into st. martin and antigua and that was in 2007 and the question is, were there corporate funds that sponsored these trips? and if so, it would be a clear violation of house rules. there is videotape, i'm advised, that shows the banners of the corporations hung up across the area where it was presented and members that are thanking the corporations for sponsoring

their trip. and who would be dealing with the investigation? representative butterfield, democrat, north carolina. member of the congressional black caucus, and one who with had -- and one who had gone on a previous trip to that part of the world with the same group of people. so we would ask the same people who are being, let me say, evaluated for a potential ethics violations, to investigate essentially themselves. maybe they want to get back together and have a little reunion and decide if they did anything wrong. we don't have answers to the public, we simply have a black hole of ethics that hangs over their head. they also argue that it's improper for someone and i'll argue this, it's improper for someone who attended the caribbean conference to lead an investigation into it as to whether it violated house rules. what a contradiction. but the same gentleman who is leading the investigation, mr. butterfield of north carolina, said, you cannot completely

divorce yourself from relationships. yet he would be willing to reduce himself if he got the sense that there was a contradiction. we shall see. and, what do we hear from the congressional black caucus when the issue is raised and the press asks them the question, did you go on a corporate funded trip to the caribbean or was it two or three? and their response is, well, they complain about a lack of minorities in the office that was taking a look at this issue in the office of congressional ethic which was set up by nancy pelosi. so, speaker pelosi's office of congressional ethics is looking into the activities of the congressional black caucus and their trips to the caribbean, potentially funded by corporations, and what does the congressional black caucus have to say? they don't think that the committee looking into them has enough minorities. the first question asked and they have to play the race card. that doesn't speak to me as an issue that they have a very strong defense for.

that's the knee jerk response, play the race card. that's why they are the congressional black caucus, after all. the liberal congressional black caucus, and we have one of the watchdog groups, peter floridaity, he's the president of a conservative watchdog group and upon uncovering evidence of the sponsors, he said he was disappointed with the appointment of mr. put -- butterfield to head up the investigative group. his answer was, the congressional black caucus really stix together, you can see -- sticks together. you can see their solidarity in the face of these ethics charges to. put one of their own members in charge of the investigation just shows that nothing has changed, the eth icts process is still a -- ethics process is still a complete mockery. mr. mcgee also questioned whether the congressional black caucus member should be leading the probe. he said, in this case, this is a trip that is publicly connected to the c.b.c. and only c.b.c.

members were participants. to have a c.b.c. member lead the investigation is not the best way to ensure a publicly credible and acceptable result. mr. mcgee. i agree. we could go on and on but here is the quote from speaker pelosi when she said she's making a commitment to draining the swamp of corruption. i don't see activity on that committee and it is time. it is time we raise the issue, it's time the american people look into these allegations, it's time that this congress form an effective ethics committee, an ethics committee that can clean this up and drain this swamp as defined by the speaker, who i think eventually is going to have to respond to this. she's going to have to keep her word. she's created the organization, the evaluation organization, and now it's time to use it. and the name of the organization

that she shaped was, again, escapes me for the moment, but it was formed by the speaker of the house for the purposes of, in her words, draining the swamp, and what do we get from the congress amal black caucus but a complain -- congressional black caucus but a complaint that there weren't enough minorities on the committee. i would think that ethicses is independent of race -- race. i would like to think right's rights, and wrong's wrong, the constitution is what it is, the bible says what it says and every member in this room would speak the truth. and i'd like to think that every member in congress carries with them, internally, an ethical conscience that we owe a duty to the american people, we to owe a duty to the american people -- we owe a die duty to the american people to not be drawn down into low standards and we

owe a duty to them to stop and reevaluate ourselves, to evaluate ourselves and that's what the ethics committee is about. and the working group, investigating the caucus under the auspicious formed by the speaktory do just that. but when you have -- i don't think it's quite the fox guarding the hen house because i don't know what goes on in the mind of mr. butterfield, but will i say it raises questions. this congress needs to raise questions. we are watching favoritism here on the floor of the house. a week ago last friday the cap and trade bill, the cap and tax bill i call it, passed off the floor of this house. there were dozens of members of this congress, democrats in the dozens, who had made the public

statement that they were opposed to this cap and tax bill. what we saw happen was, as they needed the votes to get them passed, member after member would walk down in a lineup, they would cue up back here behind the microphone, and they would have in their hand their script, they would carry that script down to the microphone and the chairman, who was managing the time, would yield to them, they would read from the script, and the script would say something to the effect of, i took a position against this bill because i was concerned about the interest of my constituents, which really means because i know it will cost my district a lot of money and will transfer our jobs overseas and it's a bad idea, that's what they said before the bill came to the floor, an amendment was dropped in at 3:00 in the morning, 309 pages. none had a chance to read it. still they read from their script and they had said, on

balance i think we have mitigated some of the disaster created -- didn't say it that plainly. i think we have mitigated some of the problems in this bill and i think we are working on this and going in the right direction. i think my constituents will be adequately covered. then they pause while the committee chairman would read from his script and he would say, i appreciate work with the gentleman. we made progress on this bill. even though we haven't had a chance to change language in this amendment that came in, 309 pages at 3:00 in the morning, to accommodate for this component this member would like to have, still the fact that we read this colloquy into the record changes the meaning of the bill and now the member that was there had read off the script. so therefore i'm going to vote for the bill because i worked with the chairman and we each agree we have done our duty to god and country and the bill's not as bad as it would have been otherwise. really? the bill changes because one member won't vote for it unless he gets some cover so he walks

down here, reads from the script. the chairman reads from the script. the member reads from the conclusion of the script. and now we have changed the meaning of the bill? it's enough to turn a vote around, 180 degrees, and deliver to america a cap and tax bill by a vote of 219-212? which by all appearances is this. they are wrong on the science. they are wrong on the global warming argument. and the idea that you can set the earth's thermostat simply by controlling co-2 emissions, only co-2 emissions and by doing so from american industry is going to lower the temperature of the earth and by lowering the temperature of the earth, we are going to have a higher quality of life? that's going on. that's the undercurrent of this. and then i will say wrong on the science. and they can't make a scientific argument. but completely wrong on the economics.

completely wrong. the idea we are going to create green jobs by taxing energy. specific kinds of energy, co-2 emitting energy, but that energy none the less. what solution would the best solution if you accept the premise of mr. waxman would be a lot of nuclear generated power, of which we have no provision that opens it up so we can build more nuclear generating plants. it has become virtually impossible to build new coal-fired generating plants before this bill passed the floor of the house. the development of nuclear generation in america has now frozen -- excuse me the development of electrical generation in america has now frozen, suspended until we can figure out what's going to take place, what the senate will do if they take up the bill at all and how they might amend it. when you take something that's bad and you amend it marginally, it's still bad.

i have watched this unfold here on the floor of the house. i watched it unfold behind the scenes. i watched it unfold in committee. and i have yet to hear a legitimate dialogue and debate, i have yet to hear one member of this congress come here and raise the argument that scientifically that they are right. that they can dial the temperature of the earth down by reducing the co-2 emissions in the united states, by raising the cost of energy. this bill is an energy tax. it taxes all the energy in america. if you get in aer car on a bus and ride a half a block, you have used energy. if you throw on a light switch you have used energy. if you pick up a cup of coffee it took energy to heat the coffee and make it, it took energy to make the cup, whenever you move your using something that took energy to produce. all of oufer components are intricately tied to energy.

and a nation that has expensive energy will be uncompetitive against the nations that have cheap energy. and lots of it. one of the strength of this nation has been that we have had a sound and good competitive multisourced energy policy in the united states. we pioneered the oil drilling in the world. we led with this. and it started in pennsylvania and developed in texas and oklahoma and other places around the country, went up to the north slope of alaska. went offshore. america has developed much of the technology that produces the oil and natural gas for the world today. and yet -- that has been a core of the strength of america's vibrant and huge global economy that we drive. the percentage of it we have is so significant. we have had almost unlimited natural resources for most of this term of 233 years.

we have had a lot of cheap energy, many different varieties. we have had constitutional rights, especially property rights, the rule of law, and a work ethic and a morality that's tied this country together that these are the pillars of american exceptionalism. and yet the idea for energy, just a year ago, a year and a month ago, some of us were here on the floor of the house and we had been debating energy for i'll say about six weeks, when we got up to the august break, as the energy -- as the energy debate got turned up, the speaker of the house decided she didn't want to hear any more discussion about energy. so they abruptly adjourned. shut this process down. we kept debating anyway as the microphones were shut off and eventually the lights were shut off. we kept debating anyway. we went out into the capitol

building and brought people in to the seats, people off the streets and set them in the seats here on the floor of the house of representatives, people sat and charlie rangel's seat, they sat over here in barney frank's seat. they sat in mr. dingell's seat. they sat in republican seats, too. they sat this close, right here, tourists, off the streets of washington, d.c., off the capitol building in here on the floor of the house of representatives. so we would have somebody to talk to because the tv cameras were shut off and turned to the side. microphones were shut off. and the lights were shut down in here because the speaker didn't want to hear anymore energy debate. but the delivery that we gave then and the delivery we continued on up until nearly the election last fall was all energy all the time. as our leader says, all of the above. i put a chart here on the floor that showed all of the sources of energy that we consume in the

united states and a pie chart with color code how much is coal, natural gas, how much is petroleum products, gas, diesel, fuel, jet fuel, heating oil. how much is ethanol, biodiesel, wind. nuclear, geothermal, solar, the list goes on. coal. and we were consuming 101.4 quad trillion b.t.u.'s of energy in the united states. and producing about 72 quad trillion b.t.u.'s of energy. roughly speaking we are producing only 72% of the overall energy we are consuming in the united states, yet we are an energy rich nation. we are an energy rich nation that should be able to shape an energy policy. an energy policy that will keep our energy cheap so that our economy can be competitive, so that americans can make things here in the united states where

things are made or where the jobs are. and their jobs are going to be where it's competitive. and if we can't be competitive on labor, it's pretty obvious from looking at what's happening to general motors and chrysler, we'd have a lot of trouble being competitive on labor, at least we can be competitive on our natural resources, at least we can be competitive on our energy prices. instead the speaker of the house has embarked upon a path of making energy more expensive in this country. and under this viewpoint of of trying to save the planet -- viewpoint of trying to save the planet, i'm trying to save the planet, trying to save the planet by increasing the cost of all the energy in america, driving up the cost of electricity. we had a witness before the energy and commerce subcommittee, chaired by mr. markey, gentleman's name is

david soakle, the chairman of the board at mid american energy. mr. sokle testified as to the costs and increased electricity, the cost to the -- i think the number is 6.9 million ratepayers . they have a balanced portfolio of energy sources and they said they can meet the carbon caps that are being imposed on them in this cap and tax bill. but what will happen is they'll have to -- the customers will have to pay, they'll have to pay twice. once for the cap and tax, and again to change, renovate the means by which they deliver that energy. and that the cost just for the additional cost annually per household was $110 a month,

which maps out to be $1,320 a year. just for the electricity. by the time you add on to that the extra cost for gas, for all the costs on consumers because the diesel fuel in trucks and extra energy it takes to produce anything, let's just say you are in the business of mining iron ore and shipping that over and melting it down and turning it into steel. all of the energy that's required there to mine it, heat it, to convert it all of that makes it almost pribive when you see costs going up for energy costs. in many cases a doubling of certain kinds of energy costs. also when you look at the map of the united states and you see that states that have the credits, that have surplus of hydroelectric power, a lot of the people in those states would like to put our rivers back where they are. i'm not among them. i think we can improve upon mother nature and hydroelectric power is a wonderful thing and i

would be happy to have more. but the states that have it are states that get carbon credits to sell back to the states that are generating a lot of their electricity with coal. that amounts to a transfer of wealth from the states that are short on hydroelectric and other forms of renewable energy production to those that are long on the nongreenhouse gas emitting generating systems. so you would see almost all of the country transferring their wealth to the northeast, to the full west, the entire western seaboard, and also south dakota would be a recipient state because they have a series of hydroelectric dams in south dakota and not a lot of people to use the electricity. that's what happens. it pits americans against americans. it punishes some and benefits others. it punishes all of agriculture. this all taking place because an idea was generated 30 or so

years ago, pushed by al gore who received a pulitzer prize and made a movie, and they don't have to be factual. they don't have to prove anything. they just simply make an allegation that the earth is getting warmer and if the earth is getting warmer we must do something because things are horrible. so the only thing we can do is the thing they present to us, of course. reminds me a lot of the stimulus package. the stimulus package which was put together by president obama came to our conference and he said, it's just one leg of a multilegged stool we have to construct to get us out of this economic crisis we are in. if you add this stimulus package to some of the other things, it was all one leg at the time, it was about a $2 trillion leg. $787 billion and throw more in from some other bailouts and you are at about $2 trillion. one leg of a multilegged stool. so we went down this path and we were all pressured, devote for

that $787 billion stimulus package, because after all we were in economic crisis and we must do something. and those of us who oppose the stimulus package were accused of being against doing anything. they just want to do nothing, they said, as if their idea was the only thing that we could do. . i wrote legislation, introduced it, argued for it, it got the back of the hand of the people who thought government should own everything. excuse me. because they didn't want free market solutions. and it looks to me like they wanted government intervention. and so we have a stimulus plan, we have the nationalization that has taken place, excuse me, excuse me, a nationalization that's taken place of bank of america, a.i.g., bear stearns,

to some degree, merrill lynch incorporated in that. other financial institutions, fannie mae and freddie ma, that used to be private. -- mack, -- mac, that used to be private. a wholly owned subsidiary, about $100 billion each in each one of them and roughly a $5.5 trillion outside potential liability of fannie mae and freddie mac. now i named some of these entities, general motors and chrysler on top of it, there are about eight huge national entities that have been nationalized, formerly private, now nationalized under president obama. the president president obama who said, i don't want to do this, i'm not interested in taking over corporations, i don't want to be involved in the day to day operations of these corporations, he's a are you luck contaminant nationalizer of private businesses -- he's a reluctant nationalizer of private businesses. didn't want to be nationalizing. there are other solutions out

there. one of them would have been to take a.i.g., this huge insurance company that had such a large share of the market and still does, that no one could check its balance sheet, no one could evaluate the premiums they were charging because no one understood the scope of the business that they were in. and they guaranteed their return, the performance of these mortgage-backed securities, these toxic debt now, this intoxicatics paper that these investment bankers had, no one could evaluate a.i.g. but they could pour hundreds of millions of dollars into a.i.g. and we couldn't even have a discussion about splitting them up, dividing them and throwing away the bad components and letting them compete against each other or sending them into bankruptcy, letting them go that route and let the -- let the emerging insurance companies fill that market. that could have been a solution, too. i argued this way, look at

a.i.g. as if it were an apple and you take that tool off the kitchen counter that you use, you set the apple in it and you go stomp and it takes the core out and slices it up into five or six pieces that could have happened with a.i.g. like it happened to ma bell and they could have competed with each other but instead hundreds of billions of dollars poured into a.i.g., hundreds of billions of other clars dollars poured into our investment bankses, propping them up, carrying them on and then nationalizing, effectively nationalizing them, refusing to allow some of the lending institutions to pay the money back so they could be out from underneath the thumb of the white house. a white house that didn't want to and claims to still not want to operate any of these companies, a white house that fired the c.e.o. of general motors, hired a new c.e.o. of general motors and named all but two of the board members of general motors and dictated to the bankruptcy court the terms of the chapter 11 before the court made the decision. dictated by the white house. and by the way, the white house

that says, as a matter of fact a president that says, i don't want to be involved in the day to day operations of general motors, appointed a car czar who had never sold a car nor made one and probably never even fixed one but probably has driven one or several for that matter, to call the shots on general motors and on chrysler. a car czar who's on the phone on a regular basis at the report of fritz henderson, the new obama-appointed c.e.o. of general motors. we're at this point where we have eight huge entities that are nationalized by the white house and in a breath taking fashion that many of us would have claimed would have not been a legal activity or would have taken the authorization of congress or resources that were not available to the white house to spend without congressional authorization, all happening so fast with the operation here that's shut down the kind of criticism that might have produced some free market

results. so the white house is involved in day to day operations of general motors, the white house dictated who would be buying up what's left of chrysler, the white house appointed a new c.e.o. of general motors and all but two of the board members and all of this works underneath the auspices of, the car czar who is one of 22 czars appointed by the president. 22 czars. more czars than the romanovs as senator mccain famously said. and clearly more. one of them is the payroll czar. this payroll czar looks around and determined the c.e.o.'s of the companies that have been nationalized or received tarp funds or federal funds by the white house to determine if the c.e.o.'s and their executives are making too much money performing the service that they're performing. in america? the president appoints someone to decide who's making too much money while they advocate the class envy that was part of the campaign and nationalize eight

huge private sector, formerly private sector, entities and invest our tax dollars in them and hold back shares now of common stock as if they were an outside investor, as if they were warren buffet riding to the rescue. madam speaker, america's gone down a line, when i take us to this point of these huge, hugely nationalized, formerly private companies, all of that that i've mentioned can be reed at this point. all of it can be overturned in a saner time by a more prudent congress and an administration that either sees the light or is replaced by one that does. all of it can be. but this line of this cap and tax bill is the rube con, it's the line, it's the stream that we've crossed here in the house, that if they cros it in the senate, it will be an irrevocable policy that forever burdens the economy of the

united states of america to our dert meant and hands over an advantage in global competitiveness to china and india and other emerging industrialized countries. and if that happens there is no going back. now i talked about the culture of corruption and the promise of the speaker to drain the swamp. there's new corruption on the horizon. the cap and tax bill lays the foundation for a massive amount of corruption. when the president, president obama, said, look across to spain for an example, an example of a country that gets it right, an example of a country that has already gone through the green revolution and created the green jobs and now they're in this new green economy, we can do that in the united states, too. the president and many others make the argument that taxing energy in america and trading carbon credits will create these green jobs and we will have this

new green economy that will be, apparently, healthy and sly brant and they guarantee that -- vibrant and they guarantee they're going to make green jobs. but what they don't do is talk about this in the term of the context of, if similar to the same philosophy of we're going to save or create -- remember the first number now, maybe 4 1/2 million jobs, i now we've got town to 3 1/2 million jobs, this stimulus plan was going to create, let's say three million jobs, it's been lowered since then, create or save? now the instant i heard that it just hit me, create or save? as long as -- if it's going to be three millions jobs that you create or save with a stimulus plan, madam speaker, as long as there are three million jobs left in the united states of america, the president can always claim, those jobs were the jobs i saved. you'd have lost them fall it hadn't been for the stimulus plan. that's the logic of the create or save kind of a phrase.

those are slippery phrases, those are calculated ambiguities. that's intentionally, i believe, gives a dual meaning. people want to hear that the stimulus plan is going to create three million jobs. and so they grab ahold of that. and they're not listening to the words or save. create or save. and they're not thinking that there's no way that anyone can quantify a job that's saved. you can save a job, i guess, if it's already lost and you put it back. i've been engaged in that, i remember a company that was getting shut down. i don't remember how many jobs it was, in the neighborhood of 40. we engaged with the bureaucrats and treated that they look at it more objectively and stick with their rules but not be so hasty and out of that, those jobs remain. well, i'd say in that case we quantified around 40 jobs that were saved. but you can't deal with a national policy that can take

credit for creating and saving jobs, create or saving jobs in the same category. so, what's the net increase or decrease in jobs? stimulus plan as near as i can determine hasn't created net new jobs. and that increase in jobs, it's not lived up to the standards set by the white house who predicted we would see unemployment maybe 8.5%. now it's at 9.4% or 9.5% and the numbers are 14 1/2 million americans unemployed and another six million that are looking for work. so let's just say 20 million to be charitable, 20 million unemployed in the united states of america. none of those were jobs that were saved. none of those to were jobs that were created and the white house hasn't defined a single one yet of the jobs that were created nor the once that are saved. so, cap and trade, cap and tax. what's it do to the culture of corruption?

what's it do to the ethics challenge that's before these many members of congress of which i've got a list of, let me see, one, two, three, four, five , six, seven, eight, nine that are being scrutinized and are in that public eye? even under this environment of getting to the cap and tax, now, madam speaker, i'll share with you what happened in spain as they lurched into their green economy to create their green jobs. spain drew a conclusion about seven or eight years ago that they wanted to be a world leader in green jobs, a world leader in this green rvelusion and that they wanted to reduce the amount of co-2 that's being emitted into the atmosphere and get themselves in line with the quoteow treaty so they set about replacing their normal generation in spain with a lot

of wind power generators. other means, too, but wind powered in particular. and when you get involved in issuing permits and who gets to put up and where you're going to locate a wind generator, that means politicians are involved. bureaucrats are involved, favorites get chosen just like the favorite dealership in massachusetts that lost his franchise but at the pleadings of the chairman of the financial services committee had his franchise reinstated even though hundreds across america did lose their franchise. favorites get played in politics. it happened in spain. and in the case of spain, they were going to create these green jobs and here's what they learned. and this is the data that comes out of seven to eight years of experience of going down this path that cap and tax takes america. they did create jobs. they created green jobs. and for every green job that they created they had a net loss

of 2.2 private sether jobs because it drew capital out of the private sector and out of the spanish economy. they lost the two largest companies in spain, one of them was british petroleum or b.p. as they're known now, that pulled out of spain because they just can't sustain operations there anymore. their costs have gone too high. created a new green job here and there at the cost of for every one, 2.2 lost jobs in the private sector. it took spain up to the highest unemployment rate in the industrialized world, 17.5% unemployment and rising. the cost per green job created was $770,000 per job. so they spent $770,000, created a green job and lost 2.2 jobs in the private sector and they saw their electrical bills skyrocket. i think that's the phrase that was used by president obama.

you would see coal-fired generating plants, the cost of that electricity, skyrocket under his cap and tax plan. electricity skyrocketed under a very similar plan. a plan that has been identified by president obama as a model to follow, the spanish model. in three year's time, the electrical bills for thes remain denses in spain increased 20%. that's not quite so shocking, i don't suppose, madam speaker. but industrial electricity costs in the same period of time went up 100%. so residential electricity up 20%, industrial electrical costs, 100%. now we already see the picture of why they've lost so many large companies out of spain. they've driven up the electrical costs where they can't compete any longer. and with electrical costs doubling in industrial in three years and up 20% in residential, they actually just hit the

political threshold. it wasn't that that covered all the costs of the additional costs of general reating the electricity, the real truth is, madam speaker, that they took the costs of electricity up to the political threshold where they couldn't sustain it any longer, held it at a 20% increase for residents and a doubling, a 100% in industrial and then to pay for the rest of the cost of the electricity, went out into the financial market and borrowed the money to pay the electrical bills, bonded it -- borrowed the money from the international financial markets to pay the electrical bills in spain, the costs above the doubling of industrial and the 20% increase in the residential and in order to borrow the money they had to pledge the full faith in credit of the spanish government which means children yet to be born and the children and the

grandchildren and likely the great-grandchildren of those using electricity in spain today will be paying the interest and the principle on the electrical bills of their parents, their grandparents and their great-grandparents should the economy hold together long enough that they'd even have the opportunity to do that. while the competitiveness of spain digresses in the world and if this isn't bad enough, high electrical costs, borrowing on the international financial market to pay the electrical bill, 17.5% unemployment, $770,000 per green job created and for every time they created a green job they lost 2.2 jobs in the private sector, all of this going on, you still had the mafia involved in the politics of spain, greasing the palm, so to speak, making sure that the right people received the right

cash favors and the right denominations. . because politicians, business who is going to issue the permit? they have that determined. who gets the permit issued to put the wind charger up on which land? and the sicilian mafia wased involved in that, remains involved in that according to the speaker we had for the breakfast i hosted a couple months ago. not only were they involved in the politics of the permitting process, but also involved in the politics of determining who would be the contractors, sub contractors, and suppliers. so add sicilian mafia to this web, this web of corruption, this web of political favoritism , this ethical snarl that's

there in spain that contributes to dragging down their economy. the green economy that they set up with the idea they were going to create green jobs. there's no empirical data, no quantifiable way one can look at spain and declare that spain is a model that the united states should emulate. but the president has declared we should do that. doesn't seem to be accountable for that flawed judgment. so when i asked the question of all of these things that are wrong in the spanish green economy, the high unemployment, the high electrical bills, borrowing money to pay your bills, the sicilian mafia wrapped up in the politics, that's contributing to political corruption of which there are many indicators here in this swamp that the speaker has declared she wants to drain but taken no move to do so when it's her own democratic members. all of this going on in spain and here in the house of representatives we pass a cap

and tax bill that is a tax on all of our energy that sets up carbon credits that will be traded not just in the united states but around the world? so somehow with the bill in the house we are going to pay somebody to plant trees in brazil thinking that that's going to see quester some carbon so -- sequester some carbon so we can burn more natural gas to generate electricity in florida. how about that? i would just ask the question aside from this snarled mess and the open door for confusion and corruption and favoritism and people getting rich off of credits, aside from all that, aside from the extra cost in the elk terrorist it of $1, 20 a year just for the households in my district according to mid american energy who hasn't seen a rate increase in 10 years, aside from all that, where are we going? if we could put -- if we could

take the 25 or 50 or 100 smartest people in america or the world, erase from their minds any of the last 25 or 30 years of this global warming fear that has been perpetrated, and now has had to more -- morph itself into climate change because we don't have evidence that the earth has been warming since 2002. but if we could put the smartest people together, send them on a retreat somewhere, send them down to the caribbean where the congressional black caucus had their could he dell -- codel that's being looked at. anything they have heard about this global warming allegation or the proposed solutions, and first ask the question on the science, do you really believe that the earth is getting warmer? well, maybe. and there's some trendlines prior to 2002 that would

indicate that. not so much the point but we should ask that question. do you believe it is? if you conclude that it is, smartest people in the world with great training and all of the fields that they need, then the next question would be, do you believe that the emissions from the industrial era, industrial revolution are contributing to it? how much and what could we do about that? remember, that if you would take the atmosphere, we are dealing only with co-2 emissions. i've got to go a little bit from memory but i'm going to get the scale of this exactly right. if you take the entire atmosphere of the earth, all this air has a volume to it, it's measured in metric tons, and that number is 105.5 million metric tons, i believe that's the number. that's the right decimal,

anyway. all of that earth's atmosphere and draw it out and represent proportionally in a circle. a circle eight feet in diameter, two sheets, four by eight sheets of dry wall, draw a circle eight feet in diameter, draw that circle, think of that sirk until your mind's eye and that represents all the earth's atmosphere. now, the cumulative total of the co-2 suspended in the earth's atmosphere over the last 205 years since the dawn of the industrial revolution, all of that co-2 that's gone in and now suspended in the atmosphere, if you would draw it on a circle in the middle of that eight-foot circle which is all of the earth's atmosphere, that circle would be how big? five foot? four foot? three foot? two foot? one foot in diameter perhapsed in mill of that eight-foot circle? or six inches? three inches? one inch?

we are still going, madam speaker. about the diameter of my little finger. .56 inches would be all that would represent all of the co-2 that's suspended in the earth's atmosphere that's been emitted by the united states of america in the last 205 years, dawn of the industrial revolution. we are talking about that half an inch diameter circle in the middle of the eight foot circle in reducing those emissions by 17% in the near term, as much as 83% per year in the long term. where does that get us? how can anyone think that you could put a drop into an ocean and change the temperature of the ocean? or think that you could microscopically alter the dimension of that center little circle that represents all of the suspended co-2 from the united states, and somehow magically that's the key to adjust the earth's thermostat. it's utter vanity, madam speaker, you could put the

smartest people in the world off on an island somewhere, erase all the things that have been pumped into their brain, start them out with fresh data, scientific data, empirical data, put physicists there, put meerts out there, mathematicians there while we are at it, and by the way let all of those people churn around on this climate change model, and let's put some economists out there also to churn around on what happens. i would just be about willing to guarantee that 50 or 100 of the smartest people in the world if you erase their institutional memory of all of the information that has been pounded into this country over the last 30 years, since we made the transition from the impending ice age, which some of us remember, at least one scientist made the switch himself, said it was certain there was a near term ice age that was going to come down and freeze us off the north american continent. he was right one time, maybe, and he'll never live to see if

he was right or wrong. all of those smart people that we could put on an island and erase their memory and start them with an objective analysis very well trained physicists, meteorologists, economists, mathematicians, chemists put them on that island and ask them, evaluate the data that we have today and look at the -- look at the science that we have if the earth is getting warmer and you think that's a problem, what would you do about it? i can't imagine that 25 or 50 or 100 smartest people in the world coming up with such a concox -- concoction as a proposed solution as passed off the floor of this house in the form of the bill called waxman-markey cap and trade, cap and tax, or whatever the other acronyms are for this bill. i can't imagine that really smart people could ever cook something like that up. because this bill that passed

the house, it was never a product of let me say sound science, peer reviewed analysis, sound economics. it was never -- never a product that ever laid this thing out down through the continuum and gamed it out to the end. no, madam speaker. it's a political concoction that's put together in a hodgepodge. it's what shall i call it? liberal genetic engineering of policy. we are stuck with it coming out of this house, i think, that this house made the single most colossal mistake made in the history of the united states congress a week ago last friday when they passed the cap and tax bill. i think they are wrong on the science and i think they are really, really wrong on the economics. if they are right on the science, they hand over the economy of the united states and put us at a disadvantage and allow india and china and other developing countries to continue

to belch crud in the atmosphere and outpete us economically and more and more companies will be moving to those countries while those economies prosper and pollute the atmosphere even to the extent of producing developing an average of one new coal fired generating plant per week without the emissions controls that we have here in the united states of america. pouring this all out of the smokestacks in asia and shipping us more and more of our goods. what's happening is we are buying plenty from asia already. that contributes to our trade imbalance. and then in order to meet this budget shortfalls that are driven by the president and liberals in congress, trillions of dollars, a $9.3 trillion deficit in the budget offered by president obama on top of an $11.3 trillion existing deficit over $20 trillion, what do we do to deal with that? we buy everything we can that we don't want to make here in the

united states anymore, and then we borrow the money from the chinese to buy things from the chinese. so it's equivalent of going to the car dealer, i suppose, and borrowing the money from him to buy the car he makes. you keep doing that over and over again. you got to build something that has value. you got to make things. you got to provide goods and services that can be competitive. and we need to be competitive globally. and the very idea that this country is a giant chain letter, a giant a.t.m. to be cashed into and that we can create a government economy is false. it has to have value. and it has to have value in the private sector. the private sector is the productive sector of the economy. the government sector is the parasitic sector of the economy. you cannot grow the pair sitic sector of the -- parasitic sector of the company at the expense of the productive sector of the economy and think you can compete indefinitely in this

world while you are borrowing money from the chinese and having the chinese make things we cavent be competitive anymore and buying it from them. i get along fine with the chinese. you got to build things that have value and have a sound economy. we have got to have a ethical congress. we have got to stand on free markets and we have to reverse the nationalization of our privatized industries. i urge that we do so with all haste. madam speaker, i thank you for your indulgence. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman have a motion on the floor? mr. king: madam speaker, i move the house do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is agreed to. accordingly, the house stands adjourne

>> we will hear a republican and democratic senators talked-about health care legislation next on c-span. after that, supreme court nominee sonia sotomayor. later, an uptick from secretary of state henry clinton on the ousted president of honduras. >> house is seized and funded? >> the u.s. government. >> private benefactors. >> i don't know. >> it is not public funding. >> probably donations. >> i would say from my tax

dollars. >> house is seized been funded? 30 years ago, cable companies created c-span is a private business initiative. >> senate republicans and democratic leaders clashed on the subject of health care. harry reid says he plans to meet with four republicans on wednesday to discuss health care. we will hear from senate republicans first. this is about 20 minutes. >> let me begin by re talking about health care. we have seen the themes of this administration, running banks, insurance companies, automobile companies, student loans, and now if you look -- they now want

to run the nation's health care. there is overwhelming opposition and the government -- in the country for the government being in charge of health care. everybody is concerned about cost about republicans feel the cost issue can be addressed without having the government take over health care. we already have two examples of government health care now. the administration is trying to fund part of the health-care effort by additional medicare and medicaid cuts, not to sustain those programs that are already unsustainable, but trying to pay for programs that extends government care even further. if you are looking for a pattern cannot look at the stimulus package.

the cool wagoal was rush and sp, rush and spend. we saw what happened to the stimulus package. it clearly has failed. now they are anxious to rush and spend on health care when frankly no one has been able to read the details yet. i think this is a significant move in the wrong direction. >> all of us having gone home this last week and talk to our constituents came back with stories about what our folks were saying to us. they are scared to death with what they have, and remember a 85% of these folks have insurance, they are scared to death that they are going to lose coverage, that something is

going to get in between them and their doctor. using the medical analogy, doctors are first at monished to do no harm in treating a patient. we think we should do the same thing with health-care reform. let's take the time to do it right and especially for all of the americans covered by either a government program or private insurance, don't do harm to their coverage. if they like with a have, let them keep it paid don't cut programs in order to fund this program. that is what seniors back in arizona are afraid of. we just got word that the house committee has a new version of the bill now. they took out a title that is going to cost about $600 billion, and that is to add to medicaid.

it simply the first two letters some of these additional spending that will have to occur. it is another reason why everyone to take the time to do this right for the sake of the american people. >> republicans want health care reform this year, and we want to begin with a 250 americans that already have insurance and make sure those americans can afford their health-care insurance. we also want to look and low income americans and make sure we are fair to them. one of our greatest concerns, my greatest concern, is about the proposals to dump millions of more americans in a failed health care program called medicaid. two problems with medicaid. the first is the mass of new cost to state governments. i have suggested that any of them that those that increase medicaid coverage in the way that is recommended ought to be

sentenced to go home to serve as governor for eight years and try to pay for it. the cost of literally bankrupt the states. in tennessee, the estimates would add on the amount of money that equals a new 10% of state income tax. the medicaid program does not serve the low income americans who deserve to be served. a 40% of doctors will not serve medicaid patients. if we down millions more into that program, it will only be worse. it would be like giving someone a bus ticket without any buses on which to ride. the medicaid proposals better come up and the democratic proposals are simply an attempt to shift costs from washington because we have already spent more than what anyone could imagine here. >> i think one of the messages

that came across loud and clear during my travels during last week's break was what i think our common sense argument that the american people are really picking up on. you can't spend money that you don't have. when you borrow money, you have to pay it back. there is this realization that we are continuing embargo in washington d.c. health care is going to be a trillion dollar a new entitlement. one of the things i have heard repeated the is the hot -- are the taxes that will be proposed on the american people if the democrats have their way in congress. there are a huge costs associated with it and it is going to entail massive amounts of borrowing for future generations. i hope that we can successfully

defeated the cap and trade legislation that was passed in the house last week and we can slow this health care debate down so we can get to the fundamental issue that most americans are struggling with, and that is the cost issue in a way that does not add trillions of dollars of debt or tax increases on the american economy during a time that we can least afford it. >> folks in texas to not want another government run health care program because they have seen the flaws of the one that we have already, one called medicare. we know is fiscally unsustainable. to our democratic friends really propose to create another fiscally unsustainable health care program on top of the ones we have now? we know that medicare is riddled with fraud, some $60 billion a year lost not in providing care to seniors but rather to people

cheating and stealing the american taxpayer. finally, because we know medicare pays below market rates to physicians, in my state, 42% of positions will not seek a new medicare patients. only 70% of new physicians will see a medicare patient. medicare is not a model for another broken health care plan on top of two other layers of broken government run health care programs. we need real reform. >> i will take a couple of questions. >> [inaudible] >> if you couldn't hear the question, the hearings for judge sonia sotomayor is a lifetime

appointment. i imagine senate republicans will be there for the hearing as well as senate democrats. but i think that clearly comes first for next week. this is no small matter, the hearings over the supreme court nominee for the most important court in the land for a lifetime tenure. >> [inaudible] there is talk from the white house and congressional democrats about a second stimulus plan. >> a second stimulus. we used to say there is no education in the second kick of a mule. why in the world with there be any conclusion reached by looking at the results from the first in less to pass another one is mind boggling. i think a second stimulus isn't even worse idea than the first stimulus, which has been

demonstrably proven to have failed. we are spending $100 million a day on interest on the first stimulus package. rush and spend is what this administration is about. this needs to stop for the future of our country, our children, and our grandchildren. >> does this change the way you approach conflicts with the other side of the aisle? >> i would say our democratic friends have their alongside 60 votes, and the american people will fully understand day on the government. the executive branch, the house, and the senate, and they are waiting to see the results of their programs.

>> there are a few jokes i thought i shouldn't share with you, but i did not like them so i am not going to do it. here is a short list of those who know we need to lower rising health-care costs, especially for the middle class. the doctors, hospitals, pharmaceutical industry, a bipartisan group of governors, president obama, who has made fixing health care his top priority, democrats in congress who are committed to doing it this year, and at the top of the

list are the american people. nine alcatel and believe high costs are hurting their families -- nine at the 10 people believe high costs are hurting their families. here is the list of people that think we should maintain the status quo -- republican leaders in congress. it is pretty lonely on that side. maybe that is why they don't want to have a debate on the issue. maybe that is why there is -- they are committed in doing everything they can to stand in the way to maintain the status quo. it was a couple of weeks ago when the republican leader in the house said, "i think we all best health-care system in the world." that is the difference in this debate. republican leaders think the

present health-care system is the best in the world. those of us who believe that we should change its -- doctors, hospitals, pharmaceuticals, governors, and on and on. the status quo simply is not where america is. they now that unless we act, rising costs will continue to get worse. they know the current path is a dead and, and we need to head in a different direction. it is a clear choice and that is why we need to get health care done. >> [inaudible] >> your lips don't even move anymore. >> can you hear me? >> there is going to be a renewed push to keep democrats together. i was wondering how hard you are

going to push democrats on that. >> we want to work with republicans. this year, we have had a tremendously productive year. democrats have not done it alone. we have had republicans work with us, a handful of. we had three on the stimulus. we really need more help from the republicans. we don't want to do this alone. we can't allow the status quo to be the order of the day. we will work all day and reject all year long to keep democrats together. >> [inaudible] >> who said that? >> do you agree with that and

would you be open to a second stimulus? >> someone said we should be open for another stimulus. first of all, just slightly over 10% of the stimulus money has been given out for the places it goes. a little less than 90% still needs to be put out to the american people. we are in the process of doing that. it is going to move more quickly now. as far as i am concerned, there is no showing to me that another stimulus is needed. as ben bernanke said, the crops have been planted, the green shoots are now appearing above the ground. that is evident based on the fact that slightly over 10% of the dollars are among the people.

>> can you talk about the challenge keeping all 60 of your democrats together for a final product? >> the question is this. how difficult will it be to keep all 60 democratic senators together on health care? we want to get some help from republicans. we will keep the democrats together on a procedural votes. we have done that in the past and will do it in the future. i hope the republicans understand they should be a part of this game. i am having a meeting tomorrow with a number of republicans strictly on the issue of health care. it is four republican senators. i look forward to that meeting.

so i think that we don't want to do it alone. we will do what we have to do. >> how confident are you that you can get the 60 votes needed for a climate bill? >> we are moving forward on a climate bill. i am having a meeting tomorrow with all of my chairs, six of them. we have a timetable that we have laid out. we hope to be able to get to climate change sometime in late or middle of september 4 at the latest the first part of october. >> how confident are you for 60 votes? >> we have to see what the product is first. i feel that with importing the 70% of the oil we use, it is more important now than ever to do a good energy bill.

we already have one reported out of the energy committee so i think we are doing quite well. >> what are the regional differences [inaudible] >> we have an number of steps. we have to get the bill out of committees and joint that with a bill. then we have to get something off of the floor. the house has already moved quickly on this. we have something to confer with them. it is at least a three-step or more process. >> [inaudible] i am just curious, what do you think he brings to the table? >> when i was a member of the state legislature, i served on

judicial committee. it is a very good committee and that like it very much. we have a tremendous judicial committee. some disagree with me. i personally agree that it is not necessary to have all liars on the committee. herb cole is ranked right under senator leahy. we could go through others but that is not a requirement. al franken is extremely smart. just a little side note for some of you, we were in my office yesterday getting ready to come out here to introduce him to all of you. he said, "is there going to be a podium out there?" he said he'd memorized what he was going to say.

al franken was very smart -- is very smart. he is extremely smart. he is a harvard educated and has written books for christmas this past year, i gave my nevada counterpart all of his books as a christmas present. [laughter] now i am going to get him to sign them. >> do you think there is a need to go back in and retool some of the money that has than earmarked -- >> at this stage, no. we are doing fine. douglas county, they just said they are going to spend $417,000 in that small county on a stimulus money to do some highway work. that will put dozens of people to work. the money is starting to come

out. thank you, everybody. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] >> we spoke to a capitol hill reporter on health-care legislation. >> what did majority leader have to say earlier about bringing a health-care bill to the house floor? >> he said it would people were expecting to hear that next week, the three house committees with jurisdiction are going to market it up and it will be

raised before and after that. >> has it been crafted? if so, what is going to be in it? >> that is a very good question. what they haven't fully come out with yet is how they are going to pay for it. there is no congressional budget office legislation that expected to cost $1 trillion at a minimum, which means they have to find a lot of budget cuts and tax increases. they haven't said how they are going to do that yet. >> the senate has been working on its own health-care bill for some time now. how is that going and when it might it be ready to come to the senate floor? >> the committee today are

continuing its markup on their part of the ballot. it took two weeks to get to the non-controversial parts of the bill. especially whether or not -- rather, what kind of government run a public insurance plan will be in health care reform to compete with private insurance companies, responsibilities of employers will be to provide benefits, what people's responsibilities will be to obtain insurance, and an issue about prescription drugs that tied up the mark up a bit today. chris dodd is overseeing the committee right now. they would like to have that markup finished by the end of the week. >> compare what you know about what is going to come out of the house and senate, and how will those bills be the same or different? >> i will focus on the

differences first because it is easier to point them out. with the house bill, and it is one that i should emphasize, and the bill coming out of the committee, they are actually quite similar. the finance committee in the senate which is the third player in all of this is much more uncertain. they have not put out their proposal yet. because max baucus is trying to get republicans to support the package, there will be key differences from either the house committee or the house bill with the strong likelihood that there will be no public plan in his legislation. >> what will you be watching now prove >>? >> taxes are going to be one of

the biggest questions facing this bill for the rest of the year. all of the lawmakers said they want to find as much savings as they can in the budget on health care especially. but the hard truth they are facing right now is that they are going to have to raise more money in order to make sure this bill does not add to the deficit over 10 years. >> thank you for being with us. >> senate judiciary committee patrick leahy held a news conference in support of sonia sotomayor. it was joined by members of the law enforcement community. the confirmation hearing is counter to begin on monday. this is 25 minutes. >> good morning. today, i am pleased tuesday with an impressive group of leaders and advocate representing law- enforcement agencies and

organizations from across the country. they are here to support president obama's historic nomination of judge sonia sotomayor to the supreme court. as many of the leaders can attest to, her criminal-justice record on and off the bench is exemplary. years as a prosecutor two years as a trial judge ha, she has an extraordinary record of supporting the rule of law. i want to release a result of a comprehensive study conducted by the majority staff of the senate judiciary committee. we reviewed more than 800 criminal cases. it can be said with confidence that she is unquestionably a judge that the supreme court

issues. she is in moderate judge whose decisions really differ from those of her colleagues on the federal bench. as a former prosecutor, i look at this specifically. republican judges agreed with her more than 70% of the time. she treats criminal matters as a non-partisan matter. as a majority study reveals on the at the left court, -- she was particularly consistent in upholding convictions involving more serious offenses. in by the crimes, she confirmed

convictions 98% of the time. i think a lot of this reflects her experiences as a prosecutor where she gained practical experience about the real world challenges and the dangers that police officers face every day. she dealt with those police officers every day. she learned about the pain and frustration and sense of violation the crime victim's experience. she worked with police officers as a prosecutor and worked side- by-side with crime victims in her quest for justice for these ordinary americans. it is no surprise to me that she has a strong record being fair to the police in criminal cases. when the country hears from her next week, i have no doubt that the fraternal order of police,

the national association of police organizations, the national seraph -- the national sheriffs' association, the national organization of black law enforcement executives, the national latino peace officers association, the major city chiefs association, and the police executive research forum are all represented here and all say she is an impressive and qualified nominee to serve on the nation's highest court. one last thing i should mention, just this morning, the american bar association announced they gave her a unanimous well qualified rating for judge sonia sotomayor. that is the highest rating the american bar association can give any judge. they did it unanimously. it is a peer review evaluation

of her integrity, her professional competence, and heard the judicial temperament. i will now give law enforcement leaders to say a few words. i will slip out because we go into session at 12:00 or they have asked all senators to be there. there are swearing in a new senator, which is something that happens every so often. david? >> [inaudible] >> this is a mainstream civil- rights organization. i am proud of what they have

done. some people seem to worry that if you have somebody that actually represents minorities, somehow that is suspicious. i don't feel that way at all. >> thank you, senator. i am the national vice president for the fraternal order of police and in here today at the request of our national president to do to the illness could not be here today. we are here to pledge our continued support for the nation's largest law enforcement labor organization for the nomination of sonia sotomayor to the supreme court of the net it states of america. i think it says a lot about her character, a young, fresh lawyer out of yale decides to begin her legal career as a prosecutor in

the district of manhattan at a time when crime in our urban areas was running rampant. in the five-year she was at that office, she put a lot of bad guys in jail and forged a genuine respect for the men and women working the beat in manhattan. in 1992, she was nominated by george h. w. bush to the minister is this record for the southern district of new york. over the course of her career, she has demonstrated herself to be a jurist, analyzing each case, its merit, and waiting the facts before rendering a decision. i can say that this is a judge that any officer can and will support. it is for that reason that that

national order fraternal police unanimously voted to endorse her for the united states supreme court. i am proud to be here this morning. we stand ready to assist in her confirmation. thank you. >> good afternoon. i am the executive director for the national association of police organizations. thank you, chairman, on behalf of our organization. it is a pleasure to be here today and stand with you, representatives of the leading organizations in support of judge sonia sotomayor. throughout her distinguished career, she has worked at almost every level of our judicial system, giving her depth of experience and knowledge that will be invaluable.

she is a prosecutor and a litigator before her nomination by president bush in 1991. president clinton promoted her for the second circuit where she has served for the past 11 years. through her years of experience, she gained an understanding of what law enforcement officers go through day in and day out on the job. her support of police in cases of criminal procedure is evident in the rulings and the findings she has issued. she has shown that she has a keen awareness of the real world implications of judicial rulings, and important aspect when it comes to evaluating law enforcement officers and giving them and the communities they serve safe. we believe her experience in this judicial system and the knowledge she has gained will serve the nation well. therefore, we join our colleagues in urging the senate judiciary committee to approve

the nomination. >> good morning. i and the national president for the national organization of black law enforcement executives. i would like to thank the chairman to participate in this event. as national president, i stand before you today that we strongly support president obama's selection of judge sonia sotomayor as his first nominee for the supreme court. she has shown that she has the tenacity, intelligence, and legal prowess needed to serve. her record reflect that she thoroughly prepares and investigates all manners and provides balanced opinions.

her experience as a prosecutor, litigator, prof., and judge will be an asset. we are certain she will bring the experiences and lessons learned to the cases heard by the court. the law enforcement community appreciates and when members of the highest court has experience with matters faced every day by officers we are truly pleased to provide support for the judge's confirmation as the 111th justice on the supreme court of the united states. we stand ready to assist her in any way possible. thank you. >> good morning. mr. chairman, thank you for having us this morning could i stand before my colleagues to strongly endorse the nomination and confirmation of the justice. we are not here because we are latinos.

we are supporting her first and foremost because she is very qualified. she has the experience, the education, and the temperament to be an outstanding justice. we are excited that we are going to have a supreme court justice that has worked in the trenches, the front lines of law enforcement to keep our communities safe. we believe that perspective will serve the american public well. as to comments regarding her participation that you brought up, i believe in this nation and nation of laws and democracy that all views of the right to address advocacy and that believe that questions some disqualifications based on her advocacy is not part of this equation and should not be part of this equation. that is like saying that someone that is the defense attorney that defended criminals or

murderers are somehow disqualified from the bench. we support people not based on their advocacy in the past but based on their temperament and qualifications. when you take a look at her record, her education, and her experience, it is clear that she is qualified and we look forward to seeing her confirmed. thank you. >> good morning. i would like to thank the chairman as well as all of my partner organizations here, standing together in support of the nomination for judge sonia sotomayor. i stand ready to support president obama's nomination of the judge to the supreme court. she possesses the requisite intellect, experience, and character that and says the

justice of the supreme court should embody. i am confident she will be loyal to the rule of law and not the bullying of special interest groups. officers strive to enforce the law objectively and i expect the judge will do the same as she interprets the law. we are not looking for any reassurance that she will be pro-law enforcement in all decisions. instead, we only ask and fully expect that she remain loyal to the rule of law. when the judiciary committee begins its hearings next week, i hope all the members supports the chairman and embrace the spirit of the plain view doctrine. seize upon what is readily apparent to the objective mind and support her as our country's next associate justice of the supreme court. thank you.

>> thank you. i am an elected state's attorney for maryland and president of the national district attorneys association. we voted to support the confirmation of judge sonia sotomayor. we also as part of our examination cold and number of her cases, reviewed the cases, specifically looking for her rationale, her reasoning, what she saw and how she approached the cases. as frontline prosecutors, we represent victims of crime, law enforcement, and the perspective of law enforcement, but we also represent the defendants because we look for making sure that those people that should not be prosecuted are not prosecuted.

we think sonia sotomayor has that background of looking at all the facts, the law, and applying that both to prosecute the guilty but to protect the innocent and to save them from an unjust trial. we believe that it is very important on the supreme court to have someone with a perspective of understanding how complicated legal issues that are handed down by the supreme court have to be applied by a day-to-day basis by law- enforcement officers and prosecutors. we think her background makes her very qualified to understand the impact of the ruling she will participate in. therefore, the oldest and largest organization representing state and local prosecutors urged her confirmation. thank you. >> thank you very much.

>> i and the chief of police in montgomery county, md., and in here on behalf of the major city chiefs association. we are here to support the nomination of judge sonia sotomayor to the supreme court of the united states. we applaud her distinguished career in public service, a record of achievement that began as a prosecutor attorney. during her early years, she earned high marks from law enforcement. she has been praised by those that work along her side on criminal cases as well as officials that have taken cases to her court room in later years. her records show a commitment to public safety and the

sensitivity to the needs of the community. she has made decisions that are both tough and compassionate. her record shows respect for the law in cases that enable the police to do their job. with support judge sonia sotomayor's nomination and urged her confirmation. >> good morning. i am the immediate past president of the national sheriffs association. we urge the senate to confirm the nomination without delay. i am pleased to be standing here with our partners in law enforcement in a strong and unified voice today. her real world experience as a prosecutor who pursue justice for victims of violent crimes as

well as federal judge in the district and other core levels with integrity make her an ideal nominee to serve on the supreme court. we believe that her judicial philosophy and justice to be sound in reviewing criminal cases. she has qualifications, judicial philosophy, and commitment to interpreting the constitution with fairness and justice essential for serving the nation's highest court. we urge the united states senate to confirm the nomination for the supreme court. thank you very much. >> have we had everybody? i am sorry. >> good morning. i am with the police executive research forum, which is a member said association, approximately 350 chiefs and sheriffs. i would like to read part of a

letter from our president who is the chief of miami police department who could not be here today. i am writing is a part of the nomination of judge sonia sotomayor to serve as the ssc justice of the supreme court of the united states. i believe her inspiring life story and especially her experience as a prosecutor in new york city or spent most of my career demonstrates the strength of character that will serve us well on the nation's highest court. she grew up in a housing project in the south bronx. i patrol the streets of the south bronx in the 1970's and know what tough environment that was sprayed recently, i have spoken to several of my colleagues that worked with her, and they did nothing but rave reviews. they were expressed with her intelligence, her work ethic, i have been inspired by judge sonia sotomayor's personal

story. after getting her law degree, she could have cashed in at a law firm but chose instead to get a low pay position at the manhattans attorney's office where she gained real-world experience as she decided criminal cases that came before her. she went out of her way to stand shoulder to shoulder with those of us in public safety at a time when new york city needed strong, tough, and fair prosecutors. i am confident she will continue to bring honor to herself and now to the supreme court when she is confirmed for this critically important position. thank you. >> we have had everybody that has spoken. i appreciate the strong support from law enforcement.

many of us in the senate had the privilege of serving in law enforcement becambefore we came. they know what law enforcement goes through. i think that is extremely important. judge sonia sotomayor would be the only member of the supreme court who served as a trial judge. she would have served longer on the federal court than anybody in nearly 100 years. nominative first by president george w. bush and then by a president clinton as another judge, this is a pretty remarkable candidate. are there any questions? >> [inaudible]

>> i would hope that they would not be. it is not just judge sonia sotomayor that has been watched by the american public, but the united states senate paid i think we have -- i think every senator has the right and responsibility to ask questions, tough questions, could questions. if they disagree with a response of the nominee, they have a right to say so. it should be done respectfully. we are a nation of 300 million people could only 101 people get the final say of who is going to be on the highest court of our land. first and foremost, the president of the united states. then the 100 senators who vote for or against that person. we stand as a conscience of the

nation doing that. not to score political points or to what may be popular at the moment but to make the right judgment on behalf of all americans. i think most americans, certainly all of the americans i spoke with at my home state of vermont last week, whether they agreed or disagreed, they hoped it would be a respectful hearing. because at a time where we have seen disrespect for some of our federal courts, it damages the rule of law. we are an amazing nation. we are an amazing nation at having an independent federal judiciary. we should reveled in that pai. >> you have said you have

reviewed more than 800 -- >> and we will give you that break down. >> do you agree or disagree with her ruling that in new york, the second amendment does not apply to the states? >> she rolled with very conservative judges, as you now. in other states, that will be a question that will be asked. >> some republicans are talking about using procedural tactics to delay the hearing. >> that we don't do. chief justice roberts -- i thought that was inappropriate scheduled for him and should be inappropriate scheduled for her. -- an appropriate schedule for

her. senators can use their rights in the senate, but i feel the american public will say, what are you afraid of? vote for her or vote against her. don't try a procedural thing so you don't have to vote. we are elected and paid well to come here to vote up or down. thank you. his

>> senator leahy will chair the supreme court hearings starting on monday morning. we will have live coverage. now, remarks from mitch mcconnell on judge sonia sotomayor. this is 10 minutes. >> last week, the supreme court decided the case of richard verses -- in which ruled the state of connecticut unlawfully discriminated among white firefighters by throwing out a standardized employment promotion because some firefighters had not performed as well as they had. in this case, the supreme court was correct in my view.

allowed to discriminate intentionally on the basis of race on the grounds that a race neutral standardized test which is administered in a racially neutral fashion results in some races not performing as well as others. yet, regardless of where one comes out on this question, there are at least two aspects of how all nine justices handled this very important case that stands in stark contrast to how judge sotomayor and her panel on the second circuit handled it. and which called into question judge sotomayor's judgment. first, this case involves complex questions of federal employment law. namely the tension between the laws protection from intentional discrimination, known as dis-- treatment discrimination and from overt discrimination. it also involves important

constitutional questions such as whether the government, consistent with the 14th's amendment guarantee of equal protection under the law may intentionally discriminate against some of its citizens in the name of avoiding possible discriminatory results against other of its citizens. every court involved in this case realized that it involved complex questions that warranted thorough treatment. every court, that is, except for judge sotomayor's panel. the district court, which first took up the case spent 48 pages wrestling with these issues. the supreme court devoted 93 pages to analyzing them. by contrast judge sotomayor's panel dismissed the firefighter's claim in just six -- a treatment that her colleague and fellow clinton

appointee called remarkable, prefunctory and not worthy of the weighty issues presented by the firefighters' appeal. it would be one thing if the case presented simple issues that were answered simply by applying clear precedent, but the supreme court doesn't take simple cases. and at any rate, no one buys that this case was squared -- was squarely governed by precedent, not even judge sotomayor. we know this because in dismissing the firefighters' claims, judge sotomayor didn't even cite a precedent. moreover, she herself joined an en banc opinion of the second circuit that said issues in the case were -- quote -- "difficult." so to quote the national

journal's stewart taylor, the way judge sotomayor handled the issues in this case were peculiar, to say the least. and it makes one wonder why her treatment of these weighty issues differed so markedly from the way every other court has treated them and whether her legal judgment was unduly affected by her personal or political beliefs. second, all nine justices of the supreme court, every single one of them, said that judge sotomayor got the law wrong. she ruled that the government can intentionally discriminate against one group on the basis of race if it dislikes the outcome of a race-neutral exam and claims another group may sue it. or as judge cabranas put it, under her approach, employers can reject the results of an employment examination when the results fail to yield a racial

outcome. in other words, fail to satisfy racial quota. no one on the supreme court, not even the dissenters, thought that was a correct reading of the law. justice kennedy's majority opinion said before it can intentionally discriminate on the basis of race in an employment matter, the government must have a strong basis and evidence that it could lose a lawsuit by a disgruntled parbgt claiming a tkeus -- party claiming a discriminatory effect. even justice ginsburg said before it intentionally discriminates, the government must have at least a good cause to believe it could lose a lawsuit by a disgruntled party. but not judge sotomayor. she evidently believes that statistics alone allow the government to intentionally discriminate against one group in favor of another if it claims to fear a lawsuit. stewart taylor notes why this is problematic. as he put it, the sotomayor

approach would -- quote -- "risk converting federal antidiscrimination law into an engine of overt discrimination against high-scoring groups across the country and allow racial politics and racial quotas to masquerade as voluntary compliance with the law. under such a regime, taylor notes no employer could ever -- could ever -- safely proceed with promotions based on any test on which minorities fared badly. it's one thing to get the law wrong. but judge sotomayor got the law really wrong in the ritchie case. and the new haven firefighter suffered for it. to add insult to injury, the perfunctory way in which she treated their case indicates either she didn't care about their claims or she let her own experiences, planning and overseeing these types of lawsuits with the puerto rican appeal defense and education fund affect her judgment in this case. as has been reported before she

was on the bench, judge sotomayor was in the leadership position with this puerto rican legal defense group for over a decade. while there, shimon toward the group's -- she monitored the group's lawsuits and was described as an ardent supporter of its litigation projects, one of the most important of which was the plan to sue cities based on their use of civil service exams. she's been credited with helping develop the group's policy of challenging these types of standardized tests. in a way, judge sotomayor treated the firefighters' claims in the ritchie case, what president obama means when he says he wants judges who can empathize with certain groups. is this why judge sotomayor herself said she doubted that judges can be impartial even in most cases? it is a troubling philosophy for any judge, let alone one nominated to our highest court, to convert empathy into favoritism for particular groups. the ritchie decision is the tenth of judge sotomayor's cases

the ritchie decision is the tenth of judge sotomayor's cases that reviewed. they reviewed ten of her cases, and it is the ninth time out of ten that the supreme court has disagreed with her. in fact, sheets 0 for 3 -- she is 0 for 3 during the supreme only 5% of cases federal judges decide really matter. i do not know if he is right, but the supreme court only takes a small number of cases, and it only takes cases that matter. i only know does sotomayor has been run 90% of the time. recently, she was so wrong in with her. as we consider her nomination to the supreme court my colleagues should ask themselves this important question: is she allowing her personal or

political agenda to cloud her judgment and favor one group of individuals over another regardless of what the law says? %jb f;púa) of what the law says? today al franken joins the senate. the swearing-in marked the end of eight months of legal challenges with norm coleman, who narrowly lost the race. here is senator joe biden. quorum be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. the chair lays before the senate the certificate of election for a six-year term beginning january 3, 2009, for the representation of the state of minnesota. the vice president: the certificate, the chair is

advised, is in the form suggested by the senate. if there is no objection, the reading of the certificate will be waived and it will be printed in full in the record. if the senator-elect will present himself at the desk, the chair will administer the oath of office, as required by the constitution and prescribed by law. the vice president: please raise your right hand. do you solemnly swear that you will support and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that you will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that you take this obligation

freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that you will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which you are about to enter, so help you god? a senator: i do. the vice president: congratulations, senator. [applause]

[applause] >> up next, secretary of state hillary clinton talks about the situation in honduras, following the removal of that country's president. after that, the senate health committee continues work on health legislation, and later, several cabinet secretaries testified on climate change in energy legislation. [captioning performed by

national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] >> tomorrow morning on "washington journal," steve bartlett will talk about consumer protection regulations. after that de rugy on stimulus spending. after that gov. ed rendell of pennsylvania discusses spending programs. later, then cardin on president obama's supreme court nominee, sonia sotomayor. that begins 7:00 a.m. eastern time. secretary of state hillary clinton called for talks between the government of honduras en. this is 15 minutes.

>> hello, everyone. i just finished a productive meeting. we discussed the events of the past nine days and the road ahead. i reiterated to him that the united states supports the restoration of the democratic constitutional order in honduras.

we continue to support regional efforts to bring about a peaceful solution. we have taken this position because we respect the universal principle that people should choose their own leaders, whether their leader as we agree with or not, and i said we will do everything we can to avoid further bloodshed, and i conveyed regrets over the tragedy events that unfolded in the last day. we call upon all parties to refrain from acts of violence and to seek a peaceful constitutional and lasting solution to the division in honduras through dialogue. we have been working with a number of partners in the hemisphere to create a negotiation, a dialogue that could lead to a peaceful

resolution of this situation we are supporting the efforts, but we think there needs to be a specific mediator, and to that end, we are supporting the president of the coast arica to serve in this important. i raised this with him at length. he agreed the the president who not only have a lot of experience going back years as a mediator, who won the nobel peace prize to resolve the conflict in el salvador, but his -- he is the current president of the central american association, so he is the natural person to assume this role.

i spoke with him earlier today, discuss it with him. he is willing to serve as a mediator, and we have received word the the defacto caretaker president will also believed to your president arias serving in this role. we hope this process could begin as soon as possible. i think he is willing to begin immediately, and it is our hope that through this dialogue mechanism, overseen by overseenarias, -- by president arias that there and be a

peaceful resolution of this matter that will enable the hunter and people to see the restoration of democracy and a more peaceful future going ford, so i would be happy to take your questions. >> you have used this phrase about the restoration of constitutional democratic order. does that mean that president zelaya should be restored to his position? secondly, to think it makes any sense for him to try to force his way back into the country, as he did over the weekend? lastly, does he need to come from a little on this? does he need to give up his plans for a referendum on expanding presidential terms? >> now that we have mediation process we hope can began

shortly, i do not want to prejudge what the parties themselves will agree to. there are many different issues that will have to be discussed and resolved, but i think it is fair to let the parties themselves sort out these issues. we hope but the end of this mediation there will be a return of democratic constitutional order. when this agreed to by all concerned. the exact nature of that, the specifics of it, we will leave to the parties themselves. i was heartened that he agreed with this. i believe it is a better route for him to follow a this time than to attempt to return in the

face of the implacable opposition of the defector regime, so instead of another conflict that may result in loss of life, let's try the dialogue process and see where that leads and what the parties determine all the various issues as they should. it is their responsibility to do that. >> as the mediation mean you're going to hold off on making a determination on whether this was such a torelli required to suspend -- this was statutory required to suspend the aid? >> there is humanitarian aid, and that is a concern for us, the well-being of the people of honduras, but we have made a decision to pause on further

aid. we hope the mediation process will lead to rapid resolution, and that would be our preference. >> the you expect him to actually go to honduras? >> he is going to conduct it in coaster rica, and the parties from honduras -- going to conduct it in coaster rica, and the parties from hunters' will be a negotiation. >> redo from honduras will be a negotiation. >> what status does he have, and what is the status of the ambassador from honduras to washington? does he represent the defacto government or the president? >> those are the specific questions president zelaya is discussing with the national security council and others,

because we do want to work this out and the most appropriate manner. the question of their ambassador to us and our ambassador to them is one we need to resolve. i was very pleased that president thalia -- zelaya and the foreign minister both commended us for the role our ambassador is playing, not only in providing security for members for his family but in being one of the few people that can talk to all sides of this time. we are going to be guided by the appropriateness of whether to leave our ambassador going foreign. president zelaya believes he is playing a useful role, so we do not want to a bridge five if it could be value added to this mediation process. >> -- bridge that if it could be

value added to this mediation process. >> can you confirm that shannon met with those representing the delegation of the government, and you can set -- can you tell us about the nature? >> i am not going to comment on that, because our goal has been to reach the point of believe we are now, which is to get the parties talking to each other and not to us or other third parties. there has been an enormous amount of contact going on across the hemisphere and across the world, but it has been my view for several days but the most useful role we can play is to convince all directly concerned, not only president zelaya but also the de facto

regime and everyone we needed to have a process where the hondurans themselves sit down and talk to each other, and that has been my goal, and i believe we're on the brink of that happening. i am hoping it actually occurs soon, and we have tried through our good offices to get people to the sport, and we're very grateful for -- to this point, and we are grateful for president arias to serve in this position. one more. >> [inaudible] >> we are deeply concerned over the reports of deaths and injuries from violence in western china. we are trying to sort out as

best we can the facts and circumstances from the region, and we are calling on all sides to exercise restraint. we know there is a long history of tension and discontent, but the most immediate matter is to bring the violence to a conclusion. with respect to india, i am looking forward to my trip next week. we're working hard with our indian counterparts to create a deep and broad strategic engagement, and it is my hope we will be able to announce our intention is what i am in india and that will be cooperating and working together across the broadest range of concerns our

two governments have ever engaged on. i am very hopeful that the relationship between the united states and india, which has improved considerably over the last 15 years, continues on the path we are on. india is an emerging global power. the recent election has provided political stability, and the new government is furry committed to pursuing a very activist domestic agenda, particularly around poverty and the conditions of people in rural india as well as an emphasis on development and job creation, but also to look for ways that india can play our role, regionally and globally on economic issues and others that confront us, so i am very excited. i was thrilled to go to india for the first time as first

lady and to begin a process that has led us to this point with the contributions of many along the way. that really demonstrates the the world's largest and oldest democracy has so much more in common than perhaps first recognized. thank you. thank you very much for regan -- very much for regan we are making progress. -- very much. we're making progress. they say it is going to take six to eight weeks before i get the mobility back, and then i will give strength -- get strength back. >> president obama attended the russian summit today in moscow. tomorrow the president travels to italy for the g8 summit to meet with italian president napolitano along with g8 leaders. for more information about his

trip, visit c-span.org. >> how is c-span funded? >> the u.s. government. >> i do not know. i think some of it is government. >> it is not public funding. >> probably donations. >> i want to say from me. my tax dollars. >> how is c-span funded? 30 years ago, america's cable companies created c-span of the public service, a private business initiative, no government mandate, no government money. >> now from the senate labor committee as members discuss legislation. the session began last month with the committee now considering amendments to the bill. president obama has urged congress to pass health care legislation before its august recess. chris dodd of connecticut continues to fill in for ted kennedy as acting chairman of the committee. this is about an hour 40

minutes. >> we're missing one member. let me welcome our guests to this historic room. i hope everyone had a good fourth of july as well. i would like to briefly describe where we are as of this morning and then have some opening comments about the next section of the bill we are going to get to, but before i do that, in the opening, as he might have a slug, and then will move to the various sections of the bill, but i want to go thank everyone for the work. we have done in -- we have made

great progress, and today we are meeting to work on focusing on subtitle h of title 1. we will have a debate this morning on all aspects, and a walk-through of thank everyone again -- and i want to of thank everyone again. we have not reached agreement on these matters. i want to thank everyone again. particularly our staff. we haven't reached agreement on all the matters. this is the first step? a long process to go through. it's been tremendously cooperative. there's a lot of cooperation that goes on. we hope the process will continue. i had a chance to speak with senator kennedy on the phone.

he extends his best wishes to everybody on the committee. we all wish him the very, very best under these circumstances. our goal this week is to try to finish the subtitle. to clear out any other amendments that we can. i know some are still outstanding. we would like to go back and work on some of these matters. we'll try to do that as we go along. over the last three weeks we've accepted or voted on 87 amendments as we count them offered by colleagues on the other side. all of my colleagues on the minority side are more familiar tw the difltty of dealing with that than people here are. having dealt with that. trying to get numbers. i appreciate the hard work they

do. it is hard. it wasn't until the middle of last week we were able to get numbers backing on the public option and the employer responsibility section. i appreciate the work they did. i felt it was urgent enough to delay the filing for the health care system they analyzed our language that gave us the numbers. the jct concluded that provisions of title one, the coverage taken together with provisions already marked up by the committee would result in a net score of $611 billion over the next ten years. there's roughly $400 billion

left in the cbo score for an earlier version of the proposal. under the jct analysis 120 million people would be uninsured. ha good news as the employer based system is one we want to maintain. several on the committee working both here and there. we will dramatically reduce the number of underinsured. 97% of americans will have coverage, a major achievement. very good news as we move forward. i'm pleased to report that we have some extensive support on what we've achieved so far and obviously what i hope is achieved in a bipartisan bill. that's the goal of all of us to put that together.

i know we're not there yet. that's not uncommon. you have to start some place as you move forward. we're doing that with a very good bill, a comprehensive bill. as a reminder to my colleagues, tonight is filing deadline for title one and title 6 amendments. senator kennedy does. senator brown had a deep interest. other members of the kplee do. my hope is to find some common point of interest. i know it's an important matter to all of us here. the reason we left it blank.

i would like to do that if we can. it may not be possible. i don't know where we're end up in the process. ipd to make sure that i'm not going to live rigidly by the rules under the committee. so we're not working in a straight jacket. mike, let me stop there. i would like to make a few brief comments on the class act. >> that sounds like a good process. i want to express our condolences on the death of your sister. that was quick. those are always painful and leave a tremendous hole. we're just sorry that that

happened. we'll keep your and your family and d@@@@@ @ @ @ @ @ k@ @ @ @ i want to also make some comments, because many claims have been made based on the new estimates from the congressional budget office. as only accounted in the senate, i believe we need to focus on what the numbers actually indicate instead of the claims of the supporters of the bill. the numbers are clear. this bill still spends more than $6 billion and leaves americans without health insurance. $600 billion and leaves 34 million americans without health insurance. the schar man ef the committee claim this is approach will provide health insurance for 97% of americans.

we take credit for the new coverage. don't take accounted for the costs associated with those expansions. i serve on the finance committee. i worked closely with grassley and their efforts to craft a bipartisan bill. i know a medicaid expansion will cost several hundred billion additional dollars and will increase the cost of the total bill to well over $1 trillion. we need to be up front about what the bill will truly cost. at the time when california is literally writing ious because they're going bankrupt and states across the country are facing the worst financial crisis in a generation. why are the estimates lower than the numbers we saw? because the bill has a new tact on employers who did not aur health insurance to employees.

this will cause employers to reduce the number of employees. most economists agree the effect will fall disproportionately on low income and minority populations. we should be finding new ways. the bill will always reduce the cost estimate by violating one of president obama's campaign pledges from last year. president obama promise that had he would not increase taxes on families who made less than $250,000. but that is what this bill does. it taxes american who is do not have health insurance. under this bill they'll have to pay $36 bill every the next ten years. the american people should understand and the administration should understand that this bill breaks that campaign pledge on taxes.

the bill uses a budget gimmick to hide the true cost of the bill. the bill assumes $58 billion in new rev new from a payroll tax. made by families making less than $250,000 a year. what will happen when more people become eligible for the program outside the ten-year window. it will then become an unfunded liability that will cost the taxpayers $2 trillion. i've never seening in as bold as this. only in washington could someone develop a policy that cost the taxpayers $2 trillion and call that a savings and use it to pay for more federal spending.

according to cbo the new government-run health care plan did not have a substantial effect in reducing the score of the bill. they say it would drive down health care costs. according to cbo those claims are wrong. this bill does too little to reduce health care cost. it reflects any logical desire to design a health care plan that falls outside mainstream thinking and bares no connection to what we can afford. our best hope is most of the proo visions in the bill are discoursed. they committed to pay for policy changes. i appreciate the chairman's comments about flexibility in doing the amendments. as i heard earlier the

biological piece is going to be filed at 5:00. that was going to be same time as the deadlines. hard to do amendments when you haven't seen the bill. i would mention that these parts that were left blank to begin with, we've had flexibility in allowing them to be filed at this point in time. so we're trying to work on these things, get them done as quickly as possible and wind up with a result. so we need to negotiate the bill in good faith. we appreciate the consideration that you've been giving. we need to have some time only the pieces as well in order to do it.

so, again, we appreciate the consideration you're giving. and hope there will be more flexibility. we hope, of course, that a few more pieces of what we're suggesting be included in the bill. >> thank you very much, senator. i'm going to move to the class act. we mentioned on our work on the employer shared responsibility section. i want to thank senator binghamton. the free writer proposal was discussed as well as just having some open ended process that would have cost a tremendous amount of money. to keep people in the employer based programs as well as the smaller businesses that did not want to.

that's $750 for a full time employee. $370 for a part time employee. those numbers will be enough to provide for the insurance coverage of people, keeping people in the employer based program and getting the numbers up. we all rely on the ceo. far better. we looked at the free writer proposal. those were $5,000 per employee. that was a staggering amount. i think that concern was a very warranted concern. so we looked around for other ideas. i think it's a reasonable number.

$2 a day i realize can be a burden. but a much more reduced burden than would otherwise be the cas if we're going to end up with the comprehensive proposal we're talking about. i was pleased with the numbers. on the class act proposal here. and before beginning there's a little of 100 different groups and so forth that have supported this as well as from secretary sebelius and supporting for this title as well as aarp in support of this provision as well. let me take a few minutes to drip in this provision. it is something new but exciting and could contribute to reducing costs. we know about the 46 to 50 million people who are uninsured and how those numbers break down.

all of us who have dealt with the issue personally or otherwise know how expensive long-term care can be for people. given the ability that people have longer life spans, higher quality of life, nonetheless need support in the process. this is going to become a growing issue and a growing demand. you can rely on medicaid. but in doing so we know that adds tremendous costs, tremendous burdens. this is the only program, i think, according to kent conrad, chairman of the budget committee, that actually has a reduction in medicaid costs. it's a voluntary program. there's no mandates required. it's entirely optional.

we're told the cost could be in excess of a billion dollars. it's not intended to pay for nursing homes but rather to support people who need some help in their retiring years and decide to give them such without encouraging people to move into that medicaid window. unemployment rate from all the other economic factors that pressures on the medicaid can grow tremendously. as we attempt to reduce costs and provide affordable coverage for all americans we have to begin long-term care needs. the number does come out to around $200 people when you add

the younger people. it forces americans with disabilities who need additional help caring for themselves prematurely to institutions because help is unaffordable. it fails to support families to provide realistic opportunities. it would provide seniors and people with disabilities with the support and services they need to maintain their health, retain their independence, and remain active in their communities. urntly people with limited options when it comes to providing for long term care, support and services are the case. others will left in poverty to qualify for medicare.

for these people the need for federal assistance can be a distance center for people to work and lead productive lives. this provides beneficiaries a daily cash payment of $50 a day. these types of voucher payments avoid bureaucracies and empower consumers by enabling to control what services they get. this is not designed to pay for nursing homes but to help people live independently. in order to qualify for these payments the beneficiary would have to show that they are unable to perform two or more activities of daily living.

these premiums payed to create an incentive for younger people to opt into the program. students would be capped at $5 a month. in general younger participants will pay less than older participants. it will facilitate planning for disability. help keep people off medicaid an increase in dependence for millions of americans. the legislation does not eliminate the private insurer. actually, it probably helps by providing a platform for them to sell long-term health care insurance that currently sell very poorly. such benefits we think will go a long way to meeting the needs of baby boomers, as i mentioned earlier. the congressional budget office has told us this would result in a $57.8 billion safings over a shorter term. the ceo told us over the long

run the secretary of hhs will have to make adjustments to premiums and benefit in order to keep this program solvent. this act requires under law the future secretaries to make the determinations. used examples of earlier programs where the law never required the. it will be a requirement to adjust this program to increase the premiums or adjust benefits. so we don't end u in the insolvent situation. that's a real problem. i don't disagree with that. that's an issue beyond the ten years. if you require by law the secretary to acquire it here, this program could be a very good program. it's private dollars. no public money involved. it's totally voluntary. you don't have to be in the program if you don't want to ft it enkurjs younger people to get involved to criminal intent the shared responsibility of

contributing to the longer term needs. those are staggering. we see peoe@@@@@@@j@ @ @ @ @ åh7 it may not seem like much, but that could be the difference between russia enough to medicaid and that title nine window or going it -- rushing off to medicaid and that catalan window or going off to a nursing aide. -- that title 9 window or going off to a nursing aide. there is a letter i sound tremendously encouraging. they warned they cannot say for certain, because obviously, it will depend upon future years whether or not those secretaries are actually going to do with the law will require. whether or not those secretaries will do what the law required. it's hard believing this is a law saying a mandate that you

must adjust. that office would disobey the law. it's a leap of judgment that i don't think we ought to be necessarily making. each year review the long term solvency of the program and to make adjustments to the programs that will be insolvent for 20 years. it will help many people get the assistance they need to return to work, help the elderly to stay if their homes longer and bring down the costs of med case. $57 billion savings. both uses reduce public costs and improve quality of life for people. with regard to the long term supports and services, there

were 38 amendments filed by the colleagues. kennedy's amendment number one is modified to include mike enzy's. number 77 is modified and has been accepted. number 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 2 26, 27 is modified. as well as number 7 and senator isa isaacson's number one. to try to work on as many of the provigs as we can on this subsection of the bill. we still have amendments to consider with the title.

private dollars going on. entirely optional for people. a mandate that future secretaries must adjust the program on a yearly basis to make sure the solvency will be there. by raising premiums or adjusting benefits. i think it's a creative program and one that will make a significant contribution to people to keep them independent, contribute to the long-term support and acquiring in a sense for those who want to participate an opportunity to share the responsibility. so with those points i open up the floor for amendments. >> mr. chairman, i have a few things i would like to say. first of all the follow-up by a logics bill is supposed to be followed by 5:00 tonight. you've given us an hour and a half. >> okay. >> now secondly i thought we had a deal here put together by

senator kennedy, senator clinton, even senator schumer agreed at the time. i thought senator brown had agreed. maybe i'm mistaken there. we have no idea what you're filing. i hope it's consistent with what we all agreed to on the committee. there's a lot of playing around. i'm very concerned about it. if we can keep them where it was, you will have an explosion in investments. that will lead us to more treatments and cures. if you play around with the day today exclusivity part, and i've spent a lot of time oon this and

helped bring it down from where it was and force ad lot of companies to get off their kick and get down to that point. if we keep playing around with that, we're going to deter or even defer, i guess, an awful lot of treatments or cures that will be beneficial to mankind. 12 years is about equivalent to what we did. now we're talking large molecule drugs that are not even drugs but entities that are very, very difficult to duplicate. i would hope we can stick with what we came up with. 108 cosponsors of the bill which is somewhat similar to what we

agreed to here. having said that, if the chairman will forebear with me for a while, the last week the democrats in the hud committee start ad letter they reduced the try costs of the bill for more than a trillion to a little more than $600 billion. that's fiction. let me tell you why. the distinguished senator from wyoming i thought made a very interesting and good statement. here are the facts. the misleading lower spending and higher numbers based on -- i don't think anybody could decide otherwise. let's talk about the quote assumed unquote medical expansi expansion. the health democrats or staffers claim they cover almost 97% of

the uninsured. now the truth according to the cbo letter is that it leaves more than 34 million americans uninsured. 97% number based on a massive expansion to 150% of the federal poverty level that would cost anywhere between $500 and $800 billion or more. this is a time when states are faced with $200 billion in deficits. they simply assume the expansion without spelling out the policy. claiming jurisdictional concerns. now take neez taxes on american families and businesses. the revised title one of the bill includes an hon rous mandate to raise $36 billion in additional tax revenues. now families, that is if

families fail to get the level of insurance that's defined by the federal government. this is a time when american families are struggling to pay their bills and keep their homes. as the distinguished ranking member said of president obama's own commitment to not raise taxes on 95% of americans. it includes a job killing mandate that's going to tax american businesses by almost $52 billion. this is going to lead to lower wages and more job losses at a time when our national unemployment rate is almost 10% and rising. although the class act raises $58 billion or reports to do that. new rev news in the first ten years. what it doesn't mention is the long-term costs of the programs which according to the experts at the american council of life insurers will be almost $2 trillion. $2 trillion.

this is a time when major government programs like medicare face long term deficits of almost $39 trillion. and to meet the target of fully paying for health reform in the first ten years, those who are arguing on using the budgetary gimmicks have lowered the score by pushing back the most expensive items of the ten-year budgetary window. for example, the subsidies did not even get going until 2013. i mean, this is manipulating the budget to try to get to a lower figure and lower cost on this bill and the cost, if this bill was passed. despite the claims of reduced spending, the real ten-year cost of the fully implemented policy of this bill would easily exceed $ 1.5 trillion. we're asking american families

to be honest about their spending and their budget in these tough economic times, i think we should take their advice as well on this important issue. these are important points, and as you know, i'd like to get a new health care reform bill. i'd like to be able to work diligently with that. i know the distinguished member leading us would like to do that. i have a distinguished committee chairman and i've got to say that we're all just blown away by the blind way they think some have ignored these facts. you can't ignore them and play this game of $600 billion and everybody knows that it's going to be drill otrillions of dolla. >> i appreciate that. >> i'm sincere about this, and i have to say that i think senator

kennedy, if he were here as well, he'd be tremendously concerned about this, and i feel really badly that he's not here, and that you have this responsibility that's got to be the most miserable responsibility that you've had in a long time is all i can say, but we've got to get real on this stuff. if we're not going to get real we're basically pledging our country and our country's assets and its futures on the our something that we're, you know, i'm not telling the truth about. so i'm really concerned about it, and i think this is too staff driven. let me say briefly to my colleague, the status quo is unacceptable. 18% of the gdp jumping to 25% is unacceptable. it's as if the costs are going to go down if we don't act. 14,000 people a day losing health insurance in this country is unacceptable. today while we sit here and work

on this, another 14,000 people and our fellow citizens will lose health insurance and fall into that gap period while lord forbid, a problem hits their family, they could be in a freefall, 62% of bankruptcies, 52% of foreclosures occur in a country with health care crisis. we're trying to find numbers here. the president wants us to be deficit neutral. we're trying to cover as many people as we can, think about long-term care needs with an aging population that wants independence. we've designed a program here that doesn't change anything. if you like what you v you get the choices to want to keep what you can and try to make this affordable quality. it's not an easy tank. others have tried it for 65 years and failed. we don't have the choice to fail and that is only one choice and that is to get this done and it will have costs associated with it and we're trying to keep costs down and the numbers we

saw a month and a half a month ago where it had sticker shock on them to all of us. so we've tried to come back and figure out how do you do this and get numbers that are realistic and the numbers that we've come back with, cbo has come back with, not their number, our number, puts us in the ballpark of achieving the president's goals andi having a proposal. you i think we're on the right track with this proposal. we'll work on that as a committee to try and solve the issue if we can to the satisfaction about bringing down costs as well and certainly the cost of pharmaceutical drugs whether they be bile odjick and chemical. they'll have some ability to manipulate while simultaneously have creativity and i've listened to you over the years and i agree with you. we do need to encourage the investments that occur in that area, they're essential.

we have to have some restraint on costs. so we try to balance those interests. >> mr. chairman, with all due respect, i would rather fail than sad them country with an unsustainable -- >> none of us want to do that. >> well, i don't know how you will do that if you do this bill. >> mr. chairman -- >> you allowed me to make general opening statements which i did. for the class act, what i intended to do was have the budget ranking member make some comments on that. let me turn to senator brown. >> i just want to speak for a moment with biologics, and i watched with great admiration. senator hatch's legislative skills and that i admire his work of more than two decades ago and one of the greatest consumer pieces of legislation that this body has passed in the last half century, probably. there are -- there are