from a public health aspect was the end of the of the nontherapeutic use of antibiotics in food animal production. . .

>> that is actually a savings of 12 to $7 per person if you go by the other study. the pew commission believes there is more than enough science to warrant a ban of the use of antibiotics. there have been studies that link antibiotic use on the farm to equalize and salmonella

infections -- e. coli and a salmonella infections. we also think that the experience is very important, as the chairman said. they banned the use of antibiotics in 1988. the data has been analyzed for the past 10 years and a city is being released in the journal of the american veterinary medical association -- a study is being released in a row of american veterinary medical association. they found that in the u.s. compared to the rest of the world, we use more antibiotics than any food production in the world. that is on page 10 of my submitted statement. in denmark, looking specifically in denmark, the total amount of am -- of antibiotics being used post-band is less than the total amount of antibiotics used pre- ban. that is on the chart in my written statement. it also shows that the pool of

written -- of a resistance intin humans has declined. the resistance in animals has declined. what did show an increase in more towny -- mortality in weaner pigs for a time, what they started cleaner practices, more space for the animals, better waste handling, then the mortality has decreased significantly in swine production. productivity has actually gone up post-band. -- post best band -- post-ban. the worry that there is one to be a food shortage that something would like to promote if we ban. -- vertherapeutic use of

antibiotics is just not there. i was very impressed with all of the knowledge that the camp -- members of the panel have about this very important issue. >> reserve and the appreciate all three of you being here today. it is because of c-span we have to turn this on. i need to remind everybody when you are not talking, please drop your microphone. again, i want to thank you for the great work you have done. you are one of the scientist and as long as i can remember that has really stood up for good science. cheap science has been pretty prevalent and i cannot tell you how much i appreciated that over the years. over the last eight or nine years, since about the fda, which i always thought was the gold standard for the world, has fallen that i hold the fda in

minimum low regard. i was so pleased that we would see some light at the end of the tunnel now with some new person is there. this has been a serious problem that the public really wants addressed. in my part of the country when they wanted the mill, the uprising was so strong. the ability to sell organic, free range animals, all sorts of things. people want to make sure that what they have is healthy. in addition to my does not taste so good either. i was pleased you brought up the denmark study again because i think that is a terribly important thing for us to do. one of the questions i wanted to ask for the three of you is the fda's 2004 queries, the company

that makes penicillin for use in food animals, did they say any animals were safe for people that you know of? >> now that we know of. we know of a request sent to the companies by the fda for evidence of food safety, but we do not know that any of the companies responded. the fda simply has not acted on -- >> we do not have any study results from that it in 2004, is that correct? >> it is amazing to me that despite repeated past requests from congress that risk assessments that apparently have been done by the fda have not been released, either to congress or the public. >> cephalosporin has been an

interesting example that has been prohibited. the fda provided it in july of 2008 and the federal registry determine the language use of the cephalosporin presented a wrist to human -- a risk to human health. the cdc on a member 28, 2008 -- the fda revoked the order. it said that they had too many comments on the order. are you aware of that? >> i certainly am. >> those are the ages that are supposed to be taking care of us. >> they did, they revoked the order and tthe union of concernd scientists have requested that the agency reinstates the order. but so far, we have not heard back from the fda.

>> that is something to take up with the fda. doctor, talking about the transfer, the resistance transfer, that is a bit hard to grasp. if you could explain to us how that is transferred among bacteria, we would appreciate it. >> anti- resistance in bacteria is coded for the resistance by either mutations in the day they were fragments of dna of resistance genes. a lot of those genes are on mobile resistance element, these pieces of dna that bacteria can hand back and forth -- well, without hands. they can pass back and forth. it is sort of like a lateral move in football, but in this case, you make a copy of it before you hand it off. or maybe, you can think of spice sigrid's that allow you to escape and rest. you make a copy that you pass on

to another spy that allow you to escape that antibiotic. every time you use an antibiotic, you're allowing for all of that information not contain that bacteria. çmaybe the passing of that information is rare, but when you apply that antibiotic, then all of those that do not have that information buyoff and the ones that do have the information grow. the system becomes dominated by the organisms that hold that resistance gene. does that help? >> you think to genomics is going to play role? >> i think that is it backwards way to approach this. i think the antibiotics being taken out of the food element is the thing to do. >> that is the thing we prefer to do. that is the whole question of this bill. the industry that feeds antibiotics to their animals on a daily basis because of routine preventive use -- they call it a routine preventive use.

we have a system that makes those animals prone to catching a disease, would you say? >> if you have to use repeated and about x, routine antibiotic to keep animals from being sick then we have a broken system. >> mr. martin, you know that this bill is a result of all the work done and we greatly thank you. the certain terms of non therapeutic and therapeutic use of the reflected antibiotics is fairly defined. tell us how you came to those conclusions. >> we have leaders in medicine and, i think, through the inquiry we found that -- just what we hear today at the hearing and with the chairman has expressed. unless you can clearly defined

the terms, the industry will use antibiotics on a routine basis and cause routine disease control or prevention. we make a definition of therapeutic use after several hours of discussion in consulting with other human health experts and veteran mary experts. i would like to reiterate what dr. price said. the system is broken. it is the lack of animal husbandry that is a patch on a broken system. and they are also at linchpin -- a linchpin of the director found in keeping these animals together that escalate the to the element of novel flu viruses. -- the development of novel flu viruses. we have a concern because of the intense exposure of individuals

with overcrowding with the animals that in all of flu virus would be generated similar to the swine flu. >> and we got one, didn't we? i know that you have worked with individuals. did you work with the animal industry as well? >> we did. >> with what results? >> in the report, we said that the response to the commission by the animal industry was pretty broad. it ranged from cooperation to open hostility. we did work with the animal alliance and they helped us get access to some facilities because it was very hard to get in to see some of these industrial operations. we consulted a lot of academics that receive their funding from the industry. in the end, i think that they were pretty upset because we called for broad opportunities. kristie culin -- thank you all very much.

no. thank you, madam chair and thank you all for being here today. i respect your expertise and experience in this matter. i'm interested in the economic imperative for why this legislation is needed. testimony that we receive is clear that failure to take action could have economic consequences. we heard the failure to act on this bill means that we will continue spending over $4 billion per year of preventable hospital visits. we also have a failure to act and this exposes our u.s. food industry to trade challenges in the global marketplace. through april of this year, the country exported almost $937 million worth of meat. that is about 277,000 metric tons of meat in the first four months of 2009 alone. this is a huge industry for country at a critical time in history. we cannot afford to leave our meat industry behind while there

are market changes that we feel to see your react to. dr. mellon, you have devoted a great deal of your testimony to the potential market disadvantages that the u.s. meat producersç would face if we failed to enact chairwoman slaughter's legislation. i am someone that does recognize the critical role that international trade plays in our economy. i'm hoping that you'll be able to elaborate on your analysis. used korea, thailand, and others as examples of countries that compete with us in beef and restrict beef imports that do not conform to their own quality standards. how are these -- how would these countries taking such action hurt american beef producers? >> any country that has already restricted the non therapeutic use of antibiotics in its own food animal production house what i would call a kind of card

in its pocket and that it can play any time it chooses. the card is as follows, under trade rules, the country is allowed to restrict the import of products coming into the country where those products and do not adhere to rules that the country is willing to impose on itself. so, where a country has itself decided to restrict antibiotic use, it has the card to play to restrict the import of u.s. imports into that country because we do not adhere to those roles, and for so long as we don't, we do not know if they are born to play that card. but many of our competitors are looking for virtually any angle in what is a very competitive

international marketplace. they could establish rules and those rules would not fall under a wto challenge, as i said, as long as they are not allowing in products that do not a cure to rules that they are willing to impose on themselves. >> you are basically saying that they use it as an excuse to not imports. >> yes kaman 2 not import -- yes, to not import car before any of a product. >> can you estimate the economic impact that would have, such as the poem on american beef producers. are we talking millions or billions of dollars? >> i would not want to enter into that area. it is not my area of expertise. i mean, just because the size of the international marketplace is so large, it could be important. i think and writing is on the wall.

i think that american meat industry is a lot like the auto industry. they just cannot see that it is in their own advantage to start doing what needs to be done. >> you feel like there are other countries that are moving toward limiting antibiotic use so they can legally enact trade barriers against the united states? >> no, i would say that based on the dangerous experience, the country is restricting antibiotic use in order to protect the health of its own citizens, but i think that's smart producers -- and denmark, i believe, is the world's largest exporter of pork. this is no small industry there. but they understand that there will be trade advantages as well. they would rather be ahead of the game and then behind it. >> thank you, can you go on with the denmark experience?

my understanding is that they have as little as -- they have little economic dislocation. they must have had some dislocation. >> actually, not. i was fortunate enough to be on a conference call with the author of a city that is going to be published next month. there have been very little economic dislocations. but to answer the question about disruption in the marketplace, i think it would cause the american meat industry billions of dollars a challenge like that were issued. i think you have to look at what happens when there is a bse scare, you know, what happens to imports hundred and russia periodically banned imports because of concerns over antibiotic residue on the export. the entire european union has joined the band on therapeutic use of antibiotics. in 2006 they didn't a e.u.

wide band and i think what -- they did whate.u.-wide ban and i think that more people ought to age that produces the animals. but it was not this disruption that the u.s. industry would like you to believe. >> ok, thank you very much. >> thank you for your interesting and very informative testimony. i am a strong supporter of where one to talk about today and i have a little experience. i was very pleased to hear all of u.n. force that -- reinforce that, thank you very much. and thank you, mr. mellon, for reinforcing the economic impact of what we are hearing about here and how it has already had unintended consequences, certainly, in the health field,

but could continue to give us a disadvantage in the exports. i would like to just to reinforce how significant this could be if we continue down this path. and i want to thank you, mr. price, for reminding us again -- the system -- if the system requires constant use of antibiotics, it is unhealthy. my educational back to -- background and life experiences are around animals gives me a sense that it is such a simple premise. the fact that we cannot get there from here does not make any sense. the fact that we could even have this hearing knowing what we know about loss of life and economic issues does not make any sense. i would like to ask my only question of mr. martin. thank you for the work that pugh did and bring us to this point. you mentioned the influence and that you side at several levels.

as far as i'm concerned, a and we would not be here today if there was not undo influence -- undue influence. the producer set out with a little more length attached to it so we could really think about the root problem and why we do not fix it? >> one of the main problems is the lack of public funding for research at land grant schools. there have been cutbacks at the state and federal level that should be doing research, which if it is public dollars, it should be for the common good. i cut that has been replaced by industry funded research. -- that cutback has been replaced by industry funded research. that is not always in the vein of public health or in the -- in keeping broader public health in mind. there's also a lot of influence ethnilike the national pork pros

council influencing state and federal policy makers and enforcement of existing regulations and laws. >> well, thank you, thank yos an to all of you. >> [inaudible] isn't it true that half of that 70% figure [inaudible] >> i can take that question. 70% of -- i guess i should preface it by saying there are two broad classes of chemicals that we are talking about here.

antibiotics and antibiotics that are used in medicine and antibiotics that are not. often, the entire class, including but antibiotics that are used in human medicine and those that are not, are called anti- microbial. the figure that was cited in the union of concerned scientists, that was actually published, is that 70% of the anti microbial s are used in animals in only three species and for non- therapeutic use. as we made clear and as i make clear in my testimony, only half of the 24 million pounds are drugs that we use in human medicine and, therefore, of concern to the folks here. but the fact that the 70% number

stands, whether it is a percentage of all of the met -- all of the anti-microbials use or a wider defined use of antibiotics. >>ç [inaudible] >> nou, the 13 million pound number that we came up with represents antibiotics that were fed to animals for non- therapeutic purposes, mostly in feed, occasionally in water. it does not include the use of antibiotics for dips and other purposes. i would say across the board, regardless of the purpose for which antibiotics are used, we do not have adequate data to answer the questions with the specificity and accuracy are would like to be able to answer

them. >> here is the main question, because of a farm bill this year that was passed last year, it was concluded that the u.s. -- the fda are to collect the data, correct? >> in edufa, last year, the animal drug use, yes. >> [inaudible] >> there are no provisions that would require -- >> [inaudible] >> there is some research that is authorized in the farm bill to provide the background for the issue, to figure out why antibiotics are used, to trace their movement off the farm. that is in the farm bill. it is a program that, although authorized, there are no funds appropriated for it, which we

would very much like to see happening. it is a kind of data that we would very much like to have. but on top of that, we also would like to have what they have in denmark, for example. i mean, they are able to tell you precisely the quantities of antibiotics used in their animal agriculture and for what purposes. they can really follow it over the time. >> i totally support having people [inaudible]

it is my understanding that there could be but a between 1995 and 2006. >> it did, but not as much as overall use came down. >> we have seen as a number of times in agricultural committees over the years. there is a reason why some diseases are treated and we are concerned with what those diseases could cause in the human population as well. so, there is some reason to be concerned not just with the treatment, but with the disease they are trying to get at. they -- that may bring up other questions about how to deal with those diseases and other ways, but is not always a zero sum game.

>> mr. price, are you a vegetarian? the way you handle that chicken i thought maybe it was the first time you have ever done it. >> i've handled a lot of chicken. >> you mentioned that chicken had toxic bacteria. free range chicken, with that have the same kind of toxins? when you cook it any differently? >> i have done studies comparing products -- poultry products from animals raised without antibiotics and conventionally raised products. i was looking for the second leading cause of bacterial diarrhea in the u.s. just behind salmonella. the kind of compete for first place. there was a significant difference. i need to go back to the numbers and i can give those exact numbers to you, but there is about a tenfold difference

between those organic and raised without antibiotics. there was much more of the bacteria on the conventional product. >> if you would give that to me, i would appreciate it. >> i have two different cities that i conducted like that. i will trigger them both. ç>> was the chicken that you compared, was it prior to processing or after processing? there are some things that they use in processing that sometimes take care of those. >> it was in the course for, just like this. >> ok, i would like to have that study. >> i would happy to get it for you. >> may i go back just to the -- i think, the danish use experience is important and on page 11 of my written testimony, this is the actual charts that will be issued in the journal of

american veterinarian medical association next month. it is by the doctor who conducted the study. it shows that this is the pre dan -- the pre-ban and to reddick use a promoter. and this is the post-ban. it does start to level off from about 2004 to 2008. you can see a dramatic reduction of use when you combine non- therapeutic with therapeutic. i think you have to combine that figure to get an idea. >> and i think there were as a temporary spike. there were some opera initially. -- there was a temporary spike. there were some outbreaks initially. >> if you were mixing in feed and you diluted it somehow

[inaudible] it is a very small bill. houri measuring that? >> it is measured, i think, in your packet and the doctors have submitted a written testimony that shows that no graham's used per kilmeade -- program -- no graham's used per kilogram of meat produced. >> thank you so much for your testimony. our next battle will be two members of congress, congresswoman sacha caskey from illinois and congresswoman basra and from illinois. come forward, please. miss.com schakowsky, can we

begin with you? >> thank you, madam chairman. i really appreciate this opportunity to come and talk to your committee. some vulnerabilities are thrust upon us as a nation and others, like the one we are discussing, is really a self-imposed. we all felt extremely vulnerable after 9/11 and we looked for all of the ways we could protect ourselves and all the potential attacks that might come upon us. we talked about biological weapons that might threaten our country. and when the h1n1 virus came out, i knew it was not a bacterial infection, but well, is this the big one and are ready for that?

is this going to be the plague of our generation? on this battlefield, it seems as if we are disarming ourselves. and we are not doing it for good solid health reasons. we are doing it in order to grow animals faster, or not to promote growth and not to promote health. we know that -- and you have heard all the science that the food and drug administration has seven glasses of antibiotics that are highly or critically important in human medicine and they are used as feed. i'm not going to go with the science, which i think has been adequately presented. my friend, for example, is one of these people that has had breast cancer and has had trouble with her arms and is

very susceptible to bacterial infections. she spent a lot more time in the hospital for every admission when she gets such an infection. and here we are at this moment looking for ways that we are going to be able to provide health care to all americans and do it in an economical way. again, you have heard some of those numbers. çthe estimated 1.4 million peoe infected with salmonella each year, about one in five cases is resistant to antibiotics. what does that mean? it means longer stays in the hospital, more medical care. of the 2.4 million annual campbell of doctrine and veterans, about half are resisted. we have to keep trying more and more things. we know that 2 million americans acquire bacterial infections during their hospital stays every year.

70% of their infections are resistant to drugs commonly used to treat them. we are bring ourselves down at a moment that we want to protect ourselves at a -- as a nation. and we surly want to protect the health care of americans. the university of illinois researchers found in 2001 and in 2007 that routine and tetracycline use at farms was contaminating groundwater with tetracycline resistant bacteria, which would then cheri resistance with other bacteria through gene transfer. researchers concluded that, "brown water may be a potential source of antibiotic resistance in the food chain -- groundwater may be a potential source of antibiotic resistance in the food chain." 1 type of resistant bacteria, mrsa, has risen 57% in just four

years. it seems to me that when a solution is at hand, and we have heard testimony about other countries that have done this without any dramatic affect all to the industry, what we are talking about using these antibiotics not for therapeutic reasons in animals -- and we are not really discussing that right now -- that we ought to do the smart thing. as you may know, madam chair, my hope was to introduce this legislation, your legislation as part of the overall health reform that we are doing right now. we do have language in there now that would look at this issue and the importance of this issue. i did it as much, again, for the health of the country as an effort to save money on health care. and do it in a smart way. my hope is that this committee,

and then the full house, will look at this as a stand-alone issue, pass through legislation h.r. 1549 for all the reasons that i have mentioned and for all of the absolutely unassailable data behind us to back up its effectiveness and its importance. thank you. >> thank you very much. mr. boswell? >> thank you, chairwoman and a committee to allow me to brief you today ensure my testimony. my good friend from chicago came here -- and i came here together and we do a lot of good things together. i do believe we do a lot for animals and not just for the animals, but to keep people healthy. i hope i can show that as i share my testimony.

i have seen firsthand the responsible use of antibiotics. i understand the issues that affect the livestock. -- the livestock, dairy, and poultry industries, having spent most of my use in that industry. once i retired from 20 years of the army, i moved back and return to farming. i knew things had changed and i wanted to learn about it. i sat down with my local veterinarian, who manages our local operation now, and his senior partner to discuss the use of antibiotics to prevent future illness. from my experience with producers and veterinarians, antibiotics is not the exception. it is the role. part of that is that my young son was going to have a 4-8 calf in junior high. -- a 4-h calf in junior high.

i wanted him to understand what he was doing and i thought, well, when i went to the fair, i would probably end up buying it and we look for ways send it to the locker and take it from there. i wanted to be sure that what i fed my children was healthy. duringç the 110th congress it s my privilege to serve as the agricultural -- as the german on the eberle to a subcommittee on poultry. we held a hearing to review the advances in animal health within the livestock industry. i would like to some -- submit my report, if i may. but without objection. >> we specifically looked at the antibiotic use on farms. our witnesses included veterinarians from the usda and the fda center from veterinarian medicine and academics across

the country. but we believe we heard from a good cross-section of the users of antibiotic products. the doctors possible and experts studying the resistance trends of antibiotics in animal spirit of -- in animals. it became clear that poultry route producers have raised responsibility to safeguard health -- the health of the animals and public health. it is a responsibility they take very seriously. they're committed to using the antibiotics responsibly. they did not develop these guidelines because congress told them to do so. they developed the guidelines because it was the right thing to do for their animals and their consumers. i think that the prospectus and witnesses -- the perspective and witnesses with regard to h.r. 1549, i would like to take a few

moments to take what we learn from the area in terms of what it would do to the livestock industry. as i understand, h.r. 1549 would remove seven glasses of antibiotics from the market unless sponsors -- seven classies of antibiotics from the market unless sponsors kendeigh proved the need for their use. all antibiotics used to keep the antibiotic -- used to keep animals healthy have passed the fda process and have been shown to be safe and effective and have undergone review for their potential to cause an increase antibody resistance. h.r. 1549 would require antibiotic sponsors to prove again what has already been proven during the initial fda approval. this fda process is stringent, science-based and a regulatory review. it takes years and takes millions of dollars.

h.r. 1549 overlooks the legitimate veterinarian nee to preserve and -- the veterinarian need to preserve the animal in the food chain. there are fewer antibiotics and debated for approval, so if a juror 1549 is enacted and products removed from the marketplace, america's livestock producers will be left with few, if any, medicines to prevent and control animal disease. ar-1549 would result -- would result in more sick animals and it is my concern that it would leave us with a less safe food supply. in the 1990's, the european union made a decision to phase out antibiotics as growth promoters. denmark's, which has been talk about, is roughly equivalent to the size of my state of iowa, which is the largest producing

state in our country. the institute a full voluntary plan in 1998 that became mandatory in 2000. many proponents are restricting the use of vanderbilt -- of animal and robotics as a product of this ban instituted in denmark. -- of animal antibiotics as a product of this ban instituted in denmark. what the proponents never seem to discuss or the other effects of the ban. i would like to call your attention to the testimony received in my subcommittee were these effects [unintelligible] some have visited denmark and see firsthand the downturn and swine health -- in swine held in the country. after that the mother was an immediate increase in diarrhea and an increase in mortality, which has a long-lasting effects on the danish industry.

the increase in people it gets might be acceptable if it resulted -- the increase in piglet that might extend to all of the results were proven. there has been a marked increase in the therapeutic use of antibiotics, those used to treat and control diseases. today, the use of therapeutic çantibiotics now surpasses what was used to prevent disease and continues to rise each year. as for cost, a 2009 iowa state university study indicated that the effect of the band in the united states similar to denmark would raise the cost of production $6 per pig. 10 years after the ban, it would exceed $1 billion. the former u.s. of agriculture

that deep under food safety demonstrated that when picks have been sick, they will have a greater presence of food safety pathogens on their carcasses. this is something that must be considered when looking at the cost of antibiotic use. in our discussions on antibiotic use and food animal discussions, we need to be clear what the issue really is. h.r. 1549 is confusing the problem of antibiotic resistance in general with a faulty [unintelligible] most scientists acknowledge that the public antibiotic resistance in houston -- in human is overwhelmingly related to drug use. a 2006 report from the industry of food technology society said, the elimination of drugs

has no positive result on resistant bacteria and human health. in fact, it may be detrimental to public healthby:rn73." according to a paper published in 2001 indeed journal of american veteran mary association, people and their pets on a per lb basis used 10 times the amount of antibiotics in food animal production. more than 95% of the antibiotics used for animals are a result of treating them for diseased conditions, not as growth promoters, as many#f seem to claim. protecting human health and providing safe food are paramount. that is why we test for antibiotic residue as part of our food safety programs. the fda establishes withdraw all

times, or withholding periods, which are times when the milk and eggs are not to be used for food and during which time the animals are not to be slotted. two-thirds of this bill has been enacted into law and should be allowed to work in the market. provisions requiring more research into the causes of antibiotic resistance were passed as part of the farm bill of 2008. the animal drug user fees a amendment require the fda to collect antibiotic that and make a summary of the data public. the provisions were designed to provide public information to researchers conducting risk- management assessments. congress has already taken action and we should see results from our action before we start moving antibiotics into the market. as you have witnessed today, this important not just to live start -- the support to

livestock producers not just in my state, but in yours as well. h.r. 1549 will have detrimental affects not only on farmers, but also on public health. again, i want to thank you for allowing me the opportunity to that debt -- to testify today. i hope i have are you some insight into the livestock industry's perspective. in the u.s., we are very blessed to have the safest, most plentiful and most affordable food supply in the world. policy makers must take a hard look at our industry has affected health and our sales in the world. the nobel peace prize winner and also the world food prize winner tells us that the world population is growing like 90 million per year. we have to feed them with safe, affordable food.

thank you very much. >> thank you. >> if i could correct my testimony, it was the food safety bill blair wanted to add. and there is language in there to look at this issue. and it could be in the overall health reform bill. that would be important. >> mr. boswell, you and i are very good friends and i think the world of view. but i cannot agree with you on this. çthe denmark study that you mentioned has been refuted by scientists, we understand that dr. mellon herself talk about this great data collection that the fda was supposed to do. there was not a cent of money put in that bill for them to be able to do that. our first witness was a new person at the fda and says this is one of the most serious issues -- keys a pediatrician -- and there would be no question of giving 3-year-old children at

a daycare center antibiotic everyday's they do not get an earache. we have finally gotten it in the water. as a microbiologist, this has been very offensive to me, as i mentioned earlier. we have salmonella infections so badly you cannot eat lettuce. the fda -- and i have made that clear earlier. let me give you an example. cephalosporins, like many drugs are used for many purposes. extralegal use is illegal unless the fda prohibits it, and they did that in an order published june 3 -- i want you to pay attention to these dates -- on july 3, 2008, the fda said the extra label use of cephalosporin food production present a risk to human health and should be prevented. that was july.

the cdc said they agreed and supported the decision. their letter came on november 7, 2008. on november 28, the fda revoked the order -- prohibiting the extra label use of self-of cephalosporins and said they had received too many comments. that is how the fda has protected individuals in this country. we know that food is produced in iowa and that you export a great deal of it. are you concerned that the eu has banned the use of antibiotics in meat and that would be a great loss on the agriculture trade? >> i suppose it would, but the point i'm trying to make is that the use of therapeutic has gone up. >> therapeutic is fine. and we do not want sick animals.

the preventive use of antibiotics, mostly because animals are kept in some pretty awful conditions and if the disease spread so quickly among them -- yes, go ahead. >> you are a very strong lady. >> i am that, i know. i cannot help that. >> i appreciate that and i have learned that over the past several years. we have had some good discussions. >> yes, we have progress and i know you come from agricultural company -- country. >> yes, i do. >> a steady at ohio state university found -- a steady at ohio state university found [unintelligible] the center for disease control in atlanta, we have the animal disease control theire.

we are taking this very seriously. i do not want and healthy food. nobody here does. we know that. we're spending a lot and doing a lot to try to improve the health of animals. one of the reasons i have the hearing last year is because i knew -- it was among the producers. by 8 make a point to do that from time to time. they're very serious about subverting the animals, how to handle them, they go in and talk to the scientists and make sure that they have the right atmosphere, air circulation and all those things. they're making continuous adjustments and they want to do it right. not one of us in production wants to produce a sick animal. >> our major concern here is these seven antibiotics that are really efficacious to human beings.

we are finding that so many of them are no longer useful in humans. this creates trouble for hospitals. you can die from merced in 24 hours. -- from mrsa in 24 hours. that did not happen in my high school. any other questions of these witnesses? >> thank you for beilg here, both of you. i appreciate you both being strong advocates for your positions because i think that both of you have very valid positions. i am here because i think about the children. i have grandkids, 2 and 5 years old. what is so important to them is what i think about. but i will also tell you, mr. boswell, that i am the daughter of a farmer and i know the hard work it takes to produce the

food that many of us take for granted. the courts i have grandchildren, too, and i'm just as concerned for my and as you are for yours. >> i know that and i understand how hard farmers work in order to bring this healthy food that we need. how you see this legislation for helping improve children's lives in this country? >> i have four grandchildren myself, and i know that we all care about our grandchildren, but i think that the nightmare scenario is that something that, perhaps, when we were young would have been a routine dose of penicillin or some other antibiotic suddenly is impotence, and now, we are struggling to find exactly what

it is to prevent this from becoming even a life-threatening situation, what started out as a bad knee scrapes or something like that. while obviously we want to treat sick animals, the use of these antibiotics in farm animals do, i think, in danger our health -- endanger our health and there is evidence to say that. this is not speculation. we know the increase of morbidity because of antibiotic resistance. >> in my home state of california, we have been buffeted in recent years by outbreaks of salmonella and e. coli and our insurance industry has suffered as a result. i also know that fda has had to recall 96,000 pounds of illinois beef in may because of concerns

about equal like. houck -- because of concerns about he collide. how you see the chairman's concerns about these disruptions? >> you know that in the commerce committee, over and over again -- and that was the stimulus beyond the food safety bill, we have had to confront families that have lost loved ones, people who have been very sick because of a food borne illness. we are concerned that the non therapeutic use of antibiotics has been linked to the number of incidents of food borne illness and it needs to be addressed. >> mr. boswell, you know, i am not a vegetarian. i do like beef and pork. >> i know that. i've had dinner with you. >> yeah, i know. [laughter]

i really want to make sure -- i do like this. my little kids like this and i want to also ensure the economic stability of our nation's farmers, too. one of the concerns that was brought to us, what dr. mellon brought forth -- the trade factor, the fact that we may be disadvantaged because we are not moving ahead as the eu and countries like korea and thailand as far as setting up situations where they are not going to be using antibiotic situations. they can actually say to us, you know, we are not going to have your meat products all because you do not have the standard that we necessarily must have in

our country. i feel, certainly, that is something that we cannot have happened and i think it is something that we ought to be thinking about as far as our agricultural industry, about some of those global problems that we might -- might be disadvantaged about. >> i can assure you that the different bodies will support producers, we producers, poultry, they're very conscious ofç that and they are continuig the science, watching it. closely. they do not want to give up for that reason, either. and i do not think they will. and i would like to add this. jan referred to the time we were young. i can remember us dying as humans from smallpox, mumps, all those different things. we figured it out and it does not happen anymore. and we did the same thing with our animals.

there are regulations when you have got to go off of it and let this get out of the system and so forth. by the there is a time to do that and do it right. that does not mean that there's not room for improvement, but we are willing to do that. in appreciation of everything you said, i feel the same way. >> thank you. . . has reinforced this idea that

this is something that we can change that we're bringing this on ourselves, that our industry will survive that with better health practices and limited use of anti-biotics, theerputic use of antibiotics our animals will do just fine. we could make this transition without causing these undue consequences whether they are economic loss to our farmers because countries are changing their practices. and i will say my grandmother was one. and i don't think they're stupid. the reduction of antibiotics -- everybody in our testimony said they increased the use of antibiotics. it's very different than

talking about blanket use of antibiotics in the feed. and i think that's misuse of the data when people refer to it that way. thank you, both. >> thank you, madam chair. >> there are no farmers in my family. >> and you're not from ay. >> and i'm iowa. they have been city dwellers and occasional suburban dwellers. but we do eat meat. >> well, we cook it to death. >> i know. i come from -- [laughter] >> my question for mr. boss well-. -- boss well. >> i do also cook it. >> good. the -- the question is you mentioned that you're worried that livestock users will be left with little use to treat

disease. you mentioned smallpox and muches. and we have a number of vaccination. these are prevention. these are not antibiotics. sometimes they're weakened agents of the infection itself. sometimes there are alternatives. but we do not for human health use antibiotics which is designed to kill the bacteria. they kill other friendly bacteria. we don't use antibiotics in humans for prevention. and so my question is, obviously, in different kinds of animals, why would we have a different health code with regard to the use of antibiotics and why would we use to use them as a preventive agent in some species but not in other species? >> my answer to that we've gone to science. we've gone through the research universities and we've learned

from them that this is something that would give us a healthier animal, a healthier food and healthier humans. >> i just want to make clear, so you do dispute, we had expert testimony that it is the belief among the scientists prevented to us -- >> which experts are in charge of the situation. i think we have to be very careful about jumping out here and doing something that would be detrimental to our food supply. >> and your contention that the use of antibiotic as a preventive measure has not created a resistance towards humans. >> that's what they tell me. >> the point i was trying to make earlier has been made very well by mr. boswell.

they are really legitimate issues. we need to do a complete science. one thing that people always forget is farmers are in the business to try to make a profit. they don't want to spend any more money than they have to. some of the most frugal folks i have ever met are farmers. they do it for reasons. one of the things that we don't have on this panel on any of the panels today are farmers who are engaged in the production of these products. because they have significant challenges. not make sure that the bacteria comes in the middle of this. they have a number of different challenges that they have to meet very strenuous regulatory food safety regulations that we imposed on them. and i will conquer that there are differences between animal operations. some of them are perfect and

frankly, some of them -- i've eaten. others are horrible. and those are the ones we need to target. that's the kind of work that me and mr. boswell do on this committee. i had a question on the question of the peanuts. i have to be an individual who got sick. i felt two days feeling pretty rotten. i could barely raise my heads other than to -- it's a very serious concern. we take this very serious. the other thing i will tell you is that farmers are some of the folks that are the most concerned about this because they don't want anything to affect their product and put a taint on their marketing ability. and i will still say this, submit this, that american foods are as safe or safer than any place in the world.

consistently we get testimony of that. now mr. bosswell put his testimony that there are 10 times the consumption of antibiotics in human and in bets than on farm animals. >> per farm basis. >> i want to make sure this is the same kind of pounds, the quantity and the strength of those pet sides. >> the other -- pet -- pesticides. >> the other thing i would like to point out is that we have not seen a decrease in humans even despite the ban. so those two facts lead me to believe this -- that we need to do more and significant research on this topic and find

out what's really going on. let the fruit of the science dictate the policy. that is one thing that we have done in the farm bill. it's another that we've done in the other act. i always forget the acronym. somebody help me here. adifa. >> that's right. thank you. and i think that you really need to goat the bottom of this. and we need to make sure that we do everything we need to to make sure that food is safe and that we're not loading these micro by y'all organization nism -- microbial organism. i would like to let mr. boswell comment. >> i agree with you. again, i think it's a fact that

we have the safest, plentiful least expensive food in the world. and there's al reason for it. we -- a reason for it. we live in downtown, new york, wherever, we z our farming. that's big. you can't get enough to eat. alone be healthy and safe. so it's a big thing. we have to be very careful about it. and we're willing to do this. corn producers are losing money. ca bell producers are losing money -- camel producers are losing money. dairy producers have been losing money in a very, very particular situation. and so if we don't want to affect this affordable food supply. i would pledge to work with mr. cardoza to continue to put

effort in to go back to our groups and keep pushing, if we need to. but at least a mantra to make sure they're doing what they started out doing and keep our food supply safe. >> my organic farmers are making money. i want to throw that out there for public consumption. >> if you would yield for a moment. >> yes, i will. >> my corporate headquarters are organic dairy. it's been clear by the success and amazing growth rates of these companies. they've grown high double digit growth in the past decade that consumers really get this. i count myself as one of them by the way. consumers are willing to pay a premium for milk, in this case that is free of anti-biotics. in this case again, i think our

next panel will always demonstrate consumers are ahead of where regulators are. >> so thank you both for coming. we really appreciate it. thank you for giving us your time. >> without objection, of course. and the chair will yield to mr. porris for introduction. >> it is my great pleasure to introduce mr. steve ells. as a result of my residual jewish heritage, i avoid pork. but the clessest that i came eater pork is after i met him. he told me about how they were purchasing pork from these amazing organic farms. i had to wait when they now announced that they are now

selling naturally raised chicken at chipotle. this has made a huge difference and i continue to be a regular customer of chipotle. steve ells is a classically trained chef. has received considerable phrase at cipotle. they had a very successful public offering. as been featured in the "wall street journal." he is a graduate of the culinary institute of america. it truly is a testimony to his vision as a business leader that he considers the fact that chipotle has the highest food cost as an asset as something that they brag about. food cost can in fact be an

inverse metric in their b business and an asset to show they have a value proposition, really is great testimony to his tremendous vision which has left as its legacy a company with over 900 restaurants around the country. annual revenues in excess of 1.3 billion. it truly is a great honor to introduce to our committee my good friend steve ells. >> it is my great honor to introduce mr. ppocacio. >> maccio? >> good. >> mr. maccio began his career as a dishwasher in 196 o -- 1960 with the sanger corporation. in 1987 bonn appetite was born

for the first time. his dream of the company was committed to culinary expertise to become a reality and his customers noticed for the san francisco company. it was president stewart anderson's restaurant chain. had over 25 years of experience. and knew they were ready for something more. the team raised the bar for on sight food service making a commitment to socially responsible food sources. today bonn appetite spends over $55 million on food from within 150-mile radius on each cafe only using sustainable seafood and features natural beef burgers.

uses cage-free shell eggs. the company debuted its low carb in diet the first program to make the connection between food and climate change. bonn appetite is now a $500 million company with over 400 cafes and 28 states serving over 80 million meals a year. it has an ivy award and in 1988 was presented by the nation's restaurant news golden chain award for excellence. he was named in 2008 innovator of the year, nation's restaurant news received the prestigious golden green award by the national resources defense council. that is really impressive. a board member of the compass group at north america. serves on the board of dynamic payment ventures. chairman of the hospitality board. and serves on the president's advisory council of the

university of portland. we are so happy to have the two of you. and it is always a pleasure to eat at one of europe restaurants. with that i welcome you to committee. and comm one of you would like to begin? all right. >> chair, woman slaughter, and members of the rules economy, i am fidel maccio owner of bon appetite that serves 80 million meals even year. i think we're now in 32125eu9s as a company we're committed to two goals. i appreciate the opportunity to be here today to voice my strong support for h.r. 1529 the preservation of anti-biotics. it is imperative that we as a country discontinue the use antibiotic for nontherapeutic purposes in animals. in addition to being harmful to animals themselves this common

practice as feed addtives has led to resistance in humans. most meat that has been raised in this manner has been banned in my restaurant. our concern about the issue goes back seven year. in 2002. i learned that 0% of antibiotic use are fed to farm animals that are not sick in order to promote growth or treat diseases caused by questionable animal practices. as i learned more and learned how widespread these practices are bonn appetite joined with the environmental defense fund to take the lead how we can discourage the use of

antibiotics in meat production. we have the fartest reaching coorpt policy on antibiotic use today. we only buy chicken raised without nontherapeutic routine use as additives. we extended this policy to turkey breast. we took this policy and since march 27, we only serve hamburgers with natural beef with no trim. while there's no strict legal definition of the world "natural" our supplier submit to no hormones, no by-products and treating their animals humanly. our biggest challenge has always been sources the products. we have recruited both major poultry producers as well as small local producers as suppliers. we only purchase food from those that provide written

confirmation of their supplies. we use a purchasing preference. but we don't have the concentration of business to buy enough chicken or turkey or beef to tip the scales of as we have in some locations. and we can't find a natural pork supplier who will commit to taking care of us across the whole united states. many producers are afraid to change even with an economic incentive. they need a push from this bill. and that could be the lever of change that we need. from 2006 to 2008, i served as a member of the pew commission on industrial farm animal production. i learned from physician, farmers and industry representatives on the committee as well as though who testified before us. i came away from that experience enriched and much better educated about animal husbandry. one of the things that i

concluded is that there's absolutely no good reason and certainly no good moral reason for feeding antibiotics to animals. none. antibiotic resistance is harmful. these drugs are meant to treat humans. let's get our priorities straight. the time to ban antibiotics is long overdue. i strongly support this mishe. >> thank you. thank you madam chair, and thank you for the members of the rules committee for allowing me to talk about this, this -- speak to this very important act. i'm steve ellis. i'm the co c.e.o. of cipotle.

a decade ago we began a request for more sustainably raised ingredients and make those ingredients available so that everybody who wanted to could have access to these sustainably raised foods. traditionally, the sustainably raised food were available in high-end grocers and very expensive fancy restaurants in bigger cities. but we wanted to make these kinds of food available so everybody could eat better. since i started the first chipotle 16 years ago, i wanted to show that just because chipotle is fast and convenient doesn't mean it has to be a traditional or typical fast food experience with all the trappings of the fast food restaurant. we wanted to cook fresh food. food that was prepared in front

of the customer. so there was complete transparency. and we wanted to serve it in an interactive format so that people would get what they want not only for taste but for nutrition. well, a decade ago i realized that fresh food is not enough anymore. that you really need to know where your food comes from and how it was raised and the effect on the environment, the effect on animal welfare and the effect of ultimately the person eating the food. and so there are a lot of ramifications and fresh didn't cut it. i came to this conclusion because i had read an article about the way nyman ranch was raising pigs up in yeah. i asked the farmers these independent family farmers what was so special about the way they were raising the pigs. i mean, it looked so great to

me. they were raising them out in pastures or deep embedded farms. it was an all-vegetarian feed and definitely in a humane way with room to roam around. they informed me that the vast majority of producers is raised in factories is raised in confinement operations. and so being very curious about this, i went to see a lot of these factory farms. and at that moment, i knew that i didn't want the kind of ex-ploy thation i saw to be part of the reason that chipotle was successful. so pork was the first thing that we called food with integrity or our naturally raised program. and we started using pork that has very strict protocols without antibiotics and the other thicks that i mentioned.

-- things that i mentioned. since that time, we also introduced over the years naturally raised chicken and today 1,000% of our chicken is raised without antibiotics. we raise naturally raised beef. because of supply issues we're only able to supply about 60% of our needs with naturally raised. but we're working very diligently with farmers and ranchers to increase that supply also. chipotle is unique because of the economic model. we're successful because we found a way to serve more expensive and sustainably raised ingredients but in a way that really does remain accessible and affordable for consumers. at the same time, though, we're able to produce attract tiff financial results to our

shareholders. it's a really difficult balance to strike. most restaurants can retain affordable by lowering their food cost. and this food cost has resulted in driving down cost to the de triment of animal welfare and the overuse of antibiotics. so our journey remains difficult. and progress has been slow at times and costly at times. but we're proud to remain successful while serving food from these better sources rather than supporting a system that is often based on exploitation. we're still relatively a small piece of the puzzle, though. and a very small piece of the nation's overall food supply. and so while our plight quest might be made easier if other food companies choose to follow this path, we know very well

the issues and complexities that have kept them from doing so. passing this preserving antibiotic first medical treatment act is an important step in driving the kind of change that we have chosen to work toward over the last decade. but that too may have -- that too may have others ignored. madam chair, and members of this committee, ours is a company that has a long track record of remaining out of discussions involving politics and matters of public policy. but this is a cause we deeply believe in. so on behalf of chipotle our 900 restaurants our 25,000 employees and our two and a half weekly customers we thank you for introducing the preservation of antibiotics for medical treatment act and hope it is given the attention it deserves. >> i don't know if you are old enough to remember when a pork chop has really tasted good. i feel sorry for people who

have tasted factory-raised meafment and appreciate so much that we can go and take the grandchildren and know what they're having a good. there's simply no substitute for it. the overuse and the resistance of antibiotics is one of the most ridiculous things that we've ever done in this country. people who can recall after the second world war it was really antibiotics at that point saved our troops. i was in kentucky at the time and remember that antibiotic use, nobody really understood what they were about. they were putting penicillin in toothpaste. and several people were dying of anti-filactate shock.

i can't believe that that made the biggest difference in people in the world could have been so used that it was an every day occurrence of throwing it in the chicken feed. it makes no sense. as a scientist, i can tell you the thing i have loved the most about science is it is true and it is accurate, the notion that science has several angles to it and you pick your scientists is important to me. we've really got to try and i believe we can, the young man from the f.d.a. i think there's some hope there and we can have some change and that science would be important. if i had to tell you that we had to pass legislation in the congress to allow women to be used as health subjects for research projects because they were not used, in it we had to

radio write legislation for scientists to present they were doing on it. you can see how farming come and at the same time how far they've gone with the use of antibiotics. it makes no sense. the industry's concern i should hope that policy more than any other thing that we would be able to talk to them -- but the fact that both of you are so successful should say to everybody in the country that it is important that we have a supply for that kind of food for your restaurants and more and more, we have to have assurance of where we're going. we should never in this world have had salmonella infections from spinach. there's no reason in the world for that except that the f.d.a. was -- the important thing feeding carcasses to animals.

i'm not a vegetarian. i don't have that kind of will power, i guess. but that single thing is so important to me. that's really one of the reason that we wanted the f.d.a. to pay for attention. thank you so much. i can't thank you enough. we want to tell the whole world where to go to have lunch. >> thank you, again to the chair for holding these hearings and using your expertise to inform us. thank you to the both of you for your fascinating testimony. for taking the risks in your own business to do the right thing. and why -- by doing so to be an example for overpb in business

to use the excuse, well, i couldn't possibly make money by doing that. not only are you keeping your customers healthier and happier , you have also proven that you you can be successful. this seems like a problem that should be simple to solve. scientificically. we heard it over and over again that we would be better off if we reduce the use of antibiotics. it's disheartening to hear both of you say, we would buy more if there were more. we heard about how many farmers aren't doing well in this particular economy. so it's hard to understand what is standing in the way of good science, good economy and helping our farmers to be more successful. hopefully your businesses will continue to expand and grow.

and we will find ways to create incentives for more businesses to provide the healthy products that you need. so thank you very much. >> you know, i wish that mr. boswell was still here. because i think to a certain extent the concerns of some of the producing district and my colleague mr. cardoza is that this would somehow hurt their ability to make money. but we find quite to the contrary that those of us who represent and i represent a consuming district, my consumers would be thrilled to pay a few pennies more knowing -- and they voted with their dollars already. and that's what led to the tremendous success of your businesses. we have lagged behind on the public health and government regulation front. well behind these pioneers -- pioneered these practices.

and proven that it is not only good for consumers. it is good for producer as well. that's a message that we need to drive home, the gentleman from yeah and -- iowa and the gentleman from california. you mentioned the food cost that's to the de triment of animal welfare. but i would like to add to that something that our colleague miss slaughter said that it also de tracts from the taste of the product itself. if you could comment about the outcome of poor animal welfare, the crowding. poor muscular development, whatever it is. but you as a culinary chef can give personal testimony to the taste profile and the difference between animals that are raised in a healthy way and ones that are raised with

antibiotics and hormones. >> it is the reason that i went to iowa in the first place to find better-tasting pork. sometimes when i talk about our mission, i forget that to mention that of course, we're a restaurant first. and we have plowvide great-tasting food in order to -- provide great-tasted food in order to provide a business. investing in better quality food results in better taste which results in more visits by customers and so on. but additionally i would like to comment about costing this notion -- this notion of food costing more. i'm not a scientist, but i've heard the argument that it doesn't really cost more. that perhaps confinement raised pork chop might be a few cents less per pound, but you certainly make that up in health issues and environmental de gradation and the loss of

the independent family farmer. and that effect on the loss of some of our rural communities. and so the real cost of that pork chop is something of that cheap pork chop is something very great indeed. >> i thank you. and i think you know, the economic concept you're referring to is externalities and i raised this in my question with the original testimony of the first doctor who testified with regard to the cost of treating people whom have contracted anti-biotic resistant boo bacteria. i would also resistant bacteria. i believe the bulk that science does show that at least a large and significant part of antibiotic resistant to humans does stem from antibiotics given to animal,s.

and that is not accounted for. it's simply just cost equation that many of the producers are facing. if we had an accounting for those real costs as part of the production formula, i think the producers by and large would determine that it made economic sense to only use antibiotics for treatment rather than for prevention. and i think that bill furthers that end. and that's why i'm proud to be a co-sponsor and applaud gentlewoman slaughter for holding this. and i want to yield back. >> i want to thank you our panel of scientists. thank you for your help and your support for this bill. i can you to consent that the record be open for written of

written testimony and ask unanimous consent to be open for seven days for the submission of testimony. the letter from honorable mr. boswell, 2009 the statement of miss hiyman. i'm going real fast. can you keep up with me? i'll give you this list. risk management strategies for the use of antimicrobials. letter from dr. anne her shon. the chairwoman lou, se

slaughter -- ouise slaughter. transcript on the poultry committee to review the advances of animal health. thursday september 28, 2008. the letter from joshua sharkstein. and the deputy commissioner of the f.d.a., the chair of antibuy yotucks committee. thanks to you all. thanks very much to you. and this committee is adjourned.

>> day two of the confirmation hearings will continue on the c-span networks tomorrow morning beginning at 9:30 eastern. you can see the first hour here on c-span before the house gavels in for the day. you can also see the hearings in its entirety at c-span 3 and

at c-span.org. also listen to the hearing on c-span radio. our live coverage begins at 9:30 a.m. eastern. how is c-span funded? >> taxpayer dollars. >> private donations. >> public support. >> consumer funded, i guess. >> viewer funded, i don't know. >> private contributions. >> how is c-span funded? >> 30 years ago america's cable companies created c-span as a public service, a private business initiative. no government mandate. no government money. >> you're watching c-span, created a public service by the cable companies.

>> patrick o'connor of the politico is on the phone with us. what's the main thrust of the overhaul health care proposal? >> it's a pretty broad bill. i think they're fundamentally trying to change how americans are insured. one of the big issues in the house is whether or not there's going to be a government sponsored coverage mechanism that will allow folks to receive insurance through the government. how that's done remain as pretty big question right now. there's a lot of divide between the house and the senate. house is expected to roll out a bill i guess today, well actually next week. looks like they might be

gunning for tomorrow. so we'll see. >> you mentioned the divide between the house and the senate, but not all house democrats are onboard. which law makers have concerns and what they? >> there are some regional concerns. but the moderate democrats are concerned with some of the talks involved. they also want to make sure that the bill doesn't put too much of a burden on small businesses. and then there's these regional concerns, there are some democrats from rural communities, communities that provide a higher quality care generally but at a lower cost, and they've argued that the medicare reimbursement rates are unfair because the reimbursement rates tend to reward lower care at higher cost. you've got a fairly big group of moderates that are trying to coalesce within these principles within their leadership.

>> how will the leaders addressed their concerns? >> may met with moderates almost nonstop. i've heard that they're trying to tweak the bill a little bit. but you know, this is going to be a process. speaker nancy pelosi had a press conference in which she remined reporters that the bill she introduced this week will not be a final version. that was a nod to her members. saying hey, guys we're willing to work with you. just because we introduced this legislation doesn't mean we can't make changes. >> what about house republicans? >> they don't like it. the early reports, the revenue raisers cause them some concern. we're looking at a surtax on some of the wealthier households. but they have not -- they rolled out their plan a month ago. right now, they feel like hey, this is one of the benefits of beinga in the majority, we can

watch members of the majority haggle over the details of the plan and decide whether or not they want to support it. they have given no indication that they will which certainly makes the job that much harder for democratic leaders. >> what's the next step? >> we're going to probably see a bill by tomorrow or wednesday. and they're going to schedule committee mark-ups. we will get this legislation before the committee -- it's going to be before the energy and commerce committee and the ways and means committee. they'll each deal with their separate portion and given the alignments to the committee that energy and commerce committee there could be some tough votes there for democrats. i imagine leadership will be in constant communication with their leadership, their rank and in file. i think we could see significant changes in them. >> patrick o'connor writes for the politico. thank you. >> thank you. >> more now on health care with

house speaker nancy pelosi and other democratic leaders. they're joined by a number of people who support the legislation. this news conference is 40 minutes. >> good afternoon. it's with great excitement that i welcome you here as we continue our momentum toward reforming health care to lower cost for all americans to improve quality, to bring stability to people's homes. today we are highlighting why we are reforming health care this year and why it is important to do so and do so as soon as possible. if we do nothing, the cost of health care for an average family of four will increase $1,800 a year. that's a hardship for that family. it's a hardship for businesses.

it's a hardship for our economy. it's a hardship for our budget. and so we cannot afford to do nothing. over the coming weeks congress will continue -- i worked with president obama to make health care reform work for middle-class families in america. we will be on schedule to do as we have planned to vote for this legislation before we leave for the august recess. but in the meantime, we have a path to success. lowering cost for consumers and businesses, giving greater choice to america including keep you are ordoctor or plan if you like them, improving your quality of care, putting doctors back in charge. you'll hear some of our opponents saying that this is putting government between you and your doctor. that's what they say. that is just the opposite. what we are doing is removing the health insurance company

from between patients and their doctors. in doing so we will provide stability and peace of mind that people cannot be denied for pre-existing conditions and that people have portability if they go from one job to the next. and that they will not lose their health care if they lose their jobs. and this is why this is so important to middle-class families in america. today, just before we introduced the legislation, we're so pleased to be joined by three americans -- well, joe and diane buck ho are with us. they are going to talk about pre-existing conditions. mr. hoyer will introduce his constituent about seniors in the donut hole and tammy ronstadt a small business honer. i would like to turn this meeting over to the distinguished democratic leader of the house mr. hoyer. mr. hoyer?

>> thank you very much, madam speaker. . and thank you for your leadership on this issue. there are certain things that are a necessity for all of us. clean air to breathe, water to drink, food to eat, and our health. those are essentials if we're going to have any quality of life. indeed, the first two are essential if we're going to have life, period. we are debating in this congress all of those issues. clean air, we passed an energy bill. we passed it in the time frame in which we said we'd pass it. it's now in the senate. hopefully they will pass it soon. and we will have conference on that issue. we are now addressing health care, which as i said is a necessity for all ouf or families. reforming health care is an economic imperative, a budget imperative, and a moral

imperative. it's an economic imperative because health insurance premiums have more than doubled since 2000 straining family budgets across america and going up at $1,00 a year. and with our family spending twice, it is fewer jobs and less competitiveness. reform is bauget imperative because unless we find a way to droll growth of health care cost, our done think plunge further and further into debt. families will plunge further into debt. individuals will plunge further into death. and reform is a moral imperative as well because millions of americans lev without the security of health care that they can rely on and they can never be taken away

from them. speaker talked about choice. not putting anybody in between their doctor and themselves but making sure that they can get a doctor, making sure that they can get to a hospital. making sure, in fact, that they can have the health care they need. i say all the time with respect to their health insurance a program that they now have if you've got it, you like it, you keep it. a moral imperative to insure that those who don't, however, have an option, have an opportunity to take care of themselves and their family. those are some of the reasons why we are so dedicated to solving this problem this year. now is the time. this is our moment as the president would say. and our resolve has been bolstered by the stories of

ordinary americans some whom are with us here today works have seen our health care system, deep flaws, firsthand. phil fishner is a friend of mine. i've known phil fishner for many, many years. he's a stitch went. lives in fort washington. not to star from here. he's one of those american who is are facing challenges because of the limitations that he confronts and the health care challenges that he ha. he is with us today from fort washington and he represents the affordable health care challenges. one of the keys to our policy is affordability of quality health care for all americans. affordability. so many of our seniors face this issue, specifically what we call the medicare part d donut hole through which so many americans are falling. keeps them from getting

affordable prescription drugs. phil, i'm pleased that you would join the speaker and i are mr. larsen and are mr. clyburn, and your constituents. phil fishner. >> i'm really used to that you have to excuse me for my sinus conditions. my name is feaster. my mother would call me phillip allen. i'm a retired truck driver from fort washington, maryland and a member of the alliance for retired americans. so this is not a fluke that's unique to me. let me tell you the donut hole is no treat for seniors. my generation likes to tell it

like it is. the donut hole is a rip-off. you pay money but you get nothing in return. can you imagine going to a restaurant where all they give you is an empty plate. but they still force you to pay for a meal. of course not. for the first six months of the year, i pay $858 in monthly premyums. in exchange i receive my part d for medicines. for the remaining six months of the year, i must pay for my $85 premium and the full price for my medicines. these drugs cost me $700 per month when i'm forced into the donut hole. and again, this is $700 per month on top of the $85 monthly premium i must pay for ham of the year. i'm forced to pay these premiums while receiving absolutely nothing in return. under the medical part d rules,

if i start paying this premiums i am out of the program for the next year. the donut hole sure seems like a sweetheart deal for the big drug insurance companies. i see so many of my friends struggling. health care keeps costing more. while medical insurance keep covering less. my mother was one of those people. she kept having to cut all the wrong corners with her health. she had a stroke and was paralyzed ifer the last four years of her life because she had to stretch her medicines for too thin just to make end meet. this is america. why do we still allow this to happen? i am hopeful this will finally be the year we fix our health care mess. we have been talking about this for decades. none of us are getting any younger. we need help and we need help now. i am grateful that this legislation will start closing

the part d donut hole and finally finish it off. this bill will help me and millions like me as soon as it becomes law. let's make this the year that we finally enforce health care. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, phil. my neighbor of the north. i spent last week saturday in charleston, monday of last week in columbia. i joined with the south carolina small business chamber of commerce, aarp and south carolina fair share holding two very widely-attended town hall meetings. we heard stories from people

that we're going to hear some of today. today we're joined by diane buck and her husband joe grier. they are both from atlanta, georgia. diane has especial -- especial lepsy that she manages with medication. when her husband lost her job, the search for affordable health care coverage became increasingly difficult. they found a conversion policy for her. and joe, cost prohibitive. they were denied individual policies. she is now forced to piece together medication and treatment. for a hard-working couple in the wealthiest country in the world, this is unacceptable and

undignified. that's why we need to reform the health care system now. we will lower costs for consumers in a number of ways, ending co-pays and deductibles for preventive care, put a cap on out-of pocket expenseses, and increases on preexirsing conditions gender or occupation. we will also restore a sense of stability and peace of mind. today, when insurance companies effectively ration your care denying coverage for pre-existing conditions that's just part of diane's story. let me present her now to tell

you some of the rest. [applause] >> hi, everybody. my name is diane buck. and i'm here today from atlanta, georgia. if there's tremabling in my voice -- tremblely in my voice it's because this is a very emotional issue. we're here today to show our support for this legislation and to encourage our elected leaders to encourage them to make the cuff decisions required to ensure that no americans will be left without quality, affordable health care. i've had epilepsy since i was 5 years old. it's really important that i have success to health insurance because otherwise it becomes a pre-existing condition. i did have coverage through joe's job. but when he lost his job last year we found that due to the

small size of his company, the only option i had was to continue coverage through a conversion policy. the price quoted was $2,400 a month. it was shocking. joe found an individual policy, but has had to raise the an ideal deductible from $2,500 to $5,000 just to afford the rise in premiums. after being denied coverage, i became unsured on may 1, 2008. since then i have had to postpone system of my annual exams and opt to taking new epilepsy medication. i have to say my medication was $900 a month. well that's another shocking fact. but anyway, this health care reform will help us by getting

rid of exclusions based on pre-existing conditions. it will set up an exchange where we can easily shop and compare plans and setting standard benefit options to plug holes in coverage that could leave us paying tens of thousands of dollars if we get sick. this bill gives us a reliable option for coverage in the form of a public plan for health insurance companies -- if private health insurance companies fail to meet our needs as they have so far. .

>> average americans become extraordinary americans when they speak up for the people of their country. many americans are having to deal with what they have had the opportunity to outline. she is a small-business owner who owns a small coffee shop, and she employs nine people, four of them full-time, five part-time. she wants to do the right thing on behalf of her employees, to make certain that they have health care benefits. but this is out of her reach as a small employer. she struggles to provide some of

this what they need. the president's council on economic advisers says that spending for health care premiums doubled to $845 billion, and the premiums will increase 20%, in the next four years, resulting in 3.5 million american workers losing their jobs. one in five employers will stop offering health care benefits, in the next three or five years. this means that 11 million americans will lose their employer sponsored health insurance. a job and health care go hand in hand. they are synonymous in this economy.

this will keep the small business -- from being taken down by the overwhelming costs of health care. they will have a chance to thrive and grow in a new economy. someone on the front lines for america, ground zero. [applause] >> thank you. as he said, i am the owner of a coffee shop and this is family owned. as a small-business owner, i know that small business needs health care reform. my father started this 30 years ago. i was raised there and them proud to continue the tradition of running the family business. my father showed me the value of treating an employee like family.

this means making certain that they have important benefits. we offer health care and retirement benefits. this has not been easy lately. the commitment to the employees has run up against the rising costs. when his rose of of what we could afford, we had to change to a high deductible plan. i continued to off -- i continue to offer benefits. the last four years of premiums have gone up 8%. the heart -- the health care plan is failing small business and employees, and this is threatening the bottom line. this is why i want to thank the leaders in congress for bringing forward this legislation. we have new hope for small business and this will help small business by giving us more

choices and new power with the insurance companies, increasing the transparency so we know what we are getting. and promoting accountability so we will know that we can count on the health care that we have. this bill would help me in my employees in many ways. we would be able to purchase coverage in the first year that this is open, giving us more choices of better and more affordable coverage, including the option of public health insurance. instead of spending 10% of the payroll in insurance coverage, i could save $11,000 by paying 2% and allowing the employees to purchase whatever they wish. two of my employees would qualify for benefits to help them. if i continue to provide for

them, i will qualify for half the cost of the coverage. as a small business, because we cannot afford is the cost of doing nothing. we need more choices and will contribute our fair share. we are looking to congress for leadership on this issue. thank you. >> it is thank you for your eloquent presentation, this is more persuasive than anything that we can say, speaking directly to why we need the health care reform. this is why many of us have come to congress and been involved in

public service to begin with. i am happy to be standing here representing the democratic leadership in the house, to say that we hear what you say and we promise that with the president we will have health care reform and we will have that this year. i am happy to take your questions. are there any questions? >> now that there are allegations that dick cheney told the cia not to inform congress about certain terrorism programs -- >> i will answer that at the end. we will stay with health care. this is so transformational for the country, this is about competitive business, the personal security of our families, and in terms of the impact of the budget -- and

again, for these and many other reasons, we hope that you will have some questions on the subject. >> can you talk about the discussions that you had with a blue dog democrats, others were concerned about what they put forward. can you say how confident you are that you'll be able to get them on board? >> welcome to the legislative process. in case you haven't noticed, this is how things work. we work together -- when we started the meetings months ago, the president had a summit at the white house to launch the initiative, we have had meetings all along, listening sessions with the leadership of mr. cliburn's, with the approach

that we have taken and the communication that has been led by steny hoyer. the democratic caucus has given us the leadership of mr. larsen to listen to the concerns of the members. we have made great progress and they are on schedule, and the conversations have been productive. as you get ready to introduce the amendment process, this is when you get the differentiation, beyond the consensus that we have bill today. i feel very confident that we will have strong health-care reform, that will improve quality and give people more peace of mind, recognizing that without health, you do not have any thing. >> i want to make one comment.

you mentioned that the blue dog democrats, i think that to a person, they believe that we need to pass and they want to support health care reform. as the speaker indicated, in the legislative process, you get down to the specifics, there are spirited discussions about this. i am confident that there is nobody who i have spoken to who does not agree that health care reform is essential for us to do this year. >> can you talk about the tax increase in the bill. >> we are discussing the specifics, and there are a number of questions on the table and we will talk about this

further, but i want to say that every democrat i have spoken to believes that health care reform is essential, we promised we would do this and this is an economic and moral imperative, the healthier americans are more successful. >> if i may. we have had six listening sessions, involving all of the members, we have done so by regions. and the reason that we have done it this way is because all of us realize, that there is so much about the legislation, that has to do with where you live and what state you are living in. and exactly what to expect out of this, based upon that demographic.

these listening sessions have brought all of this together. i am thrilled with the excitement -- the excitement and we all are concerned -- i come from a poor state, that will be challenged with much of this, and we have heard stories from other states as well. but with where we are -- we are already in a pretty good place, with all of this. part of what we call a massive tax increase, this will be mitigated, by the type of savings, that they will be putting into the final product, and whether or not we can get the product -- this can be

stored it sufficiently depending on how much money you leave in the product. that is what we have been doing in the listening sessions and we are much better off today than we were on thursday of last week. >> you spoke about the offsets -- for some of these proposed tax increases. is it difficult that the people on the other side will talk about these figures, does this make it hard? >> we know that this will be hard. the president said this would be difficult, but this does not mean we should not do it. that is one thing i like about this caucus. we like to do the hard stuff. >> a follow up on the question about the blue dog democrats,

are you going to be introducing a bill tomorrow and will this be something that they can support? they say they could not support the draft that was out there. >> i have had people coming through my office, speaking individually about this, and their particular situation. the goal that we have is to have health care reform, at a lower cost. this is essential. we have to lower costs for the individual and the business and the economy and the government. we are going to have health care reform that works. this is very important. that is why a record number of the men -- the meetings on this subject -- there has been a great deal of communication among the members, from all the different regions of the country.

we plan to introduce legislation tomorrow. this will be marked up in committee to go to the next step. but to be on schedule, we have to roll out the legislation this week. as soon as we have this, they can talk about something that is on the table. this is just the beginning. then we have three different committees, cutting their will on this in the house and then we have to deal with the senate. it is exciting to see the enthusiasm and knowledge from all sectors. i associate myself with what was said, in every meeting we have been told that the recognition that we must have health care reform is across the board and we are trying to find a way to make this work in the best way

for every region in the country. we will be meeting with the president later on in the day to speak about the other issues. i mentioned this previously. we are trying to squeeze all the savings out of the system first and rightfully so, many members in the congress want us to do this. and there are other provisions that they want us to address that we have not commented on. this is not anything that is any different from where we are going. >> have you spoken about how to pay for this? charlie rangel -- some democrats say that they are taking a different approach. is there some flexibility in how to pay for this? there was some flexibility this afternoon. >> charlie rangel spoke about

this -- and let me stop -- let me say that they were working on this and they met in the morning with some members, about how to have a charge -- a surcharge on a high and so people in the middle income are not touched by this. they are trying to lower their costs and improve their quality and expand their coverage. an american family with a pre- existing condition, that is changing jobs or loses a job, and does not lose health care. this is a battle plan. in terms of the extent that you can push more out of the system, redo's is a need for this, but this will be at the high end.

mr. larsen? >> let me say a couple of things. the speaker was talking about this, would it be great if we were joined by the colleagues on the other side of the aisle, in understanding what the private sector has said to us, about the cost that is there. we know from the summit, no matter what industry this is, pharmaceuticals or hospitals or doctors, or the insurance industry, we have said -- by 2019 this will be a level that cannot be afforded, so let's find those costs. we know that they will not be able to score some of the obvious savings that will

result, and people in connecticut will tell you that with respect to insurance, there are billions of more dollars, these will be lean to -- leaned out of the system. we have been waiting for this sense harry s. truman and oakland. because of these citizens, there are 47 million americans with no coverage. this is an important part of history. we're going to move forward and we are working with the president's to make certain that we fulfill the promise and the dream of all americans. >> i think that was the last question but i want to add something. the fact that there are 47 million americans without

insurance is a critical concern to all -- all people. all of the americans pay for this all of the americans pay between $750 million and extra. these people are not involved in the system, they are not getting wellness, so they are more expensive. the object of the legislation is to bring health care costs down. we want to have access to this for all americans but we want to bring this down. the reason that we want to bring the cost of health care down, is so that people can be more healthy, they do not have to make choices that will damage their health. and this will make it more expensive for the rest of us,

from a moral perspective is right that we make certain that every american can take care of their health-care concerns. there are 47 million americans uninsured, but there are 260 million americans who feel pretty good at what they now have -- they are worried about losing this because they will not be able to afford it. the system is twice as expensive as anywhere else in the world. we try to bring costs down. this is a critical time to establish this it -- this objective. and we intend to do so. >> there is a new attorney general, regina benjamin, who

establisehd a p-- established a public health clinic in alabama. this is about prevention and wellness, a healthier american is the goal of all of this. i congratulate her and thank the president for this of foreign to him. -- important appointment. this will not be stored positively, but this will be having the savings that will be there, and i think that at the end of the day, the revenue that we take in will be a more useful deficit reduction. we will cover what the industry did not want to give up. i promised to answer your question. >> this was about the reports that vice president dick cheney -- >> this is information that was

presented in a classified section of the congress and i did not have that briefing, the intelligence committees did. i cannot speak to that but the committee should take whatever actions that they believe are necessary to get more information as to whether the intelligence community was directed by the vice president, to create a program and intentionally withhold that information from congress, and further, if the same people were asked is there anything else that we should know, whether they said yes or whether they said no. thank you again, let's thank everyone for being with us today. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009]

>> tomorrow morning on "washington journal," jess bravin on -- peter roskam on health care. jess bravin will discuss the first day of the sotomayor hearings. and laraza's janet murguia on thedendors-- the endorsement of

sotomayor. the coverage will continue beginning at 9:30 eastern. you can watch the hearing in its entirety on c-span3 and c- span.org. the coverage begins at 9:30 eastern. >> house c-span funded? >> public support? >> private donations? >> consumer funded? >> private contributions? >> how is c-span funded? 30 years ago, c-span was created as a public service. no government mandate, no government money. >> president obama nominated

regina benjamin for surgeon general. sanjay gupta pulled himself out of the running. this took place in the white house rose garden and this is about 15 minutes. >> good morning. before i introduce the surgeon general, i would like to talk about the health care system that she will oversee. we are closer to the goal of health care reform then we have ever been. committees in the house and senate have made unprecedented progress on a plan that will lower costs and provide for

patients, this is a plan that will not add to the deficit or the spending. this will help to slow down the skyrocketing cost of medicare and medicaid. we do not know if it will be easier to get over the finish line. there will be more disagreements, health care reform must be done. those who think we should wait to solve the problem, simply believe that we should do it -- there are some who believed that we should do nothing, but this happened when we passed medicare. this has provided care to generations of american seniors. and we heard this during the children's health care program,

the same washington thinking that has avoided big challenges and tough decisions for decades and this small thinking has led us to the current predicament. the status quo on health care is no longer an option, in the united states of america. if we step back from this challenge, we will leave our children in debt, a future of crushing costs that bankrupt our families and businesses, and we will have done nothing to bring down the cost of medicare and medicaid. premiums will skyrocket. there will be more pressure on american families struggling to pay bills. insurance companies who have killed reform in the past will only continue to benefit. people will continue to lose health insurance for losing

their jobs or changing their job. this is the future that we cannot afford. we cannot afford to have health care premiums rising faster as the dead over the last few decades, 14,000 americans cannot lose their health care every single day. we cannot afford a future where the government will eventually spend more money on medicare and medicaid than what we spend on everything else. i promised health care reform during my campaign, and i promised that people making less than $200,000 would not pay more in taxes. we cannot wait to fix this problem. health-care reform is about the health of every family, but this is also about the health of the

economy. there was a lot of chatter as i was gone. we are going to get this done. inaction is not an option. for the people to think that this is not going to happen, do not bet against us. the american people desperately need this and even those who are satisfied with health care right now understand that if premium -- premiums keep on going, and they keep shedding health insurance, and you continue the direction that these are going, this will create the biggest crisis of all. i understand that people are nervous and scared about making change. there is a little bit of atrophy in the muscles of change. we will get this done.

if anyone understands this, this is the woman who will become the next surgeon general, dr. regina benjamin. the list of qualifications that led her b.v. -- the maker the leading expert on public health are very long. she was -- that make her the leading expert on public health are very long. she served as an associate dean for rural health in the university of south alabama college of medicine. in 1995, she was the first physician under 30 and the first african-american woman to be a member of the american medical association board of trustees.

she became the leader of the medical association and she has numerous awards, including the macarthur award. this is very impressive. out of all of these achievements, none is more important than today's challenges -- none are more important for today's challenges than the rural health clinic in -- [unintelligible] bayou -- that's in alabama. this is a town of about 2500 people. this is where many people work for themselves, and they cannot usually afford health insurance. dr. benjamin spoke about the demographics, they are very interesting. you have whites and blacks and

asians in this community. there are a lot of laotions and cambodians who are part of this shrimping town. like so many others, doctors and hospitals are hard to come by. they want to make more money as a specialist. benjamin returned to alabama and opened a small clinic. when people could not pay, she did not charge them. when it was not making money she did not take a salary for herself and when hurricane george destroyed the clinic, she made a house call to the patients. when the hurricane destroyed this again, leaving most of the town homeless, she maxed out her credit card to rebuild the

clinic for a second time. she was tending to those who were wounded in the storm. she asked the pharmacist to send the bill for the medication her way. and when the clinic was about to open and a fire burned this to the ground before they can serve one patient, guess what she did? she is rebuilding has once again. one person brought her and of love with $20 inside. he said he could help. she has seen in a personal way what is broken about the health care system. an increase in the number of patients to lose health care because they lost their jobs or simply because this was too expensive. she has been using prevention and wellness programs, have been

treated too many complications that did not have to happen. and she has witnessed a shortage of primary-care physicians in the areas where she is working. but for all the obstacles that she has overcome, she also represents what is best about health care in america. doctors and nurses to sacrifice for the sake of the patients. those americans who would do anything to help a fellow citizen. dr. benjamin has refused to give up, and so have the patience. -- patients. she says she wants to make certain that we give a voice to the patients. we want to make certain that someone is speaking for them. in washington, they have refused to give up on health care that is affordable and accessible.

we do not have to deal with flooding were fired, all that we have to do is pass a bill to make certain that the american people have a shot about getting the choice and the high quality health care that is affordable. i know that she will help us do this as the next surgeon general and i am honored to nominate her for this post and the secretary sebelius is also excited. let me introduce the next surgeon general of the united states, dr. regina benjamin. >> it is hot out here. >> thank you, mr. president and secretary for being here with me. i am honored and humbled, to be nominated to serve as the surgeon general. this is the dream of every physician, but this is more than

just a job. the issue of public health is very important to me. my father died with diabetes and hypertension. my older brother died of hiv. my mother died of lung cancer because she weanted -- wanted to smoke like her twin brother. my uncle buddy is at home right now on oxygen, struggling from years of smoking. my family is not here in person because of preventable diseases. i cannot change the past of my family, but i can be a voice in the movement to improved the

health care of the nation. these are difficult times in the health-care field, and as a nation we have reached a realization that the health-care system simply cannot continue on the path that we are on. i went back to alabama as part of my obligation as part of the [unintelligible] the national health care service paid for my schooling and place me in an area that needed physicians. in 1990 i filed at -- founded a rural health clinics in alabama. i decided that i would treat the patients, but this has not been

an easy road. hurricanes have devastated the community and i have been working to find resources to sustain the doctor's office. it should not be this difficult for doctors or other health-care providers to care for the patients. mr. president, thank you for putting health care reform on top of the domestic agenda. i am hoping that if confirmed, i will be a mayor -- i will be the american doctor and the american position. i promise to communicate directly with the american people, to help guide people through whatever changes may come what -- with health care reform. i want to make certain that

nobody falls through the cracks. i will also shine a light on the 6200 members of the health service -- to serve on the front lines in the fight against disease and poor health conditions. i would like to thank two profs. the first is the man who gave me a passion for community medicine. he told me to spend time with rural physicians, and participate in public projects. i must also thank dr. louis sullivan. he taught me hemotology and leadership. i learned how to impact policy

to help the patients in the community. and finally, i would like to thank the staff, at the rural health clinic. all of the workers over the last 20 years have been for them and people like them and today is no different. thank you, mr. president, for having confidence in me, i promise to give you and the american people my best. [applause] >> mr. president, will you be more involved in health care? >> that is a good one. we are going to get this done. >> do you agree with the attorney general looking into the bush had menace -- investigations?

[unintelligible] >> what did he say? >> i thought i had him. >> live coverage of the confirmation hearing for sonia sotomayor continue on c-span3 and c-span radio, and we will have this on c-span2. this fall, go to the supreme court on c-span. >> the second day of the confirmation hearings will continue on the c-span networks, beginning at 9:30 eastern. you can see the first hour on c- span before the house opens, and you can see the hearing on c-

span3 and c-span.org and you can listen on radio. live coverage begins at 9:30 eastern. >> house c-span funded. >> taxpayer dollars. >> private donations? >> public support? >> private contributions? >> house c-span funded? 30 years ago, america's cable companies created c-span has a public service. no government mandate, no government money. >> now, lamar alexander on the energy plan to build 100 nuclear power plants over the next 30 years. he speaks about his proposal as an alternative to the cap and trade legislation. his remarks are about 50

minutes. >> hello, i am the republican senator from tennessee. there are other things that we will hear later today, and on several television channels, that will be carried. this reminded me of the watergate hearings, in a story i was told. in the early 70's, there were only three television networks. the watergate hearings only involved seven senators. howard banker -- baker was the ranking republican. one of the democrats was daniel inhouye. those hearings were on those three networks every day, all

day for several weeks and all that you could watch on television for several weeks was the watergate hearings. after a few weeks, george gallup told him, he had some information. according to the recent survey, there is only one name better known than you, and this is richard nixon. because of his deep voice and being on the only television networks every day for several weeks, became a well-known american. there are a lot of choices here today, i appreciate those who are watching television for being here today. the country is at a critical place, the recession today is the most severe in decades as unemployment closes in on 10%. there is a gathering storm

affecting the technological edge, we have a remarkable standard of living that comes from producing 25% of the wealth. last year's oil prices -- show that we rely too much on the other countries for energy, and the global warming of our planet is the urgent concern for many people. for the first time ever, legislation dealing with climate change is coming out of the house of representatives. and the senate is moving ahead on both issues. the decision that is made by congress will affect us for years to come. the house of representatives has chosen cast and trade, a renewable energy mandate that is a job killing $100 million a year energy tax that will add a

new utility bill to the budget of every american family. republicans offered a different solution, a low-cost plan based on four steps. the first is building 100 new nuclear power plants in 20 years. one, building 100 nuclear power plants in 20 years. two, electric cars and trucks for conservation. number three, offshore exploration for natural gas and oil and number four, doubling energy research and development to make renewable energy cost competitive. the house plan will raise prices and send jobs overseas looking for cheap energy. the senate republican plan will lower utility bills and create jobs and it should put the united states within the goals of the kyoto protocol on global warming by 2030. our plan should not add to the federal budget since rate payers

will pay for building the new nuclear plants. federal loan financing for the first nuclear plants is not designed to cost taxpayers any money. nuclear plants ensure one another, so there's no cost from there. offshore exploration for oil and gas which is part of our plan should produce enough royalty revenues to pay for programs to encourage electric cars and trucks. and doubling energy research and development should cost about $8 billion more per year which is consistent with president obama's proposals for 2009 and 2010. so in furtherance of our low-cost plan, i am today, as one senator, offering a blueprint to build 100 nuclear power plants in the next 20 years. other senators may have other blueprints in support of the same plan, but this blueprint will attract comments and support, i hope, for americans

of all political persuasion in congress and outside of congress, and i welcome those comments at www.alexander.senate.gov. this is an especially good time to step back and ask what kind of america should we hope to create during the next 20 years? first and foremost, we should want to see an america running on energy that is cheap, clean, reliable and abundant. in order to produce nearly 25% of the wealth in the world for americans, we consume about 25% of the world's energy. we should want an america in which we create hundreds of thousands of green job, but not at the expense of destroying tense of millions of red, white and blue jobs. in other words, it doesn't make any sense to employ people in the renewable energy sector, that we're throwing them out of

work in manufacturing and high tech. that's what will happen if these new technologies raise the price of electricity and send manufacturing and other intensive energies -- energy-intensive industries overseas searching for cheap energy. we want clean, new, energy-efficient cars, but we want them built in michigan and ohio and tennessee and not in japan and mexico. we should want an america capable of producing enough of our own energy so that we can't be held hostage by some other energy-producing country. we should want an america where we are the unquestioned champion in cutting-edge scientific research and lead the world in creating the job, creating new technologies of the future. we should want an america producing less carbon. i believe we shouldn't be growing 29 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the economy every year and that means less

reliance on fossil fuels, and an america with cleaner air where smog and soot in los angeles and in the great smoky mountains is a thing of the past. where children are less likely to suffer asthma attacks brought on by breathing pollutants. finally, we should want an america in which we're not creating energy sprawl by occupying vast tracks of farmlands, deserts and mountaintops with energy installations that ruin scenic landscapes. the great american outdoors is a revered part of the american character. we've spent a century preserving it. there is no need to destroy the environment in the name of saving the environment. none of these goal, the ones i just outlined are met by the waxman/markey bill. what started out as a move to reduce carbon emissions has

ended up as a contraption of mandates that will impose a huge and unnecessary burden on the economy. renewable energy such as wind and solar and biomass and geo-thermal are intriguing and promising as a supplement to america's energy requirements, yet the waxman/markey bill proves once again that one of the government's biggest mistakes can be taking a good idea and expanding it until it doesn't work anymore. trying to expand these forms of renewable energy to the point where they become our prime source of energy has huge costs and obvious flaws that may be impossible to overcome. what's worse, such an effort creates a whole new problem which some conservationists call the renewable energy sprawl where we're asked to sacrifice the american landscape and overwhelm ecosystems with thousandses of massive energy machines in an effort to take care of our energy needs.

for example, one big solar power plant in the western desert where they line up mirrors to focus the sun's rays and what spread across more than 30 square miles. that's more than five miles on each side produces the same 1,000 megawatts of electricity that you can get from a single coal or nuclear plant that sits on one square mile. to generate the same 1,000 mega watts with wind you would need 270 square miles of wind turbines, generating 20% of the nation's elect rhys frit wind would cover an area about the size of west virginia. to those of us in the southeast where the wind blows less than 20% of the time they say well, use biomass which is burning wood products. a sort of controlled bonfire. that's a good idea.

it might reduce forest fires and reduce resources, but let's not expect too much. we need a forest much larger than the 550,000-acre great smoky national park to feed a 1,000 megawatt biomass plant on a sustained basis, and think of the energy used and the carbon produced by the hundreds of trucks that it would take every day to haul that stuff to that one plant. already we're beginning to see the problems. boone pickens who said that wind turbines are too ugly, quote, devote, to put on his own ranch. last week postponed what was to be america's largest wind farm because of the difficulty of building transmission lines from west texas to population centers. the sacramento, california, utility district pulled out of another project to pull out of sierra, nevada, for the same reason. the transmission lines were meeting too much opposition

particularly from environmental organizations and according to "the wall street journal," california officials are worried that the state's renewable mandates have created a, quote, high risk to the state economy, and that the state may be short of power by 2011 if the problems continue to pile up, unquote. add to that a point many forget. solar and wind energy is only available about one-third of the time because today it can't be stored. you use it or you lose it. solar's great advantage is that the sun shines during the peak usage hours while the wind often blows at night when there's plenty of unused electricity, but with either, if you want to make sure your lights will turn on and your factory will open its doors when you go to work, you still need the other power plants to back you up.

so is this the picture that you want to see in 20 years? there's another option. nuclear is already our best source for large amounts of cheap, reliable, clean energy. it provides only 20% of america's electricity, but 70% of america's carbon-free, pollution-free electricity. that's compared with approximately 6% of pollution-free, carbon-free electricity supplied by wind and solar. it is already far and away our best defense against global warming so why not build 100 new nuclear power plants during the next 20 years? we did it before. american utilities built 100 reactors between 1970 and 1990 with their own rate payer's money. why can't we do it again? other countries are forging ahead of us. france gets 80% of its

electricity from 50 nuclear reactors and it has among the cheapest electricity rates and the lowest carbon emissions in the european union to show for it. japan is building reactors from start to finish in four years. china is planning 60 new reac r reactors, more than the rest of the world put together while russia is selling its technology all over the world. india is making plans to build nuclear reactors with our help. president obama has said that even iran has the right to make nuclear power. we invented the technology. isn't it time that we got back in the game? there seem to be a couple of things holding us back. both of which are discussed at length in the blueprint that i'm presenting today. first, a failure to appreciate just how different nuclear is from other technologies, how it's tremendous energy density translates into a vanishing

small -- a vanishingly small environmental foot print. a uranium fuel pellet the size of a them bell can contain 150 pounds of coal, or 17,000 cubic feet of natural gas. france, which as i said, gets 80% of its activity from nuclear plants stores unusual radioactive waste, beneath the floor of one room beneath the facility. the second thing holds us back is an exaggerated fear of nuclear technology. nuclear power plants were the result of president eisenhowerer's ad atoms for peace program. the idea was to take the greatest invention of the last century and use it to provide low-cost energy to reduce poverty around the world. a nuclear power plant is not a bond. the material makes up only 4% of

the reactor fuel. it would have to be enriched to 90% to make a bond. even then you have complicated physics to make it explode. nuclear plants are run completely today than they were when a valve failed 30 years ago. now operators trained for five years before they're allowed to take the control and they have more training for airline pilots. as for terrorist attacks i invite you to go to youtube and type in plane crashing into wall. they took an f-4 fight are jet, strapped it to a railroad track and accelerated it to 500 miles an hour, faster than an airliner before crashing it into a simulated nuclear containment structure. the containment structure, in other words, the nuclear plant was fine after t