mankind. let's do all we canñr to reach this goal. thank you for your attention. [applause] >> distinguished delegates, i would like to invite you to turn to item 2a of the agenda for this session. the title of this item is " election of the president for the conference at its 15th session." . to the following document, cb-2009, slash one, addendum one. you may recall that in

accordance with rule 22, paragraph 1 of the draft rules of procedure being applied, the office of president of the office of president of the conference of parties is subject to rotation of the five original grooms. we now continue the cycle with the western european group. it gives me great pleasure that the conference elect the minister of the united nations climate change conference in copenhagen, 2009, who will serve as president of the conference at its 15th session. [applause] >> hearing no objections, it is so decided.

[applause] >> may i congratulate him, and i wish you all the best for this very important job at the 15th session of the convention. i now invite her to take her seat on the podium. [applause]

>> thank you very much for the election. i promise you as president i will do my very best to listen to you, the parties, and to ensure transparency. may i also take this opportunity to very warmly thank minister nowicki for his very strong personal commitment. it has always been a very big pleasure to work with you. thank you so much for all your efforts. [applause]

>> for a long time, copenhagen was the name of a distant deadline. next year, next cop, next month. but now, it is now. ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the danish capitol. this one has come to c, c for copenhagen, but all c for constructiveness, c for cooperation, and hopefully in the end, c for commitment and consensus. in short, let's get it done. this is the time to deliver. this is the place to commit. and yes, i know there are still many obstacles, but it is up to us, us in this room now, to try

to overcome them. and it is doable. i base my confidence on daily contact with ministers from every group and every continent, and i appreciate very much the trust and overwhelming support ministers and governments have granted to me, so the secretariat and to the chairs. and make no mistake, denmark is committed to maximum progress in the two tracks, the convention track and the kyoto protocol, and to ensure successful and ambitious outcome. let's get it done. [applause] >> the science has never been clearer. the solutions have never been more bun dant. political will has never been stronger. and let me warn you.

political will, will never be stronger. this is our chance. if we miss this one, it could take years before we get a new and better one, if we ever did. actually, the truth is that the copenhagen deadline already works. in recent weeks and months, many developed countries have announced economy-wide emissions reductions. and many developing economies of indicated ambitious national actions as their contributions to the global effort. china, brazil, mexico, south korea, singapore, indonesia, a few days ago india, and last night, south africa just to mention a few. every positive announcement will improve our chances of staying below the two degrees celsius tarpgt.

but as we all know only too well, we are not there yet. and this goes for financing as well. maybe finance is an even bigger challenge. we have seen some positive dynamics in structure and amounts, but in the next two weeks we need to work really hard and find both public and private money. especially, we need money we can count on in the longer term. it is crucial that we ensure a new additional and predictable financial flow for adaptation and technology in developing countries. dear negotiators, this year you have had weeks of extra negotiating time. since june you have worked with a negotiation text. preparations have been unparalleled. and i take it that your family

and friends expect you to be less busy next year than this year. but if so, that means we must get it done now. you're ability to make pro gretzky this first week is a precondition for the success of all of us next week. therefore, compromise, agree. find concrete solutions. use every skill available to pave the way for ministers and leaders for finalize the deal. we conclude cop 15 when our leaders join us. and leaders have made it very clear they expect to adopt a global agreement 11 days from now. inincludes the results of your work under both the lca and the k.p. that provide the most powerful push and the strongest

incentive to conclude your work. finally, to those that may still hold back ambition, fearing their economies will suffer, no, we don't have to choose between economic growth or climate conservation. a global deal will drive job creation. a global deal will drive competitive advantage. a global deal will drive energy security. so ladies and gentlemen, let's get it done. the time has come to set the right course for our world while we still can. the agreement we adopt in copenhagen must be comprehensive. it must deliver on all major questions across the building blocks. it must launch immediate action, and it must capture all the progress up to now. let us, on december 18th, look

each other straight into the eyes and take satisfaction in the fact that we all gave our very best to the defining gathering of a generation. let copenhagen be remembered for the spirit of c, constructionist and cooperation, leading to commitment and consensus. let's mark this meeting in history. let's open the door to the low carbon age. let's get it done, and let it get down now. thank you. [applause] >> president obama is scheduled to attend the copenhagen conference on friday, the last day of the summit. 100 world leaders are expected to attend.

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] this week, house republican spoke out against climate change legislation being proposed at the copenhagen summit and discussed recently leaked emails. speakers include house republican conference chair from indiana and the global warming city ranking member james sensenbrenner. this is about 35 minutes. >> i serve as the house republican conference chairman, but my duties also included serving as the chairman of the american energy solutions group , appointed by a leader john boehner to develop strategy for countering democrat plans for a national energy tax and developing, as we did, the republican alternative in the form of the american energy act.

we meet under the various offices today. we are gathered here today at the outset of the copenhagen conference on climate change to deliver a very simple message. that is in the worst recession in 26 years. in the absence of a national consensus, about policies that would bear upon the category known as climate change, we gather here to say mr. president, don't make promises in copenhagen we cannot keep.

the president issued a refrain on the treaty negotiations in copenhagen, making commitments at copenhagen. against a backdrop of this wide scandal known as climate gate and in the absence of a national consensus. we know the administration is doing its level best to strengthen the president's hand as it goes to copenhagen yesterday, a naked attempt at engaging in international public-relations on the back of the american people. we really believe in this group that it is imperative that the president here from the representatives of this country and the leaders gathered here today who say to the president of the united states is not

appropriate to negotiate a treaty before we have declared war on climate change. you have in front of you correspondents of all those gathered here and all the republican leadership have signed that message and delivered it to the president friday. that is the extent of the message today. with that, i will recognize several key members of our solutions group and several ranking members of the key committees. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm looking forward to going to copenhagen in the same way that someone who has won a free vacation is looking forward to the sales pitch about the time share. we have seen this administration and the u.n. come out, and they are already backpedaling and lowering the expectations for what they think is going to be achieved by going

to copenhagen. i think by the time our delegation gets there next week, you are going to see them develop the post-mortem and say that republicans are the party of no. again, i will highlight with you all, we are the party of "know." there are several things that we would like for the american people to know about what is taking place around cap and trade, about what has taken place with climate-gate, what has transpired with the email chain, and how much of this legislation would cost if indeed they were to push this forward and force it on the american people. we know that there is a way to block the epa from implementing cap and trade through the clean air act. it is hr-391, which is the

legislation that i have which would expressly prohibit the epa from moving forward with implementing the carbon emissions regulations without coming to congress. we have that bill filed. we have co-sponsors on that, 98 co-sponsors. we have a discharge petition filed on that, and we are looking forward to making sure that you are in the know as we make our trip to copenhagen. mr. chairman? >> thank you very much. i am jim sensenbrenner from wisconsin, the ranking member of the select committee on global warming, and i have also bringing in institutional knowledge with respect to this debate since i have been made it veteran of the climate change wars ever since newt gingrich appointed me as head of the congressional delegation that went to a kyoto 12 years ago.

america lost a lot of credibility when then-vice- president al gore promised that the international community in kyoto something that he knew could never be passed by the congress of the united states. i would hope that president obama will not repeat that mistake when he goes to copenhagen at the end of next week i will be going to copenhagen as well, and i would hope that he would really lower the rhetoric a bit, because the epa cannot and should not do something that has been considered by congress and not passed by congress. i think the announcement yesterday by the epa was more of a press release to be read outside of the united states than one to be read inside the united states. i would hope that our international partners and adversaries will not believe

everything that comes from a political press release, because a political plus -- criticapolil press release does not do that. finally, there are two professors that have been placed on administrative leave as a result of this, and the u.n. should take the time to step backwards and not make any concrete recommendations until we get to the bottom of the climate-gate scandal and why the professors' whose e-mail and the dumping put on the internet said what they said. it could be a conspiracy, basically, to shut out any contrary scientific opinion. as the chairman of the science committee from 1997-2001, one of the things i vigorously protected was extensive peer

review of science funded by the government. that means that peers debate the issue with a no-holds-barred debate and that people who do not take the politically correct position during the review are not punished by either being ostracized or denied grants or publication of their views. the climate-gate scandal indicates this was going on, and i call at scientific fascism. we should not be making any decisions that will cause the american ratepayer billions or trillions of dollars of higher electric and natural gas bills based upon scientific fascism. the u.n. should throw the red flag. and should call a timeout. if it takes a year or two to get to the bottom of the scandal, so be it. they relied on the scientists,

justifiably in my opinion. it is now time for us to get real scientific information, scientific information that has been thoroughly and vigorously peer reviewed rather than having the united nations and its scientific agency be part of a propaganda organ for a preconceived notion. thank you. >> i am the warm and fuzzy technical version of jim sensenbrenner. [laughter] yesterday, i bought a new car. or, a new used car. if the climate change bill had passed and it was the law and it was the year 2015, i would've gone out and bought a new bicycle. then i went and hopped on a plane to fly to washington, d.c., last night.

if we fast forward to 2015, with 85% reduction from the baseline, i would not have been able to get on the airplane because it uses fossil fuels and we would not be allowed to burn fossil fuels. i would have gotten on an all- electric train, i guess powered by electricity generated by wind or nuclear power and it would have taken three, four days to get to washington. so next week, like mr. sensenbrenner, i will be going to copenhagen as a part of the official delegation that speaker nancy pelosi is leading. i am honored to be part of that delegation, but i will not be one of the sick offense -- i will not be one of the syc ophants that says we need to do all of these draconian things that cost jobs. keep in mind that the u.s. economy is larger than the next eight largest economies in the

world combined. if copenhagen was the culmination of the environmental nirvana and we were signing this treaty as binding on the united states and our president was the signatory of that treaty, we would be putting our economy in a straitjacket that would cost millions of jobs per year every year for the next 20, 30 years. luckily, that is not one to happen. it is my opinion, just an opinion, that the environmental radicals have over-played their hand. the u.s. public and to some extent the world public is very tolerant, very trusting. but to put it in the best possible light, they have been misled, manipulated, they have been fed data that was very self-serving, and the truth, as

mr. sensenbrenner pointed out, is beginning to come out. the truth is the truth, the facts are the facts. global warming is a theory. it is not a fact. the climatologists that believed it should be a fact have spent the last 20 years trying to prove that in fact it is a fact and they cannot do it. they have had to restore larger and larger deceptions, and we're beginning to uncover this. the danger finding made by the epa yesterday will not stand. that is not based on the proper protocol that you are supposed to use. it is not based on hard science. there is a press report that we have been able to get a copy of the yeoman's work, and mr. sensenbrenner, that we will be using in the future. it is an internal epa reports

that shows it is way too early to issue a public health endangerment finding. if the epa tries to use this, it will be the political waterloo of the democratic party in the united states. i was here when we passed the clean air act amendment and the early 1990's. we have five specific criteria pollutants, five specific public-health levels that we wanted to protect the public against. co2 is not one of those. it is odorless, colorless. it is not a public harm to health in the classic sense, like mercury or lead or sulfur dioxide. so if the epa tries to implement the strictest interpretation of the clean air act, co2, you'll be regulating

truck stops, you'll be regulating apartment complexes, you will be regulating potentially any football game in america that has over 25,000 people in attendance. that is not with the clean air act is about. we are here under mr. pence's leadership. it is a precautionary yellow light. let's go to copenhagen, let's continue to support sound scientific research that is balanced. let's continue to do cost- benefit analysis, continue to do programs that mitigate environmental damage, when we know we can mitigate it, but that -- but let's not take the u.s. economy off the rails since we are the driving an economy in the world today. >> thank you. i'm from california. i look forward to going to copenhagen, too, because it is in fact an import opportunity to

talk about and be honest about climate-gate. we talk about whether we can proceed forward with data which is not legitimately in doubt. this debate is going on in great britain, throughout europe because they are the people concerned that it makes a huge difference in the solutions that you picked based on the fact that underlies the problem. even if you accept that global warming is man-made, a small difference in measurements would be a huge difference and how soon the threat would come and what our reaction would be. since you gave me that wonderful, i will give the answer that goes to your question -- it does. if you think about it, if in fact you have a 20%, 30% lower figure of man's impact over natures impact, you could be talking about 150 or 500 years

before we reach a terrible plight purses a couple of years. the difference in the solution, a trillion dollars is too important waste in washington. we're talking about trillions of dollars impacting the economy, jobs, and money, if we do it today. if on the other hand we take that money and allocate them toward clean, long-term renewable fuels, toward research that we have some time for, toward a transition that make sense without losing a single american job or endangering our position, our economic position in the world, that same trillion dollars could lead us in a matter of couple of decades into incredibly energy self- sufficient world. if we give it to brazil to grow offsets, it would go to the various strategies that the with cap and tax, we may have very

little except very little. that is what this is about. if people ask why we call this climate-gate, was a teenager during the 1972 election when there was a break-in at the watergate complex. nothing happened until somebody illegally went to the press and started being a whistle-blower, the famous beat the throw that we now know was the second-in- command -- the famous people throw -- deepthroat who we now know was the second-in-command at the fbi. it turned into the first resignation of a president. it was serious because something serious had happened playing with the science even if global warming is a reality, even if it has to be dealt with by reducing our carbon emissions, the difference of a small percentage could turn into 100 years to make the difference and an

opportunity for the world to transition in a positive way. i am not here to tell you i'm a scientist. people spend careers here looking at science. my committee which deals with waste, fraud, and abuse, fraud being the point we are dealing with, we want the facts so we do not waiwaste a trillion dollarsf bars and the rest of the world's resources if we could direct them in a better way. copenhagen for us is an opportunity to talk in terms of the best way to reallocate these resources. is it an immediate shutdown and carbon output of one particular item? co2? or should we be looking at continuing to look at cleaner water, cleaner air environment and finding ways to wean ourselves off of fuel? that is the reason we're going there, with open minds, because

we believe the science is not settled, as least as to the speed. that is enough in doubt that everyone should be asking the question, just as the press made a break-in at the watergate go from a small scandal to change the outcome for a generation of how we think about what is right and wrong and politics. what is right and wrong in science is that you tell the truth, richard conclusion, and let's peers review the underlying facts and see what their conclusions are. we have been denied that, until we get that, we should not be committing the jobs and the money that would disappear if we make the wrong decision. thank you. >> questions? >> [inaudible]

i seem to remember something about the criminal claims act that you cannot put in a false product. >> we are in the process of writing letters to government agencies to ask that question. to me, it just shows the intensity of a non transparency that they would say they did not have to comply with freedom of information requests. these are the results of government grants. it should be open. in the true scientific method, you want your theory, you want that to be tested. you put it out and say here is what i think, prove me wrong. i could ask all these members and say, is the republican party the best party?

we have a consensus that the republican party -- but if i went and asked speaker nancy policy or mr. waxman, they would have a different opinion. what these climatologists have done is they talked to themselves, created their own little cartel, pat themselves on the back, peer review their own science and say how can you question us? rightfully, we should. >> the judiciary committee and the house has already passed an amendment to the small claims act that makes it easier for a whistle blower to file a private cause of action in court when the government has banned it through fraud. they already can do with. i think that should be looked into. i believe the attorney general should get involved in it. if this legislation passes, it does not change the same criminal penalties.

that makes it easier for a whistle blower to go and the court and try to get money back from the government. both of these avenues ought to be explored, the senate ought to pass that sensenbrenner bill asap because that would prove what it really is. >> the timing of the endangerment finding is interesting, with the copenhagen conference, and there has been a lot of talk about it has potential to influence senate action. but the think is the reality of that? willet influence senate action by the industry being scared of the epa action, the differing of senate legislation or congressional legislation? secondly, i am wondering what

your perceptions are, the legal case of how it will stand or fall to the challenges, either congressionally or illegally in the court? >> let me say that house republicans believe that the endangerment findings by the epa and by this administration on the very day that the copenhagen climate change conference began was a rather naked example of international public relations. certainly, we are all familiar with the sword of damocles that the epa engagement finding has hung over the congress and the business community, the background of the threat that we need to pass a national energy tax for every american

household through the legislative process or that will be done effectively by executive action. but i think house republicans recognize what you have here is an effort at international public relations. it seems to recognize the fact that the cap and trade legislation has a very uncertain future in the united states senate, and this seemed to many of us a fairly obvious effort to strengthen the president's and at copenhagen on the world stage at the expense of the interests of the american people. with that, i will allow -- >> do you not see the logic that it could pressure senators to action? or the potential?

>> i don't think there's any question that the threat of endangerment findings has hung over the legislative process and the business community now in this country for a month. but we have seen, largely due to the yeoman's work of these members and house republicans, i think we lost the vote on cap and trade but we won the argument with the american people. they understand it is no more than a national energy tax that will raise the cost of utilities for every american household and business. we recognize that the epa endangerment finding is a part of the domestic political equation, but the timing, with your question, the timing of this announcement at the outset of the copenhagen conference seems to us to be a fairly transparent effort to strengthen the president's standing on the international stage by creating the impression that even if congress does not

do it, the president will be able to make good on his commitments. but we think that is legally questionable. we think the decision is questionable by the epa. we want to see today, mr. president, don't make any present -- to make any promises in copenhagen that the american people cannot keep. >> briefly, to have an engagement finding that is required -- is required that go out and investigate the potential harm and verify that the facts are such that you need to come forward with that endangerment finding. this epa, as soon as president obama got lisa jackson and place, they put an artificial time line on the group within the epa that was supposed to go out and verify. they issued a report that was suppressed, and they were told point blank that the decision has already been made at the

white house, your report is not helpful, it is harmful, stop working on it. i have a copy of that report. i'm sure that mr. sensenbrenner could provide, anybody in this room, and clearly it just a casual review of this report shows they have made a predetermined decision to issue the engagement findings, to act with the facts. this report says that. -- to heck with what the facts are. this report says that. this automatic to sit missile, again, co2 is odorless, colorless, tasteless. i am creating co2 talking to you, when you breathe in and out. and is not harmful to public health, human health in the traditional sense of the term. you have this very esoteric theory that somehow man-made co2 is causing the concentration of the sierra to the rise in the

atmosphere and causing all of these things happen in the climate. the models did not even show that. there is not any model in the world i am aware of that can predict the climate two weeks and vance and we're supposed to change our economy based on that? for all those reasons, i think the endangerment finding will be thrown out. then if the epa wants to go back and actually do with the right way and verify the science and make sure, that is a different ball game. all massachusetts vs. the epa said, the epa had to make a decision and a look at the co2 and make a difference. it did not have to say that it was a danger to the public health of the united states. >> more. yes, please? >> how many people are going to

copenhagen. what are you doing there? >> mr. sensenbrenner? >> the decision of how many people are going to copenhagen will be made by speaker nancy pelosi. there are five, six republican members who will be going to copenhagen. i will be leading the republican side of the house delegation. there will be a couple of senators. senators are never led by house members, part of the territory, but i think -- >> stuck with tough decisions. [laughter] >> that is true, but i think what the republicans are hoping to accomplish is, number one, basically saying to president obama that he should not make promises that the american people and their representatives in congress cannot keep. and thus avoiding a repeat of what al gore did in kyoto and

immediately prior to that. secondly, i think we will be making the point that the u.s. will step back into the climate controversy is completely resolved so that we know we are legislating and negotiating international treaties based on sound science. finally, and probably the most a point -- important point to be made is that the united states senate will not ratify any treaty that is not international and application. that means that china and india and brazil and the other third world countries are going to have to sign up mandatory rate greenhouse gas cuts. maybe not the same rate as the u.s., europe, and japan, but up until now, the position of those countries has been there should be a get out of jail free card and they may slow down their growth rate, but they're not asking the same thing of us. that is not fair and it makes

the treaty un ratify a bowl. if it cannot be ratified like kyoto was, what are we spending our time here? -- it makes the treaty on ratify a bowl. if it cannot be ratified like kyoto, where we spending time >> i think this was a takeoff on a point about the epa timing, but to push on that, do you have solid reason that the epa announcement is connected to the evidence as being discussed? is there a connection there? or is a connection to faulty science? >> let me suggest that we are not suggesting there is a connection between the epa decision and the current academic scandal known as climate-gate. many house republicans believe there is, however, a connection

between the outset of the copenhagen conference on climate change and this finding by the epa. we think this was a fairly naked attempt to engage in international public relations on the backs of the american people. you can believe in coincidences or you can work in washington, d.c. we did not believe this is a coincidence. we don't think it is part and parcel of a larger debate over creating momentum behind the cap and trade. we think this was an effort largely born of the conclusion that because we are in the worst recession in 26 years, because of the widening academic scandal known as climate-gate, because of the absence of a national consensus on climate change

legislation, and because of the uncertain prospects of cat and trade legislation in the senate, the administration concluded they had to do something to bolster their image on the world stage that the president had the ability to enforce something that he negotiated at copenhagen. our message to the president is it is altogether inappropriate for him to engage in national, international negotiations in the midst of this recession and academic scandal and in the absence of academic consensus. that is the connection. thank you. >> just to give you sort of the way that we view it on oversight, water could be on the endangerment list. salt and the ocean could be on the endangered list. all of the things that need to be in balance that are not plumas but must be in balance for life could be on the endangered list. the answer your question is if in fact they made the endangerment statement now when the balance and speed is

balanced, it is to move the agenda, rather than make sure they had this known balance to make the endangerment and lead to setting inappropriate level. to say that co2 is a clinton does no good until you are able to say where it is supposed to be and how to get there, which is the challenge. until they settle the science, there will not be a plus a what to do about it. if we eliminated co2 today, all the plants would die. we need it. is a question of balance. as you watch other science talked-about rising salinity in the ocean, we know that it needs to be in a range, but we do not have the hubris to say that we need to start salting or desalting the ocean to do it. thank you. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009]

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> a group of democrats from house global warming committee on thursday spoke out against recent efforts to cast doubt on the science linking climate change in human activity. they discussed a recently leaked e-mail written by clients scientists in britain. from the capital, this is about 40 minutes. >> are we all set? thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for being here during this historic time when the world is gathering in copenhagen to begin

the process of putting together a plan that will begin to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases that are being sent out into the atmosphere, that are creating dangerous warming trends for the plan that -- for the planet and creating potentially catastrophic conditions for the generations to come. at this time, when the world is gathering to take action, the climate deniers are trying to engage in a policy of destruction. so that a small handful of the emails from a decade ago are used as something that should the rail now what is a consensus -- should derail what

is a consensus across the planet. we have the national academy of sciences of every country in the world that has now embraced the conclusions at the intergovernmental panel on climate change which won the nobel prize in 2007. this small number of deniers are out there, still trying to derail what is something that the rest of the world sees as imperative for action. what do we see emerging? it is a coalition. it is a coalition of the competitive enterprise institute's, of exxonmobil, of the saudi arabian governments that are now calling for

questions to be raised about these emails. on the one hand, you have the world that has reached a conclusion that is near unanimous. on the other side, you have this group of deniers who continue to try to slow down any efforts that would be made towards helping save the planet. the critics have alleged that the reference to the decline and a 1999 email from dr. phil jones, director of the climactic research unit at university of east anglia, indicated a conscious attempt to alter data. in fact, the phrases refer to distinct issues that were openly discussed in peer review

scientific literature at the time and are readily available now. there were no magician's trying to trick the body. it was just a scientist using a technique published by his colleagues in a publicly available, peer-reviewed science journal. while magician's never reveal their secrets, scientists must show their work. mike will be referring to the science journal in britain. it refers to the 1998 "nature" article altered by mike man, raymond bradley, and another. and it, the authors use multiple sources liked ice caps and quarrels as so-called proxy data to reconstruct annual

temperatures from 1980 back to 1480 these are caliber it was instrumental records of the land, air, and see temperatures that existed at that time from 1902 to 1995. after this calibration, the authors plot the reconstructed temperatures, along with the directly measured the instrument the temperature record. the combination of proxy data and instrument measurements are clearly labeled in their figure 5-b. in 1998, it measured proxy data only up until 1980. from 1980 onward, it is solely represented by interment data, meaning taking temperatures. this trick or technique of supplementing proxy data with a

thermometer data to plot the annual temperature up to the present is what dr. johns makes reference to in his 1999 email. in a subsequent article, they also used instrument told that it in combination with proxy data to reconstruct the northern hemisphere's annual temperature back to 1000 a.d. the trek, the technique is used openly and publicly available, peer-reviewed journals. it is all out there or has been, for the public, exxonmobil, the saudi arabian, the competitive enterprise institute to see all along. as the president's science adviser said, in a select committee on energy, senate, and

global warming hearing, when asked about the use of the word "trekked," he said," it is often used to describe a way to get around a problem that is legitimate. does not demonstrate that there was manipulation." the second phrase, "hide and decline," refers to the use of a certain type of tree ring data, would density. in a 1998 "8" article, they clearly state that the tree ring data cannot be used to restore temperatures after 1960's. the article focused on the limitations of the data after 1960 and the possibility of overestimating temperatures and underestimating future carbon

dioxide concentration if it is used. the decline in the tree ring density data is not hidden. it is hidden in plain sight, for all to see. dr. jones was communicating to his colleagues and accepted technique of reconstructing temperature data from the past to the present, not some nefarious attempt to hide the decline in global temperatures. global warming deniers are trying to say this is all a trick, but the truth of the matter is that our world is getting hotter faster. new temperature findings by the national oceanic and atmospheric administration have found that 2009 is on track to be the fifth warmest year on record. and that this decade is already

put warmest decade on record. these new findings buttress the overwhelming scientific record that global warming is real and it is accelerating. even if the tree ring data in question is ignored, the stolen emails do not alter the multiple lines of the independent scientific evidence for human- caused global warming. in fact, the national academy of scientists confirmed the findings at twentieth century warmth in the northern hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1000 years. so what is it that we have on our hands? what we have now is a situation where the competitive enterprise interest to -- the competitive enterprise institute has

announced it will bring a lawsuit against the epa. it is the competitive enterprise institute? let's begin with this. the competitive enterprise institute is the same group of people who for decades opposed any regulation of tobacco in its creation of one cancer in america. even after the surgeon general in 1966 ordered the warnings to be placed on packs of cigarettes in the united states, the competitive enterprise institute worked for the whole next generation to block effective safe warnings to be put in place to protect, especially children, against exposure to tobacco- related disease. that is the competitive enterprise institute. now we have this new threat,

which is being given to us by generals and admirals that oil dependence causes climate disruption, national security risks, and may cripple the economy, in addition to having 13 million barrels of oil -- 30 million barrels of oil and poured it into our country every day. that 13 million barrels of oil per day represents one-half of our trade deficit. let me repeat that. at 13 million barrels of oil we import on a daily basis is half of the trade deficit on a yearly basis. and it has pushed us right into the middle of this, even as we are debating sending another 30,000 young men and women over, following those thousands of others who are already in that region. to the generals, admirals are

warning. what is the message? that no warning is necessary. but there is a warning that should be there, and that is they spread misinformation to keep you addicted to their products. the product was once tobacco and the fumes were being sent into the lungs of americans, and now we have a second product, which sends up a different kind of fume, but one which is completely on healthy, -- completely not help, not only for the citizens of our country but for the coal -- for the entire country for the world. they're out trying to take a very exploitable set of scientific data and use them in a way that is trying to distract away from the central set of actions which need to be taken to create a clean jobs

revolution in our country. tobacco, imported oil, which threatens the national security, and our economy, and in the bargain reduces dramatically to greenhouse gases that we send up into the atmosphere, reducing the threat of global warming and climate change. that is what their agenda is all about. that is what this fight is about. we did not expect this to be an easy fight, because it is in coalition that was sought in the past on tobacco and other issues. we think this is the kind of debate that we will win. science is on our side. history is on our side. all of the evidence which is out in the world is on our side. since 2001, all of the years have been in the top 10 hottest years on record. this decade is the hottest on

record, leading up to 1990, and substantial margins. sea levels are rising. hurricane intensity is increasing. arctic sea ice is disappearing. tropical diseases are shifting north. severe rainstorms are increasing. droughts are getting stronger and more frequent. we do not need more evidence. it is affecting our own country. we see the villagers of alaska now falling into the ocean as the permafrost begins to melt. that is the tip of the iceberg, from the perspective of the impact is having upon our own american citizens. this is an important time. the select committee will continue to work on this issue,

and i would like to introduce other members of our committee who have been working on this issue. i begin with recognition of the gentleman from oregon, who will have a statement. . >> everybody agreed that we are positive and constructive, empowering families in some of the most difficult times.

yet, we saw within a couple of weeks, and this morphin to death panels -- this morph into debt panels -- death panels. it became a rallying cry 40 party activities this summer. it was a very powerful illustration of how people can take things that are straight forward and a positive and turn them on their heads. x governor sarah palin is at it again. it she discovered, apparently , some smoking gun. the ex governor's stay at the greatest impact in terms of

global warming and the nation. it is absolutely critical that we not allow the same sort of death panels to turn this debate on its head. for me, it was an unpleasant three months. the opponents were so over the top and outrageous that it ended up biting them. it was retained in legislation and no one spoke against them on the floor of the house. i am hopeful that if the media does its job, and b two hours, -- we do hours, this will become a non-event. -- hoours, this will become a non-event. we have been documented the evidence where there is no peer

review that evidence that suggests that we are not in a serious problem and it is impacted by human activity. there is further evidence that even if you did not believe it, the united states could no longer afford to waste more energy than anybody else in the world. it is not sustainable. we are in a situation where we will go to copenhagen, where the united states government is no longer missing in action. in fact, our president is excepting the nobel prize right now, not so much for what he has done, but for real engage in the united states and that we will be players. we go to copenhagen with a challenge of actually not only reassuring people who are concerned about the united states commitment, but then we

have to counter some of our own colleagues who should be concerned about the energy waste and the problems that faced the planet who are going to be going off on tangents that i think of the moral equivalent of the death panel debacle. nevertheless, i look forward to it and i hope it has the same outcome as last summer where the people that are over the top create a reaction that bring us back into balance. >> next, we will hear from the other senior member of the senate committee on energy dependence and global warming, the representative from the state of washington. >> i do have some points. this is what my constituents and

i believe. they believe that before sarah palin it's a book, she should try reading a few. she should read the climate change in tax and the climate change 2007 census report and she should read the analysis on the effects. she should read the climate change 2000 science basis. most importantly, she should read the national academy of science report of 2007 that looked at this issue in england and concluded with 90% assurance that we are headed down a very dangerous road due to human induced climate change. there is no question about scientific consensus in this regard. this is why. the former vice president suggested that the former governor was a denier.

it is worse than one of denial, it is one of defeatism. where does this come from if you are ignoring the clear science? the defeatists that we have on the floor of the house that believe that we cannot build electric cars to solve this problem, they think that we cannot build solar plants. they believe that we cannot compete with china to build a new clean energy. we are going to go to copenhagen and we will be undeterred in leading the nation. point number two, and this is the issue that i think is legitimately one that we all have to ask and i have talked to some of my constituents. i asked him about this flap in the u.k. and he told me to points that i think are

important. number one, it is always important to find out if there have been any shenanigans in the scientific process. we are confident that the u.k. will review this information and if there was anything that was untoward, they will get to the bottom of it. that is important from a scientific integrity standpoint. the doctor told me that the most important thing is that if you took the united kingdom off the map of the face of the earth and the doctor had never been born, there are thousands of threads of evidence and datasets, many of which come from nasa other geologists. let me suggest a new headline for this story. the headline for the story is that the niners cannot produce one peer review journal. there was a review of 928 peer

review journals and every single one of those did not disagree with the basic conclusion that has been reached. they did not produce one. with all the millions of dollars they are spending on pr, they cannot brevet -- reveal one to review journal. that is a headline for you. here is what i would suggest. if you were standing on the tracks, and you see a train coming down the tracks, you do not stop to take a look at the blueprints. you respond to the train. and this has not been discussed. the controversy, such as it was in the u.k., dealt with temperature issues and they

reviewed those records and they concluded, based on american scientists that do not work for any oil companies, but the conclusions were correct. but there is an entirely separate threat that we have to respond to, starting with copenhagen. that is what the issue of ocean acidification. this is the state of oceans today. it has nothing to do with u.k. research. our co2 goes into the atmosphere, paulson to the oceans and creates acid. that acid has made the ocean 30% more acidic than they were. the u.k. has nothing to do with this issue. this is a picture of a pteropod

shell. these are very small creatures that form the base of the food chain. the oceans are becoming more acidic and it will be much more acidic at the end of the century what they did was took a pteropod and put it in water that is of the same as the attitude that it will be at the end of the century. in 15 days, it starts to lose some of its calcium carbonate. in 30 days it loses more ended in 40 days, it is just a pile of mush the reason i am showing you this is because this is a dirty little secret of climate change and co2 pollution. i hope that someone would write a headline that the oceans have the potential of dying and the food chain being disrupted and

less -- i don't care if there was a communist plot in the u.k., i hope someone will think about that. i will leave on this one note. i think we have a responsibility. i want to suggest that the folks in the room with cameras and pans and recorders -- pens and recorders would have a responsibility. right now someone says they're a problem and another says there is not a problem. and they get a feel that this is a 50/50 deal. i hope you will fulfil what i see as responsibility which is to tell people that tens of thousands have reached this -- this conclusion and none have presented a peer review journal. that is a headline that i hope you will -- a story that i hope

you'll tell. >> the congressman has called on you to investigate if there was manipulation of data before u.s. policy is changed on global warming what is your response to that request? >> we are going to have a hearing in. -- a hearing. we had a hearing last week with the president's science adviser all the members were able to cross-examine them on these emails the answers that the administration witnesses gave were that that subset of information did not contradict the larger finding that the planet is warming in a very dangerous way and it is being

caused by humans. we will have that hearing in the minority will have their witnesses and the climate deniers well be able to make their points. -- will be able to make their points. this is not a debate that has a lot of minority opinion, globally. this is a consensus of scientists that the planet is morning and it is being caused by humans. >> will use specifically be focused on the emails? >> that is correct. >> -- will you be satisfied -- will use -- will you specifically be focused on the emails? >> that is correct. >> will that send a mixed message? >> i think it will be good.

they will be exposed to the consensus that the world has reached on this issue. i think that they will find a very small minority on the planet. i hope that they do come, they will come with substantial cooperated scientific evidence that rebuts what all of those nobel prize winners and world- class scientists are going to be presenting in copenhagen. i think it is great that they're going. i think that it will perfectly contrast for the media how isolated and nonscientific their objections are. i understand that many republicans want to side with exxon mobil. i understand that many of them have a stake in the continuation of our consumption of fossil fuels.

that is different from having scientific evidence. i think that is great. i think that the world would be shocked to find out that there is no scientific documents that they will be presenting in copenhagen. >> i also think that it would be good for us and the rest of the world to see some of the congressional deniers. maybe they will have a little more sympathy for how difficult it has been to get to this point under the leadership of the chairman and the speaker, we have had the opportunity to meet with parliamentarians around the world. it is fascinating because we have met with people from different political parties and they are mystified of the gap in the scientific evidence.

they were very candid in great britain. the different parties have different positions on how best to solve the problem, not to avoid it. i think it will help us if they are exposed to what we are dealing with, here. >> the most impressed -- the most important ambassador will probably be the president of the united states. do you think he needs to speak up against this? >> we would not be here without president obama. we would not be able to have

administration officials speak on this issue without president obama. there is one voice coming out of the white house on these issues. i think, again, what we have to hope for a as we are moving forward is that we actually have a debate that is animated by the science. what's the congressman has been talking -- >> -- don >> -- >> again, the president is working intensely on the afghanistan issue in the health- care issue. i am not sure at this point that the media is still giving the

kind of attention to this issue that it deserves. i still think that the media is covering it like it is he said/she said. after my father died from lung cancer, somebody presented me a fax that said that 300 adolescents in america started smoking today and most of them will die from lung cancer. of course, from the competitive enterprise institute, we ask why the other ones are going to die. maybe it really isn't the reason why they are dying. otherwise, everyone would die, wouldn't they? even though every single piece of science, medical opinion said

that it was the tobacco. not just my father, but 7 million other americans. there is a responsibility to keep this in balance. i think the president has done an excellent job in doing so. when he makes his address to the world, they will see that he is committed to the united states being the leader in the world. >> i wanted to defend president obama. with all his skills, it is clear that he will not be able to step out of those that the nine facts. i will give you exhibit a. -- those that do not fax -- he will not be able to stamp out those that deny fax. it is impossible for him to be able to stamp out all of the

deniers. i think he needs a little help from those who distribute information. we are just year to ask you to distribute some information. here is one little piece of information that nobody has reported during this entire discussion a journalist to report on 928 peer review studies. she found that of those 928 peer review studies, not a single one -- if this were a situation where all of the blocks were stacked up in one pile and the deniers were successful to pull out the bottom block, we would have a legitimate discussion. but according to dr. rauf

shooter, and me and these two guys, this is a giant pyramid of information that leads to a conclusion. it comes from multiple sources of information. co-head and conclude that the uk guys do not play football the way that we do, but we would solve this problem. >> how long do you expect a delegation to be in copenhagen? >> our plan is to go next week. it is contingent on the floor schedule, but we will be going next week. again, our schedule will be determined. >> will you be there for the president's address? >> that is our plan. we will be there to be supportive of the president. >>we have a delegation that will be put together and we will

make the announcement at the appropriate time. >> there is a roll call on the floor. bucs will be bipartisan? >> absolutely bipartisan. >> will you be selecting the democratic delegate? >> the speaker is the lead person in our delegation and she has made this her flagship issue. she is leading the delegation. there will be broad bipartisan participation from the house side in this conference. >>i know a number of republicans that are coming.

i am just not at liberty to make an announcement for them. i think you could identify them and ask them if they will be on the trip. >> this is contingent on the full schedule -- before schedule. last question. >> do you think the emails are influencing public perception of global warming? >> i think that the media coverage of it is leading to in this -- they missed the suppression -- a miss- impression. and they think that this is something that disappears. copenhagen is convening every major scientist in the world today with anyone that wishes to

question the science. by next friday, this issue in copenhagen will already be put to rest. >> i have copies of the peer reviews for anybody who wants them. >>[indiscernible chatter] >> >> we will discuss climate change on this week's news makers. representative joe barton is the ranking member with the energy and commerce committee. that is tomorrow on c-span. >> tonight, on c-span, part of

today's senate debate on health care and on the omnibus spending bill. later, the opening ceremony for the climate change conference in copenhagen. >> this week, on the communicators, more on that neutrality and the possible effects on the wireless industry. that is monday night on c-span >> there is just about a month left to enter the student can contest. just create a five-eight minute video on one of our country's greatest strengths. it should show varying points of view. enter before midnight january 20. winning entries will be shown on c-span.

>> and now, a news conference on health care with a number of senate republicans. senate gop leader mitch mcconnell speaks burst at this 50 minute briefing for the >> >> it is still warm. >> i can tell everyone in the room is so happy to be here on a saturday morning. good morning. i think a couple of observations would be timely. yesterday, we heard from cms and cnn. the actuary down there reported that this bill will not been the

health care cost curve. i would call your attention to a letter in 2009 from six of our democratic colleagues. cms, says that the bill does not pass that test the other entity we heard from was cnn. i cite them as just one example of growing evidence that the american people --

this is growing evidence that the american people are opposed to this bill. we saw two weeks ago that there was a 9% more americans that opposed the bill then supported it. now, we see 61% opposed and only 36% in favor. our friends on the other side should make -- they are employing their members to make history. many things have happened throughout history and many of them have been mistakes. if this is passed in the face of the overwhelming opposition of the american people, having failed to achieve the goal of holding down health care costs, it would be viewed as a historic mistake. >> to pick up on that point, the american people are inclined their intuitive common sense to this bill. they said if you increase the

size of government and cut medicare by $500 billion and you create a situation where employers are forced to raise their premiums significantly, then you are going to create a system that does not work very well for them. the reason for all this effort was that everyone should have insurance, that the cost curve of insurance should be brought down and the people that like their health care should be able to keep it. they have confirmed the common sense of the american people and said that after this bull is fully implemented, 20 million people will still not have insurance. the cost curve will actually go up by $235 billion and literally millions of people will lose their insurance because of the fact that their employers will have to increase their insurance costs. they said that this bill will jeopardize seniors access -- seniors' access to medicare.

this is what they said. providers for medicare is a stood -- for medicare is a substantial cause, they may end their participation. that is a direct quote. they go on to say that 20% of providers will become unprofitable and hospitals will close. a doctors' offices will close -- at doctors' offices will close -- doctors' offices will close. it will force seniors out of coverage that they presently

have today. it is ridiculous. >> i just want to pick up on the point that my colleague from new hampshire made. as a senator from florida, we have the highest per capita concentration of seniors. this report says exactly what senator gregg said. health care will decline for seniors because there will be less providers and doctors and hospitals who want to give health care for seniors. it is not health care reform if the doctor is not the end. if you cannot find a health- care provider, how is that health care reform? the second thing is that this is a gimmick. you paid taxes for the full 10

years and you only get benefits for six years. that is like going to someone and say in that this is your house and start paying now but you cannot move in until 2014. this was supposed to be a plan that cut the cost of health care insurance for the 170-180 million americans that do not have helped insurance. now seniors will have that access taking away -- taken away. we will cut medicare, we will raise taxes, that does not sound much like health care reform. when i go back to florida, the people that i talked to are very concerned about this bill. they tell us not to vote for this bad bill. please do not hurt our health care. we are not voting on health

care. we are not having amendments to make this bill better. we are talking about budget issues. we are supposed to be working on the most important issue facing the american people. they cannot even find the colleagues to talk about this bill. republicans are chomping at the bit to talk about this bill. they cannot find a democrat to do it. when they do find them, they are criticizing the bill. we should start over. get it right and take it step by step. >> my colleagues have talked about access. they are telling us what we expected to hear in the first place. in the state of alaska, access is beyond the concern, it is a crisis. it has been a crisis for a period of years. we do not have our own medical schools and so we are not

growing our own, if you will. unlike my colleague from florida, where he represents a state that has the highest per capita seniors, i represent a state that is the fastest- growing senior population per capita in the nation. you may not have thought that. you may have thought it would be nevada or florida. it is alaska. we do not have providers in our state's largest city who are willing to see new medicare patients. anchorage alaska -- anchorage, alaska has half the population of the state and there are 13 providers who are willing to take new medical -- newt medicare eligible individuals. -- new medicare eligible individuals. one provider said that in view of what happens with reimbursement and in view of what you all are discussing

back here, i cannot afford within my family practice to take on newt medicare eligible individuals. she is dropping out and that puts us down to 12. this is a crisis. when we look at proposed legislation that does nothing to expand access and an insurance card that gives you access, there are no providers that are willing to take you on, what have we done? we have gone beyond what is coming out of cms. we have gone to our states think-tank -- our states' think tank and ask them, give us an analysis of the house bill. what it comes to is nothing good for alaska.

this does not help us in a state where our medical -- medicare reimbursement rates are lower than medicaid reimbursement rates. there are all kinds of unique factors, but the bottom line is that this increases the premiums for individuals 10%-50%. it crowds out those that are up -- 10%-15%. it increases your taxes and at the end of the day, there is nothing in this for alaskans. this is not acceptable to us. you have to start over. >> any questions? >> the democrats increased the defense spending and will not allow you to have a stand-alone vote. will you vote against it? >> the reason for raising the debt ceiling is something that

senator gregg knows a lot about. there is a lot of unrest about -- among democrats to address this issue in coming years because we are drowning in a sea of debt. i will ask senator gregg to talk about the proposal that the democrats are resisting. >> i have read that they want to raise the debt ceiling to 1.9 trillion dollars. >> it is kind of like drunken sailors not wanting the bar to close.

these people are spending like drunken sailors. they are not being accountable to the american people. as a result, in order to avoid any decision that would make them accountable, they are trying to push that off into the future. we would like to have four issues raised. we would like to terminate tarp. this has become a piggy bank for spending. remember, all tarp funding are going to things that will not

be repaid. we believe that the stimulus package spending should be of rescinded because it is well past the recession and we are walking around with money many that were able to not spend the money. we believe that there should be some sort of freeze on discretionary spending. we believe that the konrad braden -- conrad great commission should -- >> senator gregg and senator mcconnell, why did you vote for all these bills and then vote against them when they're on the floor?

>> in my view, we should move the process along out of appropriations committee. that is tradition. when they get to the floor, hopefully there will be corrected and reduced. i take them seriously because i believe that the process is important to prove all of the appropriations bills. i do believe that when they get to the floor, they should be drawn back. i would support across-the- board cuts on all of those bills if we could get a vote. >> let me just add that three of us are on the appropriations bill and we voted against it. this is a time when the are running a debt like drunken sailors. this would triple the national debt in 10 years. the least we could have exercised some restraint over

domestic discretionary spending. >> in your discussions with the majority leader, do you sense the and democrats are trying to close down the bill and move to closure. >> they cannot close down the bill. they have serious problems. they have all kinds of -- all kinds of internal problems. my assumption is will go back and start voting on monday. that is what the american people expect us to be doing. the anxiety level on the other side is quite high. i do not think that anyone thinks this is inevitable next week will be interesting. >> just to follow on that question, would you be willing to vote against the dod bill if you do not like the other packages? >> we are working on health

care right now. we will see how they put the package together. thank you, everybody. >> and now, some of today's >>'s senate debate on health care. this is about here have in front of us appropriations bills.

we have heavy matters of the deficit. we have heavy matters of how that we're going to get the united states government to bring its fiscal house in order. i remind the senate that it was the last time that we have had a surplus was in 2001, and if we had been wise and had not cut the revenue of this country so significantly, we could have been good stewards of that healthy surplus and we could have paid off the national debt over a 12-year period, and we wouldn't be where we are today, but we are, and in these matters that are weighing heavily on us,

it seems that our attention is being continuously diverted to other things, such as white house party crashers and the unfortunate circumstances that one of the most famous athletes finds himself in, tiger woods. we have a debate about the health care bill, and it seems like that in the course of last summer that the whole health care was about one subject, and that was the question of a public option. and we now know that all the experts are telling us that if we have a public option, that will be a part of this health insurance exchange, the exchange itself will only cover something

like 15% to 20% max of the people, and the public option would only include something like four million or five million people, and that we're talking about like 1.5% of the total folks in the country. and yet, the debate raged all summer as if that were the only issue about the health reform. and so here we find ourselves trying to pass a health reform bill with so much attention diverted elsewhere with people pushing and pulling and tugging, all the special interests, how in the world do you bring this together? how do you bring it together so

that we can get the high threshold of 60 votes in the united states senate? on the one hand, there are the insurance companies. the insurance companies have a huge steak and now the -- huge stake and now the insurance companies are running tv ads all over the country trying to kill this bill because they realize there is going to be a limitation on their ability to do everything that they want to do and to charge what they want to do and to cancel at will and to have frivolous reasons such as a skin rash as a pre-existing condition and therefore we're not going to insure you. and that is what has led to us getting to the point of saying enough. we're going to pass a health insurance reform bill.

and then, of course, what comes to light is suddenly in this package that was not in the package that came out of the senate finance committee but is in this package, that there is actually a nod to the insurance industry that there is a limitation on the amount of payments that could be made on anyone's insurance policy in one year. well, there again is a lot of opportunity for mischief and abuse, and we've got to correct things like that. is there anyone that doubts that we don't need health insurance reform and health care reform even though you're getting the opposite messages from the insurance companies? that you're getting the opposite

messages from anybody that is a special interest that doesn't get entirely what they want? what are some of those? hospitals, doctors, all kind of health care providers, medical device manufacturers, and all the various interests of patients. but if you really look at it, you can't get all that you want, mr. special interest, and instead keep in mind the goal that we're trying to achieve, and that is take a system that is near tilt and get it on the road to reform. there's another part of this

reform that we have to do, and that is that the united states government cannot afford the cost escalation that is going on in its payment of medicare and medicaid. and so there are reforms that we can enact, many of which are in this bill, such as accountable care organizations that will follow the patient, electronic records that will modernize so that any doctor or health care provider that sees the patient will know up to date what has been the care so that records are not lost. emphasis on a primary care physician that can do a lot of preventable care before the emergency ever gets there. and then, of course, utilizing a lot of the miracles of modern medicine, including the

pharmaceuticals to hold off so that we don't get to that emergency, so that if you are not insured, you end up at the emergency room, or even if you are insured, you end up at the emergency room, which is the most expensive place to get care. is there a lot that we can do? yes. and it is what we must do. and with the hurdle in this united states senate being so high that we have to get 60 votes to close off debate, we have to be successful. it will not be pretty, and it will not be perfect, but it will be a step in the right direction, and there are portions of this proposed law

that will take effect not immediately but a year or two or three down the road, and if we have made mistakes, we can correct those mistakes, but we must be successful. for us to turn back now, no matter who is arguing against it, for us to protect a special interest, no matter who is arguing for that, at the expense of the greater good of remark would be a drastic mistake. and not one of us could be happy going home to our families for christmas if we don't enact this, and it's because of that that i have -- that i feel very strongly that we will be

successful, as difficult and astor trust -- and astor tourous as this -- and as torturous as this process is, and this senator will keep pressing for it until we get that final passage. madam president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: madam president, i understand that maybe i will have my speech broken up by a unanimous consent request of the leadership, so i ask if that happens that my remarks be continuous throughout the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: there has been a lot of talk over the past few days about senator reid's so-called compromise. although he said he has broad

agreement, i have yet to see any specific details. in fact, it sounds like members of his very own caucus, the democratic caucus, aren't really aware of these details either. now, i find it quite hard to understand how there can be -- quote -- unquote -- "broad agreement" on something when they don't know what's in it. and, of course, i hope that we'll see details very soon. something like health care reform affecting 306 million americans and restructuring 1/6 of our economy is something that should not be done in secret, and when so-called compromises come out, i would expect we would have the same 72 hours on the internet for the public and

the 99 members of this body other than the leader to review them in the totally transparent way that we have always been promised. and as this 2,074-page bill has been transparent as well as all of the amendments, because this is one of the biggest and most important pieces of legislation that i have worked in -- worked on in all my years in the congress. so i hope that senator reid is not planning to keep the details of his compromise under wraps and then ask us to vote on it. this piece of legislation is going to touch the lives of every single american from the cradle to the grave, so we owe it to our constituents to make sure that we have sufficient time to study any changes to the underlying bill. we all need to remember that

it's their money, the taxpayers' money that is being spent on this bill, not ours. but as i have said, so far senator reid is keeping this broad argument and broad agreement under wraps. so today, i can only talk about what i have heard from my colleagues or read in the newspaper, and who knows whether the newspaper or our colleagues in surmising what this compromise might be actually is. i've heard the majority leader is planning to expand the already unsustainable medicare program. the idea has been met with, of course, strong opposition, as you'd expect from hospitals, doctors, and other health care providers. particularly from rural america.

because expanding medicare to people ages 55 to 64 and paying medicare rates is going to make it even more difficult for our hospitals to survive because the federal government only reimburses 80% of costs. now, today, with people over 65, the government not paying more than 80%, it can be offset by private sector charges by the hospitals to a greater amount to make it up. but if you load another tens of millions of people on medicare, and it's just about broke anyway, you can see that these -- that this deficit of our hospitals is going to be greater

and it's going to be even more difficult to makeup because there's going to be less private paid people to make up the deficit. now, i said the hospitals, doctors and health care providers are bringing strong opposition to this idea of expanding the medicare program, because they fear that the largest expansion of medicaid in history and an expansion of medicare to peoples aged 55-64 will drive providers out of business, then what, of course, does that do for our seniors? it makes it even harder for low-income americans under medicaid and seniors under medicare to have access to care. and what are the promises of the federal government in medicare worth if you don't have doctors

to provide the services to the seniors when they get sick? i've already spoken over the last few days about why i agree with these providers and why i oppose that part of senator reid's so-called compromise. but of course now we have the administration's own chief actuary confirming that the medicare cuts already in this bill -- in other words, the 2,074-page bill without even considering the so-called reid compromise that we don't know what it is, the chief actuary has confirmed that medicare cuts already in the bill are so severe -- medicare cuts are so severe that providers might even now in

their participation in the program, even before you add on all the people. so, if the compromise expands medicare even further, this will make this problem even worse. i also find it curious that some would even consider 0 this a compromise. . . i've been told. which doesn't sound like much of a compromise to me. in fact, let me quote another congressman, congressman wiener of new york. doesn't see it as a compromise either. in fact, he sees it as a big step toward their ultimate goal of a single-payer health plan where government's going to run

of a single-payer health plan where government's going to run choice, the government plan, you don't have choices like we have in america today. and congressman wiener said th this: "this expansion would perhaps get us on the path to a single-payer model." so i don't see this as a compromise to a government-run plan. in fact, in some ways it's worse, because this could harm seniors' access to care starting not down the road but on day o one. but i don't want to spend too much time today talking about medicare expansion. i think that i've made my feelings on this idea pretty clear. instead, i'd like to focus on another aspect of the supposed new reid compromise that we're hearing about. this is what we're hearing abo

about, that the newest reid proposal would have the office of personnel management operate a national health insurance plan. this may sound pretty harmless at first glance, especially since senator reid has refused to release any details, but there are some very big problems with the proposal, like having the office of personnel management take over. we use the terms around here, o.p.m. for the office of personnel management. it is the office in charge of the federal government's 2 million-person work force. one could consider o.p.m. as the human resource agency or department for all of the federal government. dealing with everything from salaries to the operation of the federal employees health benefit programs.

which i think is the reason that senator reid thinks that this would be -- this agency would be well-equipped to run the largest insurance company in the country. unfortunately, a former director of o.m.b. -- o.p.m. disagrees. he was asked about giving new responsibilities to the office personnel management and this former director, linda springer, she said this -- quote -- "i flat-outthink that o.p.m. doesn't have the capacity to do this type of role." federal employees have also expressed concern and people in this body, particularly the other party, ought to be listening to the national treasury employees union or the national active and retired federal employees association.

they have come out in opposition to this proposal of o.p.m. running a national health insurance company. in "the washington post" story highlighting union opposition, the author writes that unions raise these concerns. quote -- "legitimate concerns about expanding the size and scope of o.p.m. beyond its capacity." so there are already concerns from a former director and more than 5 mil million federal work, retirees and dependents that o.p.m. is not equipped to handle this new responsibility. that alone should make any member pause before signing on to this so-called broad agreement. but i also think that it's

important that members are aware of some of the challenges the office of personnel management faces with its current responsibilities, without loading it down with a lot more. because being human resources department for the federal government is obviously no easy task. in fact, i would imagine it's a pretty thankless job that entails a lot of long hours. so, please don't misconstrue any comments as an attack on o.p.m., its director or any of its employees. they do the best job they can under difficult circumstances. but they're going to have real problems if senator reid's compromise does include a government-run insurance plan operated by o.p.m. if he's going to come out of

nowhere with a new proposal to haisly hand the american health insurance system over to this government agency, i think it's important for the american people to know what they're getting into. we need to be asking some hard questions. is this expansion of the federal government necessary? we're about to vote to raise the debt ceiling by $1.8 trillion because the national credit card has maxed out, and some members of the senate seem intent about increasing the size of the federal government even more. a second question beyond just the generic one "can you afford to expand the federal government role and the expenditures." second: should the office of personnel management, a government agency, be handed the

keys to the largest health insurance plan in the entire country. i don't know that the current o.p.m. director, and i would imagine that he was a very nice person. since i don't know him, i don't want him to take offense to what i say but i think it's fair to point out that his position just prior to taking over at o.p.m. was running the national zoo. does this really mean that we should put him in charge of the national health insurance plan? the office of personnel management has consistently been criticized for being out of date and being inefficient on everything from processing national security projects to administering federal benefits. and we've all heard about the massive backlog in people waiting for social security disability benefits.

some 833,000 americans get it. 833,000 americans are currently on a waiting list to see if they calqualify for government disability benefits and some members blame o.p.m. for this backlog. so i'm going to put a chart up here from a person that i trust in the house of representatives, representative earl pomeroy, because i think he does very excellent work. and he heard about this backlog, so he made some comments about o.p.m. congressman pomeroy is a democrat from north dakota and a member of the very powerful house ways and means committee. he said -- and the quote is up here -- "the office of personnel management is fiddling around, years go by before they can even get around to all the things they have to get around to."

this seems to reinforce what the government unions and the former director have expressed about o.p.m.'s ability to handle this new responsibility. and i want to to to continue toe congressman pomeroy. "people are being hurt. some of the most vulnerable people in this country are being hurt every day because of bureaucratic bunning bling at o.p.m." again, senator reid hasn't provided enough details but congressman pomeroy's comments certainly raise concerns. undermining the ability -- or the availability of disability benefits is bad enough, but do my colleagues want to also be

responsible for setting up an unworkable system that leaves hundreds of thousands of americans on the waiting list for their health care benefits? government agencies, whether it's the office of personnel management or some other agency, do not have an impeccable track record. as president reagan often said, the nine most terrifying words in the english language are, "i'm from the government and i'm here to help." think of a health care system with the responsiveness of hurricane katrina or think of the efficiency of the internal revenue service offer customer service at the department of motor vehicles. that doesn't sound like a recipe for real health reform to me.

the office of personnel management has also taken considerable criticism for its handling of retiree benefits. the agency's own 2008 financial report stated -- and i quote -- "the office of personnel management had increased difficulty keeping up with retirement claims and had to decrease -- had a decrease in the number of customers satisfied with their own servi services." that's coming directly from the agency saying how it's coming up short performing to the needs of the american people and particularly government employees before we're talking about adding a new government health insurance program to the responsibilities of o.p.m.

now, "the hill" newspaper wrote this last week -- and i quote -- "watchdogs maintain the program is riddled with inefficiencies that ultimately cost both the agency and the federal government money." so i think that there are legitimate concerns about whether this federal agency is even equipped to take on the additional responsibilities of a whole new government countrywide program that is obviously a massive undertaking. but i also wonder why this proposal is even necessary. the bill already sets up government-run exchanges that would offer a choice of competing for profit or not-for-profit plans. my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have compared this system to the federal employee health benefit plan. this bill already has provisions that encourage national health

plans. this leads me to ask the question: why does this bill need another layer of bureaucracy to create a national plan run by a government agency? some have suggested that this is just another backdoor attempt to end up with a government-run plan. another detail that has been reported supports this claim. we have been told that if not enough, not for profit plans agreed to contract with the office of personnel management or if they don't meet certain affordability standards, the office of personnel management will have the authority to establish its own government-run plan. now, with some of the other provisions that are in this bill, this trigger approach seems to be rigged.

there are at least two reasons why this is the case. first, the first undermines any ably to avoid -- ability to avoid the first government plan trigger to make health coverage more affordable. the bill puts in place a bunch of new regulatory reforms, a bunch of fees, it will try to premiums, making it impossible for help plan to meet new affordability requirements. you are going to say you question the centers judgment. do not take my word for it. we have the nonpartisan congressional budget office for the -- office, a group of professionals that in the care about politics. premiums will be 13% more expensive as a result of this

bill. then we had the second government plan but a it is the office of personnel management the authority to create a government run plan. what senator reid has failed to mention and in announcing his broad agreement is that there is not one national plan in existence today for profit or not for profit. -- that is offered in all 50 states. but this is not a suspect a -- that ijust does not exist/ i can only assume that this back

door attend to shoehorn a government run and happens to be an act of desperation. you have seen the facts.

health care reform, one of the overriding goals was to bend that cost curve down. now, after 11 months of activity we got a bill with that cost curve going up. not one of the major goals that we set out to do. -- to do 11 months ago. this bill is also under pressure from opposition by the national federation of independent businesses speaking for the small businesses of america. the ones that do 70% of the net hiring also opposed by the national association of manufacturers, the chamber of commerce, the national retail federation, and almost every other business group across the country. and because of this last-minute desperate attempt to apiece the far left -- appease the far

left, this rumored new compromise is being opposed by doctors, hospitals, and other health care providers. and these people were on board through most of these 11 months promising their support and now they see it going in the wrong direction. with all those factors, i don't see how anyone, let alone 60 senators, can vote for this bi bill. this last-minute desperate attempt to expand medicare and hand over private health insurance systems over to a federal agency, office of personnel management has this step, if it materializes, has made a bad bill even worse. i have another part of a bill that i want to speak to, and

this -- we have this 2,074-page bill bill before us, and -- before us and i want to refer to page 2,034, way at the tail end of the bill. section 90-12 of the reid bill. only takes up eight lines. but it could have a major impact on millions of retirees and even on the entire u.s. economy. in fact, listen to this, we've got the afl-cio, we've got the americans benefit council, and we've got the business roundtable, have all joined together in opposition to this provision, section 9012. now how often do you have the afl-cio, the american benefits council, and the business

roundtable -- that roundtable's the big corporations in america -- joining together in opposition to anything? but they're in opposition to section 9012 of the bill. now, this would prohibit businesses from fully deducting a subsidy they receive to maintain retiree drug coverage. medicare modernization act of 2003 created this subsidy to encourage businesses to keep offering retiree drug coverage once the part-d benefit was established. because back in 2003, our goal in passing the prescription drug bill for seniors was not to disturb people that already had drug coverage and they liked what they had and they wanted to keep it. we didn't want these big

corporations dumping these people off into something that they were unfamiliar with. so we helped to encourage companies and save the taxpayers money, and i'll refer to those specific dollar figures in just a minute. now, in federal tax policy, it's very unusual to provide a deduction for a business expense like retiree health costs if that expense is subsidized by a federal program. but in this case, the conferees decided to provide this unusual tax treatment for compelling health policy purposes. some that i've already referred to. that we ought to -- if people are satisfied with what they have, we shouldn't pass a bill pushing people out of a plan of something they like. but it was also to save taxpayers dollars. because the rationale was that

it was cheaper to pay a $600 subsidy than to have these people forced out of their corporate plan and then to have the taxpayers pay an age o of $1,100 that it would cost if the retiree joined the part-d government plan. you know what? after six years so far it has worked. millions of seniors have been able to keep their retiree coverage as a result of this subsidy. and the part-d program continues to come in under budget and also to receive high marks from our senior citizens. but the provision tucked away in this 2,074-page bill on gauge 2,034 -- on page 2,034 could change all of that and, in fact, have severe consequences, and let me say, unintended consequences. not just on those retirees, but

for the entire u.s. economy. in an effort to pay for this massive expansion of a government-run health plan, the reid bill proposes to eliminate the tax deductibility of this provision. this could cause employers all across the country to drop retiree coverage. this will not only break the president's promise by preventing millions of seniors from keeping what they have -- remember that promise during the campaign? it will also cause the cost of the part-d program to go up. in addition, accounting rules for retiree benefits will require that the businesses that do keep offering plans -- offering these benefits -- will have to report the total revised cost on the day the bill becomes law. so we have this opt he'd written

in the wall street -- opt ed written in "the wall street journal," written about this. this could cause businesses to post millions of dollars in losses and significantly impact an already struggling economy. is this something that you want to do when we still have 10% unemployment? i think that the majority ought to give second thought to that. a letter sent on december 11th, from the chief financial officers of some of the largest employers in the country stated -- quote -- "the impact of the proposed medicare part-d changes would be felt throughout the overall u.s. economy as corporate entities an investors would be -- and investors would be forced to act." another letter signed by the afl-cio stated that this provision would -- quote -- "unnecessarily destabilize employer-sponsored benefits for millions of retirees." now, once again, how often do

you get these large corporations in the afl-cio singing off the same song sheet? this simple provision tucked away on page 2,034 is just one more in a long list of policies that could have serious, unintended consequences for american businesses and retirees. at this point it appears the majority is so determined to get a bill at any cost that they will place -- put in place bad policies and promises to somehow clean up the mess later on. that's not the way to write legislation. that is not what the american people were hoping for when they were told congress was going to fix the health care system. this provision is just one more reason that we need to scrap this product and go away to --

to the drawing board. i think in finishing, i'll just say what i probably said two or three times before, we're trying to fix the health care system. health care reform. the word reform implies all of that. if you were having a coffee clatch in rural iowa this very morning and one of us senators dropped in on it and he started asking us about a bill because they were already talking about health care reform, and any one of us told him that it would increase taxes, it would increase premiums of health insurance, that it wouldn't do anything about decreasing inflation of health care, in other words, costs are going to go up yet and we're going to take $464 billion out of medicare, a program that's already in distress, to setup a

whole brand-new government program, you know what every one of those people around the table would say? well, that doesn't sound like health care reform to me. so let's not denigrate the word "reform." i ask unanimous consent, along with my last remarks, to put a letter from the afl-cio in the -- in the record. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: without c-span there are updates of the local group. you can follow the debate within a c. spa and radius iphone

application. you can listen to c-span. centers of voted 60-34 in favor of the bill. john mccain and john horan talked about the bill. this is about 40 minutes. mr. mccain: madam president, i -- i rise to speak on the bill -- the pending bill before us. one of the great pork barrel earmark-billed pieces of legislation that i seen come before this body. i'd like to quote from abc news by jonathan carl and def inn -- devin pryor, this is the season of pork, i quote -- "before returning to their -- excuse me. "just weeks before returning to their districts for christmas, congress is poised to give the

gift of pork, roughly $4 billion of it. more than 5,000 earmarks were included in the $447 billion omnibus bill, funding pet projects of key members of congress from both parties in all regions of the country. senate will vote on the bill this weekend. independent analysis of the bill reveal a whopping 12% increase in government spending for 2010 while the inflation rate in the country remains near zer zero 12% spending when they are out of their homes and cannot afford to sustain their lives. we have increased spending by 12% @ 405,000 earmarks.

that is up $4 million. this congress has not shown they are serious about the budget deficit. "the spending sprees continue as the deficit relays to $2 trillion, quell their marks are listed in the bill. eight and a thousand dollars for new york's lincoln center. senator harkin [unintelligible] they had $700,000 court exhibits in iowa. they helped get a $3.4 million

for rural programs and hawaii. the country needs to be tightening its belt. many democrats say it evades key priorities. mississippi, at a cost of $8 million for improvements to four rural state airports. one airport serves fewer than 100 passengers a day. and another the mid delta regional airport sees even less. by the way, i've seen the pork extended to both of those airports over the years. the new funds would come on top of $4.4 million the airports just received from the stimulus package. i am not making this up.

we obviously have huge aviation and transportation needs this country and stuffing most millions of dollars in small, little used airports in mississippi is not a wise use of funds, said ellis. president obama had promised to curb the inclusion of earmarks in government spending bills but has yet to issue the threat of a veto. my friends, do not wait for threat of a veto. in march obama signed a $410 billion spending package that contained nearly 8,000 pet projects. quote, "i am signing an imperfect omnibus bill because it's necessary for the ongoing functions of government." obama said at the time. witbut i view it for more mar-reaching -- far-reaching change. what has changed? what has changed?

nothing has changed. senate majority leader harry reid said about the last omnibus, we have a lot of issues that we need to after to fund government, something that we should have done last year, but could not because of the difficulty we had working with president bush. difficulty working with president bush. who did harry -- did the majority leader have trouble working with this time? so, again, i would repeat to my colleagues, 1,350-page omnibus appropriations conference report, six bills, spends $460 billion, $4,052 earmarks totaling $3.7 billion, a full 409 pages of this conference report are dedicated to listening to congressional pork barrel spending, spending on domestic programs in this bill increased 14% over the last fiscal year while spending on military construction an care for our veterans has increased bill only 9%.

so let's look at a little bit of it? okay. housing, transportation, urban development are has over 4,000 earmarks. commerce, science, justice, 1,511 earmarks totalin totaling $17.15 million. the list goes on and on. we have a debt of $12 trillion, unemployment at 10%, nearly 900,000 families lost their homes in 2008. and it -- and it is every indication that the aggregate numbers for 2009 will be worse. with all this, we continue to spend and spend and spend, and every time we pass an appropriations bill with increased spending and load it up with earmarks, we are robbing future generations of americans of their ability to attain the american dream. 43 cents out of every dollar that's spent in this bill is borrowed, and it's borrowed from our children and our

grandchildren, and unfortunately generations after this. this is the greatest act of generational theft that's been committed in the history of this country. now let me just go through a few of these, if i might, and remind people really the context that this is in. my home state of arizona, 48% of the homes, quote -- under water "meaning they are worth less than the mortgage payments people are having to pay on them. we have small business people losing credit everywhere. and instead of trying to fix their problems and help them out, it's business as usual here in the senate of the united states of america and the congress. $200,000 for the washington national opera in washington, d.c., for set design, installation, and performing arts at libraries and school. $13.9 million on fisheries in hawaii. it's always, always hawaii.

nine projects throughout the islands, ranging from funding big eye tuna quotas, marine education and training, and coral research. $2.7 million -- this may be my favorite. up there, a certain one of them. $2.7 million to support surgical operations in outer space. $2.7 million to support surgical operations in outer space, guess where? at the university of nebraska. as i have said many times, a common theme, you will always have a location designated for these projects. that's why some of them may be worthwhile, but we'll never know because they don't compete them. they always earmark them for the particular place that they want to help. unfortunately, that shuts out other people. there may be other places besides the university of nebraska that can support

surgical operations in outer space. i -- i suggest bones and get dr. spock here and bones and get them out there and help them at the university. i don't know if they live in omaha or not, but i'm sure that to them and all the others on "star trek" that surgical operations in outer space may be one of their priorities. it certainly isn't a priority of the citizens of my state. now, one of the great cultural events that took place in the 20th century was the woodstock festival, so in order to really do a lot more research on that great cultural moment, we're going to spend $30,000 for the woodstock film festival outinitiative. $200,000 to renovate and construct the laredo little theater in texas. people from all over america are flocking to the laredo little

theater, and they want to invest $200,000 of their tax dollars into the laredo little theater. and the money would be used to replace worn auditorium seating and soundproofing materials. and so yeah, anybody got a little theater that they want -- worn auditorium seating and soundproofing, maybe they ought to apply to the senator from texas. $665,000 for -- i'm not making this one up -- for the cedars-sinai medical center in los angeles, california, for equipment and supplies for the institute for irritable bowel syndrome research. now, i have a lot of comments on them but i -- on that issue, but i think i will just pass those so as to not violate the rules of the senate. $500,000 for the botanical

research institute in fort worth. i'm sure the botanical research institute in fort worth is a good one. i would like to see other botanical research institutes able to compete. $600,000 for a water storage tower construction in ado, oklahoma. -- in ada, oklahoma. population 208. $200,000 for a visitors' center in a town in texas with a population of 5,240. money for elimination of slum and blight in scranton, pennsylvania. now, that may have been put in by the cast of "the office." $292,000 for elimination of slum and blight in scranton, pennsylvania. $200,000 for design and construction of the garapan public market in the northern marianas islands. $500,000 for the development of a community center -- now, this is half a million dollars for a community center in custer

county, idaho. the population is 4,342. $100,000 for the cleveland municipal school district. $100,000 for a school district. they just picked one and gave them $100,000. $800,000 for jazz at the lincoln center. $300,000 -- if you don't like jazz at the lincoln center, then go to carnegie hall. there is $300,000 for music programs there. i mentioned the rural bus program. $400,000 for orchestra iowa music education, cedar rapids, iowa, to support a music education program. $2,500,000 for the fayette county schools in lexington, kentucky, for a foreign language program. $100,000 to the cleveland municipal school district in cleveland, ohio, to improve math and language skills through music education. $700,000 for the national marine fisheries service for the project, quote -- "shrimp

fishing industry effort research continuation. "$1.6 million to build a tram between the huntsville botanical garden and the marshall flight center in alabama. how many places need need $1.6 million to build a tram? $250,000 -- it's probably going to go out to the statue of vulcan also. $250,000 for the monroe county fiscal court for the monroe county farmers market in kentucky. $750,000 for the design and fabrication of exhibits to be placed in the world food prize hall of laureates in iowa. $500,000 to support the creation of a center to honor the contribution of senator culver, an iowa state senator at the simpson college in iowa. $400,000 to recruit and train closed-captioners and court reporters at the a.i.b. college of business in iowa. $250,000 for renovating the murphy theater community center

in ohio. now, my friends, there is a lot more, and i will just go through them briefly, but the point is -- the point is you'll notice two things. one, that the preponderance of these pork-barrel and earmark projects are -- are allocated to members of the appropriations committee, which, first of all, is fundamentally unfair. second of all, you will find that each are designated to a certain place to make sure that none of that money isn't spent somewhere else in america where the need may be greater. and third of all, it breeds corruption. it breeds corruption. it is a gateway drug. what we're talking about is a gateway drug, and it's especially egregious now. $300,000 to monitor and research herring in maine. $200,000 to study maine lobster. $250,000 for a father's day rally parade in philadelphia,

pennsylvania. i mean, you know, i -- i scoff and make fun of a lot of these, but really? $250,000 for a father's day rally parade in philadelphia. $100,000 for the kentler international drawing space and art education program in brooklyn. here's a deprived area. $75,000 for art projects in hollywood, los angeles park. $100,000 for performing arts training program at the new freedom theater in philadelphia. $100,000 to teach tennis at the new york junior tennis league in woodside, new york. $2.8 million to study the health effects of space radiation on humans at the loma linda university, loma linda, california. $200,000 for the aquatic adventurers science education

foundation in san diego. $100,000 to archive newspaper and digital media at the mississippi gulf coast community college in perkinston, mississippi. $3.9 million on researching weaving and knitting at the following places -- clemson university, raleigh, north carolina, philadelphia university, and california. u.c.-davis in davis, california. $90,000 for a commercial kitchen business incubator at the el pejera community development corporation in $500,000 to set the vapor mercury in the atmosphere. fo$500,000 to -- for a sea lion

biological research. three and a thousand dollars for see crab management. five and açó thousand dollars -- by connor thousand dollars for baldwin county courthouse security. $2 million to screakñr -- steady or hundred thousand dollars for pedestrian overpass. $900,000 for a river freight development steady in misery.

a hundred thousand dollars for a scenic trail in california. xds7i couldn't thousand dollar- $500,000 for park and ride lots. another low-income area up there in new port, rhode island. $974,000 for regional east-west trail and bikeway in albuquerque. the list goes on and on and on and on. up to nearly $4 billion. and, you know, the problem is, mr. president, among other problems, is that in the last campaign, the president of the united states campaigned for change, change you can believe in. there's no change here. it's worse. it's worse because the conditions that americans find

themselves in, out of their homes, out of jobs, high unemployment, tough economic conditions, and it's business as usual. spending money like a drunken sailor, and the bar is still open. so, again, i tell my colleagues again what i keep saying over and over and over again. there's a peaceful revolution going on out there, and they are sick and tired of the way that we do business here in washington. they don't think their tax dollars should be spent on these pork-barrel and earmark projects, and they're mad about it. and we're not getting the message here. we're not hearing them. we're not -- we're not responding to the problems and the enormous challenges that the american people have today, and we are continuing this kind of obscene process, which not

only -- which not only is wrong on its face but breeds corruption here in washington. madam president, i would ask unanimous consent that the yahoo story by a.p. story "senate set to advance $1.1 trillion spending bill" be included. the abc news story and the fox news story "watchdogs cry foul over thousands of earmarks in spending bill" be included in the record at this time. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: madam president, i -- i'm sorry to be repetitive, and i know my colleague is waiting so i'll end with this. this is wrong. we all know it's wrong. the american people know it's wrong. people who vote for this kind of pork-barrel spending are going to be punished by the voters, and we're going to end this obscene process and we're going to end it soon, as early as the next election. madam president, i yield the floor.

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: madam president, we are now considering a bill that represents the dramatic expansion in government spending. as the senator from arizona has so eloquently stated, this omnibus appropriation bill represents a 12% increase over last year, a fiscal year that ended with the largest deficit in american history of of $1.4 trillion. i don't know of any other area in the economy where people are spending 12% over what they spent last year. no family in america, no business in america is spending 12% more this year than they did last year. while we see 10% of our people unemployed. millions of families across the country and small businesses are, in fact, tightening their budgets. but the budgets of these federal

agencies, and of the federal government itself, keeps expanding. 33% increase of spending for foreign operations. a 23% increase in transportation, housing, and urban development. one of the worst things that this spending is doing is creating tremendous uncertainty, both here at home and other places like china, which are buying our debt, about whether we are ever going to get serious about our fiscal responsibility. the president asked last week why job creators were not stepping up and creating jobs. well, the fact of the matter is people are watching what we're doing here in congress, and they don't know what the rules will be six months from now or a year from now or whether congress will ever recover from this binge its been on when it comes to spending. but it's clear we cannot spend

-- we cannot spend our way out of this recession. job creators are scared. they're scared. and they're sitting on the sidelines because all of the spending, all of the tax increases, all of the government takeovers coming out of washington, d.c., these days, leave them with the answer is that they don't know what the rules are going to be and why in the world would you want to create a job, expand your business or make an investment when the very premise upon which you did so would change because of all the chaos here in washington. the facts of our debt crisis are not in dispute. the total public debt stands at about $12 trillion. we have in 2009, a $1.4 trillion fiscal deficit. in other words, we spent more than $1.4 million than the treasury brought in in fiscal year 2009.

and then we're accumulating dent even faster during this year than we did last. according to the treasury department, the deficit for the first two months -- two months of the new fiscal year was almost $300 billion. $300 billion for two months. a total larger than the full year deficits in 2002, 2006, or 2007. so in two months the deficit is worse than the entire years of 2002, 2006, and 2007. our deficits will average nearly $1 trillion every year for the next decade. $1 trillion every year for the next decade according to the administration. and this ought to be a shot, this week's moody's investor service said its debt rating on u.s. treasury securities -- quote -- "may test the triple a

boundaries." now the translation of that is that they are beginning to doubt whether -- at some point whether the united states government will be able to pay its bills or will default on those bills at some point. hopefully not any time soon. but this is the sort of pressure we are putting on -- not only on our ability to create jobs, but on our future and particularly on our children's future if we cause moody's investor service and others to rate u.s. treasury securities less than triple a rated. we know soon our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are going to have congress lift to -- lift the debt ceiling. this is like the credit limit on your credit card. once congress is bumped up against that $12 trillion debt ceiling, congress is going to have a vote on whether to ask the american people, and people buying our debt, whether we can increase the limits of our

credit card because we maxed it out. media reports indicate that the majority intends to slip this provision into a bill on funding our troops in afganistan. because, frankly, they're embarrassed to have a stand alone vote on raising the debt ceiling. especially because they know that there are many of us here on both sides of the aisle that will insist on some measure to affect some discipline on this spending binge as a condition to voting on the debt ceiling. but whatever the vehicle that the majority leader decides upon, they cannot hide the fact that we are borrowing money so fast that we'll have to raise the debt ceiling another 15%. conveniently this increase will get the government through the next mid-term elections, it's reported, according to some experts. not a coincidence. no one, particularly those in control of the congress, want to have another vote on lifting the debt ceiling or asking the american people to raise the

credit card limit before the next election. because they know the american people are increasingly angry and frightened by the spending binge that they see here and particularly the accumulating debt. that's not even getting to the financial crisis that entitlement programs are facing, like medicare and social security. we know that medicare, that its unfunded liabilities are rough roughly $38 trillion. now, i realize that number is so big that there are perhaps none of us that can fully comprehend how much money that is. but $38 trillion in unfunded liabilities for medicare alone. and, yet, the proposed medicare compromise, among 10 democrats, would roughly double the burden of medicare and not fix it, but actually make things worse. well, madam president, i want to mention one other item of fiscal

irresponsibility that i witnessed. i think we need to cancel one of the credit cards that been used by the administration, not just this it administration, but the past administration, and congress for purposes that congress never intended it when it authorized this program. the troubled asset relief program or tarp. and i know the senator from south dakota's on the floor. he's been one of the leaders in this effort because he believes, as i -- i think as i do that we can't mend it, so we need to end it. we need to cut out this revolving credit account that's being used for inappropriate purposes known as tarp, the troubled asset relief program. now, let's go back and look at why tarp was authorized by congress in october of 2008. it's important to remember what the situation was at this time. treasury secretary henry paulson, and federal reserve

chairman ben bernanke, had many conversations with legislators on both end of the capitol on both sides of the aisle. they said on their public on september 23, secretary paulson said that congress must act -- quote -- "in order to avoid a continuing series of financial institution failures an frozen credit markets that threaten the very health of our economy." in private the diagnosis was even more dire. we were told that we're literally days away from a complete financial meltdown in the united states unless congress act to authorize the troubled asset relief program. now, madam president, many of us, including myself, voted for tarp because we were told by the -- the smartest people on the planet that unless we did this, our economy would suffer an economic meltdown. but i must tell you that i'm

extremely disappointed when the very nature of the program was changed after congress authorized it. for example, we were told by secretary paulson, and others, that the money would be used for one purpose and one purpose only, and that is to purchase toxic assets. well, you know, there's a saying that says, fool me once, shame on you. fool me twice, shame on me. and we were fooled into believing that the tarp would be used to purchase these toxic assets and get them off the books as a way of protecting pensions, savings, and investments in hard-working american taxpayers. unfortunately, the very people who promised us and told us what purpose the tarp would be used for misled us. because two administrations now, the previous administration and this administration, have used tarp as if it were a big

government slush fund. they ignored the clear language of the tarp legislation and they have repeatedly defied the will of congress. now, let me briefly mention how the tarp funds have been used in a way that congress never authorized and never intended. only weeks after tarp was enacted the bush administration abandoned this stated goal of purchasing toxic the administration funneled billions of dollars directly into some of the nation's largest financial institutions, making huge purchase of stock at once. the federal government began acquiring ownership, stakes in banks and financial institutions and even car manufacturers with the full support of the obama administration. the obad