if you increase the defense outlays and keep them at that level the next year, you get the .4 and another >> if you get news that future defense spending is going to be higher, you also get a positive effect. because she measured this over three or five-year windows, he want to multiplying that by about four. that makes this about 0.15. if you want to think about it in the same annual unit, you have to multiplied it by four because of the way she constructed the data. think about this for a moment.

the results of distinguishes keynesian analysis from market equilibrium analysis. i was surprised that this result comes out. i did not think it would show up in the data. the way the project weren't, we had a set of results, -- worked, we have a set of results, and then got the data in the middle of this. think about 1940. you learn the u.s. will be involved in a big war. i think you ought to consider that as a large negative wealthy effect. the war itself is presumably a big, and-think. the question is, how you react when you know something bad is

going to happen? keynesian analysis, which i used to work on, so i am supposed to know about those models, which is why some keynesian people do not like me that much. from my understanding of that model, if you think the future is quite to be bad and you have a negative wealth effect, you should cut back on consumer demand. in the usual keynesian way, you would get a negative effect from the new gdp on that. i believe that is right, honestly. more market clearing approaches have a different view on how you react if you think that things are coming. it is any emergency that the future is like to be a problem. you need to prepare yourself.

those models predict he will work harder and do investments where things -- when things are relatively ok. you will buy refrigerators and cars, preparing for the emergency. that model predicts the affect will be positive. the keynesian model predicts it will be negative. you do get a positive effect. i did not think that would come through. that is what is in here. the final thing i might mention from this table is about the tax effects. it is a change in the marginal tax rate. the main effect, which is consistent with our romer results, comes up with a one- year lag. it seems to depress the gdp rate the next year. the co-efficient is reliably estimated. you can relate this to things

like tax multipliers, and micro estimates of how responsive labor supply is too marginal tax rates. we had some discussion of this in the paper and argued that it was consistent. if you argue it is a tax multiplier, it ends up being a coefficient of -1.1. that is in the same ballpark of what romer and roemer found. i think it is consistent with their results. these are some of the highlights from the empirical results, some of which i already described. for the estimated multipliers, they're all significantly positive, but also significantly less than one. in the last several weeks i've spoken to a lot of journalists, and they can never understand

the difference between a multiplier being positive, and being less than one. normally, i hate do not talk to journalists and did not have this difficulty, -- i do not talk to journalists, and do not have this difficulty. the estimate is the short run has the gross domestic product going -- going up. since the multiplier is less than one, there is something left over, so you need a cut back. government purchases are one part. if they go up by $1, gdp goes up by less than $1. other parts are crowded out. that totals up to a crowding out of 50 cents of the dollar. most of that is on investments including purchases of consumer

durables. it is not saying gdp goes down. it is st. it goes up less than one. the analysis, in terms of positive and negative value are symmetric. if you remember the 1946 contract and, it should have reduced the gdp of lot. the results are in accordance with that. there is not something special. finally, i try to look at whether the spending multiplier was much different when there was a high unemployment rate, and not so big when the country has no slack, low and unemployment rates. in an earlier version of the study, we found some evidence favor of that view. perhaps i was setting to get up to demonstrate i was being objective. initially, we thought we did find some effect like that.

>> we will leave this event for a moment to go live to new york. new york congressman charles rangel is speaking to the press, reacting to ethics violation charges. this is live coverage on c-span. >> take your time. well, thank you for comment on such short notice. my lawyers are going to kill me because they say the best thing in my best interest is not to make any comments, but i noticed that this morning there were crews of television people and at the office. i assume and expect that they would be with me. i do not know how to say oh, no

comment -- "no comment." it is difficult for me to turn away reporters who are doing their job. for close to two years, i have been saying would you please wait until the ethics commission completes their investigation. it has been awkward for me and you. they have completed the investigation. i am pleased that they have and reported this to the ethics committee. this will be done before my primary election, before the general election, and the light of a public explanation will be made public. so, there is very little that i can say because the iran -- the realm of comprehensive of confidentiality -- of confidentiality, i will have to

say. i had a good conversation with luke russert. i apologize for the way i treated him on television. sometimes reporters feel compelled to go beyond what i can do. i am restricted to a note. i think everyone should be happy that i have not gone beyond that. someone said "why have a press conference if you are not going to answer any questions?" i said, if they knew that, and still followed me around, then maybe this time if i met with you, and tell you what i have to say, and i still have congressional work to do, that

come thursday, we will be able to work forward together. if there are questions in connection of what with what i just said, i would be happy to take them. [unintelligible] >> at this point in time, i have to really consider the process that item going through, and respected. anything i say that would impact other people -- i can not make any, that would make any sense that all. [unintelligible] >> i cannot go beyond the statement. i am here to tell you something that is awkward. the investigation is over. come thursday, we will be talking about what? the allegations. as most of you know, all of the

allegations the ec and the news per pair, the allegations that -- that you see in the newspaper, it is awkward to explain that to you and your grandkids. i am in the kitchen, and i'm not walking out. >> you said you did not want to be a distraction to other democrats begin an election year. [unintelligible] >> first of all, i am taking this one step at a time. i did not and remember using the word trial. i am dealing with today, and i'll be happy to find out what happens thursday. >> would do not consider a trial? >> now you're dealing with words. i wanted to deal with facts.

you know the allegations, i wanted to analyze the report, and i have not even asking it to be fair. >> are you looking forward to this battle. >> no. held now. no one in their right mind would be looking forward to this. when a person is alloted to public office, there is a higher level of openness and transparency that is on them, rather than an ordinary citizen. i want to make sure people know who charlie rangel was, who is, and will be. >> what kind of response have you gotten from other democrats? have you heard from andrew cuomo or other people? >> i do not see how any comment

like that would be useful in the purpose that i s should it come here. that the subject of staff. i am here to talk some facts, and here to tell you how we you -- how relieved i m. -- i am. [unintelligible] >> how have you explain this to your family? [unintelligible] >> i am glad you raised the question. i am not going to explain personal relationships have with my family, friends, my constituents. it is a coming together. it has been a rather moving, but very, very different -- difficult experience. >> who will be involved in settlement talks and?

>> i really cannot answer that. the question is referred to my attorney. behind you. the guy. >> i would ask then, how long are the settlement talks going on? >> i can really respond to that. [laughter] >> do you have any concerns for democrats' tax -- democrats? [unintelligible] >> that has nothing to do with thursday. >> is there anything yet to say to those that want to run against you? >> i do not wish them good luck. >> do you feel you did anything wrong? i wish feelings have something to do with the facts. it does not, really.

i would rather write a novel than talk about the. >> talk about your reelection plans to do you envision yourself talking -- running through the primaries and the general? >> four people have filed. i do not intend to attempt to get them off of the ballot. as long as they aren't running, i am running. i run every day it -- as long as they are running, i am running. >> is there a scenario where you could decide not to run for election? >> nothing that i can think of. i think that is about it. i apologize for not being able to go further. i hope that you can get some satisfaction that this thing is coming to a head. thursday, we can see what we have to work with. let me see why so much. >> is there a message you would

like to get out your constituents? >> i would like for all of the people who have read what they have had to read, how awkward it has been for me to constantly have to say please wait till the ethics committee completes this rest -- this investigation. i cannot think of anything that relieves me more than to be able to say to my constituents this is the result of the investigation, so they would know who charlie rangel really is. those of you who know me know that same "no comment" is very difficult to me. it is a very awkward think. to my family, friends and constituents that have been there for me and threw out, i can only say without dispute that i will not let you down,

and thank god of their report is complete. then, we will discuss the findings. thank you for asking that question. we are wrapping it up, and you just came in. ok. what is it? >> do you think the process is hurtful for democrats who are in political hot waters? >> you are getting involved in something i have not been trained in. pain is pain. i see why so much for coming. >> thank you, all of you. >> ok, the game, thank you very, very much.

>> new york congressman charles rangel this afternoon speaking to the press, answering reporter's questions. he is the former chair of the house ways and means committee. he gave no indication that he is planning to resign. next thursday, one of the committees involved in the investigation hold a meeting preparing to determine if any of the accounts have been proven. he will appear before the house committee on standards of official conduct, a panel equally divided between republicans and democrats. we are not sure if there will be coverage of that meeting. we will keep you updated. we will return live now to that discussion on the economic stimulus package with remarks from harvard economics professor robert barro. he is taking questions from the audience now. >> the expansion of the fed balance sheet, the numbers are

completely unrealistic -- could you describe the policy implications and how the various tools compare? >> devry start with the physical stuff, you can think -- if i start with the physical stuff, you can think of that expenditure side, and i focus on purchases and services as opposed to the tax side. you can think about increasing expenditures or reducing taxes. on the tax side, as i tried to stress earlier, i think my estimates, which are kind of summarize with a tax multiplier with the size of 1.1, are not too different from the rubber- rubber numbers. that makes it clear that the effectiveness in the short-run is greater on the tax side than on the spending side. christina romer, who was using

her estimates, i think she is relying on the big macro- economic models. it is you spend in multiples at two. if you think the tax multiplier is at 1.5, you get the reverse answer. i've tried to argue why the results are not reliable. it is more complicated than that. if you think that the multiplier is one half, that is basically, in the short-run, when you have deficit financing. you cannot have deficit financing forever. as people are aware, the public debt has been growing at an astronomical rate. assuming no big cuts in public expenditures, it is going to mean higher taxes, which

everyone thinks is coming. the verdict on the spending side is even worse than the multiplier of a half. that would mean you have to pay 50 cents on the dollar. if you think the spending was great stuff, you might think that is a great deal. i do not know that the material in the fiscal stimulus package is great stuff. it was driven on keynesian grounds. if it was useful, 50 cents on the dollar would not look so bad. it is a bigger problem in the long run. in the long run, you have to raise the taxes, and when you raise the taxes, you get the tax multipliers kicking in, which means you will have lower gdp. in a long-run, you get even lower gdp, different from the shore-run result, which makes it looks like a much worse deal to

have higher expenditures. that would be on the fiscal side. on the monetary side, which is a different topic, what i set about the federal reserve, i did not highlighted in the analysis, but i have a monetary variable in those systems. it is based on the credit side and looking at the kind of distortions in the credit markets based on a differential between something like a bee- rated corporate bond, and a u.s. treasury security. when that spread gets large, it is an indicator that there is something seriously malfunctioning in the credit markets pith that variable takes on this page in the 1930's by far. it is highest in the post-world war ii. . -- era. the next highest would be in the

1980's. it was not quite as big, and not quite as bad. i was holding fixed the credit channel, which would to some extent be related to monetary policy, although i am not bring in not all of the channels. there is that the factor that was a bit negative contributor to gdp growth, one we had -0.9% growth. i think it makes sense for the federal reserve to have an aggressive reaction to the financial crisis and the recession. part of that is a customary, monetary policy with sharp cuts and nominal interest rates, and some more direct quantitative things about open market operations and such. the thing that has surprised me about bernanke and the fred --

and the fed, is they are very heavily concentrated on mortgage-backed securities. i did not understand why the fed wanted to get into that business. you are talking about $1 trillion worth of stuff. the balance sheet looks like a development bank. somehow, it is making political decisions about where to be investing. i think this is a compromise in the fed's authority. what do i know. a recent bill, the fed's authority seemed to have increased. i did not follow that part of it. the thing to understand is you have to go back to bernanke's background where he did a lot of research on the great depression and the role of the credit channel in the great depression. the last thing he ever wanted to be is be in charge during another great depression.

i am not convinced that everything you do is making it less probable you will get a depression-like outcome correcting some of the steps to counter-productive. -- outcome. i think some of the steps are counter-productive. >> i am from the cato institute. you mentioned conversations about the causality between non- defense purchases and gdp. did you actually get into the issue of thinking there causality was right? i would like to get a sense of how deeply they actually believe it. >> i have not found it that easy to penetrate. an economist has one of these models. i can talk to him about things like causation and identification. in his model, he says the

movements in government purchases over a quarterly frequency could be treated as moving independently. you are attributing that to causation from the government stopped with gdp. ray gave me some reasoning as to why he thought that was reasonable, particularly in evoking the idea that the government had decision lags and implementation legs, and it cannot move very quickly. somehow, that timing will be a rationale for this assumption. i spoke to mark zandi who has one of these models with moodys. he told me that he was treating federal purchases as exogenous. he told me that state and local purchases or somehow related to movements in state and local revenue, and transfers from the federal government to the state

and local government. somehow, he was not treating those the same way. i do not see how you can identify that. i thought it made a lot of sense that he was treating state and local revenues as endogenous. i did not know what the source of identification was from that channel, if you are doing it that way. i did not know if it was driven over a federal-to-state transfers. i have not been able to pin that down. if i speak to mark more, i would ask him. i spoke to others, and there are basically the same. there is a separate statistical literature which makes the same assumption, that the movement that a quarterly frequency in the government purchases are

exogenous. they get to move first. the association would gdp is treated as causation. that is indeed academic literature. the identify assumptions are clear. i believe they are the same in the macro-economic models. i think looking at this timing, and st. this moe's first, i'm not as -- and saying this one moves first -- i'm not saying i have a better way of doing this. i do not know how did it the causation from transfers to the gdp. he did not have the usual transparencies. that is why the wartime expenditures are brilliant. the criticize some -- the criticisms -- i think the defense multipliers are probably an over-estimate. a lot of other people take the opposite do of that.

-- view of that. >> with much of the research that has been done, multipliers for gdp, has any meaningful research come out of that with respect to what is the effect of tax changes and spending both on the defense and non-defense side, on the rates of growth of productivity? >> i am not sure of the answer to that. in order to look at things like productivity growth, i guess you would want a longer-term perspective, and you would have the same identification issues that i have been describing. i do not have different results on that. a lot of the work i did on cross-country determinants are related to that question about

what produces the productivity growth and then there are various components including human capital and government intervention. from the cross-country evidence, in the longer-term, i would be able to talk about something. i do not have anything in the context of this kind of analysis, neither mine, where that i know of from other people. -- or that i know of from other people. >> thank you. i guess i have two questions. in looking at wartime expenditure increases, particularly world war ii, is there not a reason to be concerned -- a reason to be concerned that you might have had a suppression of your multiplier effects through rationing, and campaigns to increase saving whether it was bonds for the war or other ways? secondly, i'm curious about whether there is a correlation

between your defense spending growing variable, and the ramy variable, and what would happen if you left it out? >> part of the paper is devoted to various issues about how the wartime defense multiplier relates to non-defense. world war ii is certainly a time of unusual intervention by the government into the economy. the item that is usually focused on is the rationing of private outlays, both consumer expenditures, and private outlays. purchases of consumer goods, including automobiles, were heavily rationed. there are other forces on the other side. at the same time, the government is telling companies to do the same thing in terms of production, but producing tanks in stead of cars, they are also

drafting 10 million people into the messaging into the military. that is part of the gdp. -- into the military. that is part of gdp. another force is trying to look at labor supply behavior, especially during world war two. the basic argument is you cannot explain it with the basic price and income defects. if you look at wages and other variables, you cannot do it. work effort is much higher during world war two than you can explain in the normal manner. he thinks about that as an outward chef, having to do with patriotism. -- shift, having to do with patriots impaired that makes sense, but and i found it pretty can reach eight patriots. -- patriotism.

i found it to be pretty reasonable. he made a list of these various elements. our view is that the forces that make the multiplier to large, are more important than the ones that make it too small. i do not have definitive evidence on that. it is not at all obvious that we should focus on this one rationing channel, which is what paul krugman talks about in the context of world war ii. i agree it is a force, but by no means the only force. if i did not have to rely on the wartime-driven defense expenditure moments, which have these other characteristics, i would not. i would be happy to rely on the non-defense. they appear to be more serious than the inferences you get from the defense part. on the correlation between our variable and the ramy, the

correlation has to be different. 1940 and 1950 are especially important examples of variation. the previous work we did, did not have that variable unit, because we did not have that data. the main resolve that was effective by the inclusion of the variable was the slack based on the unemployment rate is -- rate. we did find this keynesian like channel. that fact disappeared once we held constant for variable. it is clear why it is disappearing. i think you get a lot more information on that from canada. there's a lot more going on in that time when these variables

are moving around, from 1939 to 1941. we have the data from australia and we would get more information about that. maybe. >> karen parker, from the heritage foundation. a lot of people are discussing the effect of regulatory uncertainty on the economy. i am wondering what your thoughts are as far as that sort of overcoming the positive effects of stimulus, and how that might be incorporated into your model. >> my casual impression is that there has been a lot of uncertainty about various things in the current economic climate. i thought about that more on the fiscal side. there is a lot of uncertainty about what the size of the future government will look like, what will happen to taxes, how much will they go up, will

be the form of the taxation -- i think there is all lot of uncertainty there. i am not lost on the regulatory side. i find it convincing that there is a lot of uncertainty. in principle, that would fit into this kind of analysis. this is consistent with the christina romer-romer argument. you do not have to have everything in the equation to explain gdp growth. you are trying to hold that the things that you have left out are separate from the forces you are concentrating on. that is the same argument when looking at tax multiplier effects. i thought that was correct. on the regulatory side, the question is not is it important, but as the fiscal side go together with the things i am focusing the. i do not think it confounds it.

more importantly, the results that we get on the fiscal side are not much effected by whether or not you hold that constant, because it is mostly separate from that. >> i am a free-lance correspondent. first, professor barrels, thank you for coming. i think -- professor barro, thank you for coming. i would ask this, in peace time, what would be the effect of spending of the gdp the following year, respectively? thank you.

>> for this point, the only reliable estimates that i have, and driven by these results are the multipliers that i estimate in that context. if i am trying to extrapolate what is the death -- defect of non-defense government purchases, and plenteous the multipliers on the defense side, which is something like 0.4 or 0.5 during the year. if you keep those multiples for another year, you get an additional multiplier of 0.2. since i do not have anything more reliable, and the non- defense part, i will use what i get from the defense part. on the tax side, i have different estimates. those will tell a similar story. [unintelligible]

>> that is what i'm saying. since i did not have direct estimates of civilian expenditures, my best estimate it is the same as the defense side. i think if anything, the defense multiplier is too large in terms of the extrapolation to non- defense. that is what i would be using. i am hoping that, for example, in this current study that i'm going on new deal expenditures, they will be able to get a more direct estimates to non-defense government spending. that is the time in u.s. history when the outlays are the most dramatic, and they vary from one state to the other. there might be enough information to get something reliable. i should also note that i am taking the approach that the

long-term data can be used in a single framework to isolate the kind of estimates you want. some people think that whatever is the last year, 2010, or 2009, that you cannot use anything before that, in which case, we're never want to know everything -- anything. maybe that is right. yes. up here. >> please forgive me, sir. i'm a bit embarrassed ask this question. i'm a poor, simple practitioner. i am not clear how you answer the question of today's session, do we need a stimulus, and what you think will happen if we get one, or if we do not get one? >> i have tried to apply the

results i have to leave out the way in the first stimulus package. -- i have tried to apply the results to evaluate the first stimulus package. if you have focused on the tax side, particulate, over a year or two, you would be much better off on the expenditure side. if you look at the magnitude of the fiscal stimulus, it cannot possibly have had a major effect, one way or the other on what has happened to gdp in 2009 and 2010. it is not big enough. even if you think the multiplier is a crazy thing, which i think the administration thinks. you're asking me about a second round of its fiscal stimulus package of fiscal stimulus? of course, i would have a negative view of that.

if you're try to stimulate the economy in the short run, i would say you're better off on the tax side, and it is better to cut tax rates, rather than throwing money at people. i have some additional evidence i did not talk about here today, which bears on that question. it is a mistake not to extend the tax reform of 2003. frankly, i was not a big fan of the bush administration. i think they did a lot of things wrong, mostly in terms of expanding the size of the federal government, a very different from the clinton in that regard. the best thing they did was a 2003 tax reform. i think it had a favorable effect on the economy in the years following 2003. if you reverse all that now, which is a part of current proposals, that would have a negative effect on gdp growth. i have estimates about those

kinds of things. >> following up on that question, you mentioned two thousand three. during -- 2003, during that time, post september 11, there was quite a bit of stimulation as far as nationalism. people were interested. we were afraid, and we're also interested in thwarting the enemy, or finding out who the enemy was. when you say stimulus is not a big component of that further or -- fervor, or excitement, enthusiasm, patriotism reject all those things that were incumbent upon winning -- all of those things that were incumbent upon winning world war two, is in the best interest for our

president to somehow come up with a promotional campaign to drive this overall stimulus that we're looking for? >> it reminds me of gerald ford with the wicked-inflation and now a button. i cannot say that is not relevant, but i am pretty sure it is not my expertise. i did find it convincing from malden's research that there was something missing in explaining labor in world war two. it is not that i know a lot about patriotism, or that i have done a lot of analysis, but i did find it convincing. if you would ask me about things coming after 2001 that are different, i would have thought about things like they're being a big international threat. what we are doing in afghanistan and iraq might have something to

do with these threats. through that mechanism, it could be an investment and economic growth. i would think about those kinds of defects which and other variables i have included, and are also related to the events of 2001. fervor, i would be happy to look at research related to that, but it is nothing i can contribute to, i suppose. i do not think there is a lot of that right now. i think i would probably have to stop. -- at think i probably have to stop. that is what i am told. [laughter] [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> barack did not comments on

the economy. as we take a look at the step bill -- wrapping up comments on the economy, and as we take a look at the stimulus, those are the figures as of july 14. we have a special web page set up. you can find hearings, speeches, analysis, and links to outside organizations tracking of money. from the "washington post" this , this headline, long before an eruption of gas turned a deep water horizon into a fireball, an alarm system designed to alert the crew had been deliberately disabled.

the former chief electronic technician testified. michael williams is survived by jumping from the burning rate said the explanation he got was that the leadership of the rig did not want crew members needlessly awakened during the middle of the night. the story appeared during hearings. you can see that on our website. you can also see brief scenes of the incident, federal and local hearings, and behind-the-scenes looks at the recovery. >> as the senate prepares to debate the energy bill, find out about previous bills with c- span's the video library. look up a bill, and watch previous debates on the house

and senate for -- floor. it is free, and it is washington, your way. >> this weekend, saturday, the eagle forum collegiate summit with a discussion of libertarian and conservative ideas a on " after words" other about her new book on coming to the united states and what she left behind. sunday, the roosevelt reading festival. a weekend filled with non- fiction books on c-span to. for the complete schedule, go to booktv.org. >> sees that, our public affairs content is available on television, radio, and online,

and sign up for our e-mails at c-span.org. >> this year marks the 20th anniversary of the americans with disabilities act. this hearing concludes steny hoyer, who played key role in getting the bill through the 1990's. this is just over two and a half hours. we call this meeting to order. we have four palace. i will begin with an opening statement. this hearing back member is the 20th anniversary of the american with disabilities act of 1990.

heralded at its signing as an emancipation proclamation for people with disabilities, but the goals are lofty, and it is what has made this nation great. through broad nondiscrimination directives, and requirements of reasonable modifications, the ada has transformed our world. some of those are visible with wider doors, designated parking spots, and with today's hearing, closed captioning. the statement is also happening because of the increased actions.

did and misguided police have been challenged and changed. while we still have a long way to go, the passage of the act is yet another mark. we responded to the supreme court's unduly narrow definition of the war disability, and reaffirm our commitment to focus on abilities -- the ability to do a job, or fried in a community-based setting, rather than the degree or -- or to thrive in a community-based setting. we have much to celebrate. we also know we have not yet reached the finish line. as you hit today, we must receive -- as you will hear today, we must continue to end the on necessary -- and not necessary stabilization of --

she maintained in that neighborhood for three years. shares of the committee-based placement were shares threat. the promise should not -- should -- the problem should not depend on luck. the supreme court declared that on this theory insist -- institution those asian the violates. thousands of individual -- alization.n those asi work to make public transit systems and brick and mortar projects successful remains unfinished. 20 years after they acquired readily achievable standards, many facilities remain

inaccessible. while we have made great strides in our public transit system, significant gaps remain. continued noncompliance with titles two and three of the ada is not excusable. we should rightly reject any measure that threatens the 88. the promise of action and integration. even as we press forward, we cannot lose sight of the need to ensure the evolving technologies are also accessible. in the 20 years since the passage, technology has revolutionized the way we work, shop, and socialize. we have yet to see their full potential realized. during a subcommittee hearing this past spring, we urge the department of justice to issue regulations and additional guidance to achieve greater compliance with the equal access obligation with regard to

the internet and other evolving technology. i hope we hear more today about the department put the plans to do so. as we celebrate our progress, and set our sights on the challenges that remain, i would like to take a moment to thank my colleagues. he first introduced the restoration act in the 109th congress, and worked with the majority leader, representative steny hoyer, who was one of the aba code the greatest champions. where other to have him here with us today to ensure passage. the full judiciary committee favorably reported that bill by unanimous vote. for those of you that i'm not familiar with this committee, full agreement on anything with this committee is, to say the least, unusual. i think the ranking member for his leadership, and i think all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for setting aside our

differences on other issues and coming together. our collaboration which was passed by an overwhelming majority of the house, illustrates a bipartisan commitment to achieving full civil rights for americans with disabilities, some of us -- some of them who are with us today to share their stories. it shows that when we can lay aside our differences for a common purpose, we can achieve great things. i look forward to hearing from the witnesses today, and working toward a day when the full promise of the ada is finally achieved. i yield back, and i will now recognize the distinguished ranking member. >> thank you, mr. chairman. 20 years ago, this country took a significant step forward in a eliminating the barriers that far too long kept a disabled americans from fully participating in everything the american dream has to offer. prior to the americans with disabilities act of 1990,

disabled americans faced not only physical barriers and almost all aspects of society, but also added to no burials. moreover, because state laws were adequate to protect -- were ill-equiped to protect disabled americans, it perpetuated stereotypes. as a result, and disabled americans experienced lower graduation and employment rates, a less personal freedom and independence. the ada and acted, on july 26 -- broke this this is to reach a vicious cycle. -- of this vicious cycle. as a result of the ada, fewer citizens are judged by their physical and mental impairments, and now evaluated according to their character and qualifications. in the last congress, i work

with the majority leader to achieve the enactment of the 88 amendments act of 2008, which met -- through the 88th amendments act of 2008, which served to a limit the problem of the courts focusing too heavily on whether individuals are covered by the law, rather than on whether discrimination occurred. my wife, who was then chairman of the board of the american association for people with disabilities, and is with me today, was dogged in her advocacy for that legislation. when she got people to commend for co-sponsoring, and they came up to me what second thoughts, i told them to call her. none of them did congress intended for the ada to extend its broad protection and clean

-- in places including a public, the -- including public accommodations. equal changes in societal attitudes were starting to occur, particularly as it relates to the educational and employment opportunities of disabled americans. increase educational and in plymouth opportunities have allowed disabled americans to experience a higher graduation rates, higher employment rates, and lower rates of poverty than ever before because of the ada, disabled citizens no longer live in impoverished areas. our witnesses include a young man that suffered a disability at the age of eight, and let's come of age under the ada. his is a story of integration

into schools that could not have been told if it were not for this act. it also includes a woman who has worked -- was moved to an apartment what some suss -- what some assistance. hers is a story of increased independence and for personal fulfillment that could also not have been told if it were not for the '88. the bipartisan witnesses here today include a in essence, the ada is not about statutory text sorry legal jargon. it is about individuals or exploring their own capabilities. becoming a self-sufficient is essential to human happiness. that is what the ada has made possible. it has not only made the world more accessible, it has made it a happier place.

the ada has been one of the most effective civil-rights laws ever passed by congress. this continued effectiveness is paramount to ensuring that the transformation our nation has undergone continues into the future and that the guarantees and promises upon which this country was established continue to be recognized on behalf of all of its citizens. i look forward to hearing from our witnesses today and yield back the balance of my time. >> i now recognize the opening statement of the gentleman from virginia. >> in 1990, then president george h. w. bush signed the americans with disabilities act into law. it was the greatest leap forward

in civil-rights since president johnson signed the civil rights act in 1965. it has been a tremendous success, and as a result of the ada, many millions more americans are actively participating in the work force. businesses are required to make reasonable accommodations whenever feasible to allow citizens with disabilities to participate in active life. 64 organizations called an organization -- formed an organization called invest. they protect individuals in virginia from discrimination based on disability. i was in the virginia legislature when we dealt with this. we continue to grapple with what is a reasonable accommodation. we worked through all of those

issues, and in 1985 the virginians with disabilities act was signed into law. today, the act protect nearly 1 million citizens in the commonwealth of a virginia. it encourages persons with disabilities to participate fully and equally in social and economic life, as well as protecting virginians with disabilities from discrimination in employment, housing, voting and other places. it precedes the americans with disabilities act by five years, and many of the concept of this act informed the 88. -- the ada. the americans with disabilities act of 1990 was enacted to protect all americans from discrimination on the basis of disability. i am proud that we are able to look back on the passage of the

americans with disabilities act and recognize the importance of this legislation and the changes made in american society, but our work is not yet done. the law must continue to evolve. we must continue to revisit the ada and to examine whether it is accomplishing its purpose. where we find that it is not, we must be willing to make changes. one recent example occurred in the last congress when we passed the americans with disabilities act amendment of 2008, which was assigned by george w. bush and went into effect into the asinine. this restored the ada to congress as original intent by clarifying the coverage of anyone with disabilities and over rowling -- overruling a

court decision that anyone with a disability would list their aid it simply because the treatment was available. we hope that this kind of determination and cooperation will continue into the future so that individuals with disabilities will be able to maintain employment without fear of being discriminated against because of their disabilities. i look forward to hearing from our witnesses today. >> without objection, we submit the opening statements for inclusion into the record. we have just been joined by the gentleman from tennessee. he will be recognized for a brief opening statement. >> thank you. when i was been the state alleges -- when i was in the state legislature, i helped to passed the ada act of tennessee.

i think about great that bill is and how necessary it was, and how callous it was of people to think that we did not need to pass such a bill. in all cases, there but for the grace of god go i.. everyone should have access to the kind of opportunities that this country offers. if you are in a wheelchair, you need to have a curb cuts. as a child, i had polio. that is something that happens. you either get the virus or you do not. there's nothing new. it is a lottery of life. we ought to protect this like insurance. it is a great insurance and that the american government can give. i appreciate what the ada does for people, and i am happy to be here. i yield back the remainder of my time.

>> i am pleased to enter is to go of our esteemed colleagues, steny hoyer of the maryland senate, now serving his 15th term in the house, the longest serving member of the house of representatives from maryland and history. he is known for guiding the landmark americans with disabilities act of 1990 and he is continue to fight for the rights of the disabled. congressman jim langdon -- jim langovan represents rhode island. in 1994, he became secretary of state and rhode island and served there until his first

election to congress in 2000. he is a member of the house foreign services committee and chair of the strategic subcommittee. users on the committee a select intelligence and on the house committee of the budget -- he serves on the committee of the select intelligence and on the house committee on the budget. >> i appreciate the opportunity to be here. the green light is on. am i on? i appreciate the opportunity to be there -- to be here. i am also -- >> could you move the microphone closer? >> there? i am still pleased to be here. i was speaking about two giants

in the promotion of the americans with disabilities act through its passage and the continuing focus to make sure that its promise was realized. i appreciate both of them for their help. it was a bipartisan bill. i want to, of course, mention senator kennedy who is no longer with us but was essential in passing the bill. senator harkin was the principal coordinator of the efforts in the senate. john conyers was so important in the passage of this bill. everybody has mentioned attorney general thornburgh. he and his wife are both giants in the support of the education of so many of us and the challenge confronting those with disabilities. it has been mentioned over and over again that this is an

historic time, 20 years, two decades since the passage of the americans with disabilities act. the first president bush signed into law one of the greatest leap and civil-rights legislation in history. it has been called the most significant civil rights legislation in 25 years, since the passage in 1965 of the civil rights act. the ceremony in the south line -- at the ceremony on the south lawn of the white house, president bush said that with the signing of this bill, every man, woman and child could now passed through once closed doors into a bright era of quality, independence and freedom. he was right. those stories certainly have come open. tens of millions of americans with disabilities now enjoy

rights the rest of us have long taken for granted, the right to use the same street, theaters, restaurants, offices, the right to prove themselves in the workplace, to focus on the content of their character and their abilities, not their disabilities, to succeed on their talent and drive alone. we all understand why there are cuts in the sidewalk. there are kneeling buses, elevators on the metro, ramps, handicap restaurants and parking almost everywhere. it did everyone is a sign of a pledge, the promise of america that excludes none of its people from its spirit of equal opportunity. in our declaration of independence we said that all men and all women were created

equal and endowed by their creator with certain, unalienable rights, among them life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. on a regular basis, america has had to look at the promise of 1776 and say it was not living out the pledge of that promise, whether it was in the civil war when we realize that african- americans were not treated in a manner consistent with the promise, or whether it was in the early part of last century when we recognized that we had not lived out the promise we made, or when we said in the 1950's that not withstanding constitutional amendments or a civil war, we were still discriminating on the basis of the color of skin. so in 1964 and 65 -- 1964 and

1965 we adopted new laws and has since had to remind ourselves the we have not always live up to the promise of that pledge. again in 1990, we reaffirmed that to the pursuit of happiness should be opened in america to all, and that we ought to facilitate that pursue to all, regardless of many challenges they have. this is an example of how much we can accomplish when republicans and democrats, business leaders and advocates worked together for the strength of ideals that unite us as americans. this was not simply a set of rules, it was a set of principles. we strengthened and the ada and

returned it to its original intent bypassing the ada amendment. those amendments said to the supreme court and to all americans that we need to focus on discrimination, not on the disability. whether disabled or perceived to be disabled, it was discriminated against on that basis, that is against the law. we stated and reemphasized that proposition. again, with strong support, that bill was passed by president bush's son. how fitting that father and son were able to sign the original act and the confirmation of that act. we announced that we made the house rotunda accessible for the

first time. i mentioned in the press conference that john grogan, the famous singer that many of you know, sings a song, "you left me up." you left me uift me the last line of that song is, "you lift me up to more than what i can be." i said in a press conference today, that jim langovan will be lifted up by mechanical device, which under the statute, is

called a reasonable accommodation, because he has made his way here by intellect and by character. until just a couple of months ago, that was not accessible. how joyous all of us will be when he is lifted up to preside over the house of representatives. all americans and people around the world can see that america does not believe that there ought to be barriers to precipitation -- to participation and inclusion. we wanted to open up and make clear that america is a land of opportunity, not just for some, not just for white men, but for people of all colors, of all races, of all nationalities, a ball distinctions -- of all distinctions that were not

related to ability and character. jim will preside on july 26th, 2010, two decades after the passage of the americans with disabilities act. the ada is still a work in progress. we continue to pursue the pledge that was made in 1776 regarding the pursuit of happiness. this committee, more than most, and this subcommittee, more than most, is ever vigilant to seek the full realization of that promise. thank you for that. americans with disabilities are still disproportionately less likely to have a job and more likely to be poorer than their

fellow americans. many still struggle to get equal treatment in the classroom, to find work, or to have access to public facilities. changing technologies proposed -- changing technologies pose accessibility to challenge -- pose new accessibility challenges. -- mr. conyers, we honor your presence here today. none have been discriminated against more than you.

thank you very much. i am honored to be here with all of you. >> ranking member sensenbrenner, chairman conyers, let me say what a privilege it is for me to be sitting next to majority leader hoyer, a true visionary leader and champion of the americans with disabilities act. many of us a nearly forgotten an era in which it was commonplace for a person to be denied employment because she was blind or unable to attend university because he was in a wheelchair. it was only a generation ago when a society treated citizens with disabilities as second-

class citizens. as a member of the house of representatives and someone who has lived with the challenges of a disability both before and after the ada, i have experienced firsthand about the effect of the changes this law and acted on our society. i was paralyzed over 30 years ago at the age of 16. my life changed forever. as i leave the hospital bed, and wondered what life could possibly have in store for me. what opportunities would have in life? how would i find my path knowing the challenges ahead? i drew inspiration from other people with disabilities who had gone on to accomplish things in their own lives. they taught me that there was life after disability. i was also incredibly lucky to have the support of my family and my community.

of course, my deep faith in god but it through one of the most challenging times in my life. along with that, the generosity of my family and community ultimately led me to go back to rhode island for a career in public service. for many individuals with disabilities, there were not as lucky. for all of us, the ada has been a profoundly life altering law that has provided new opportunities and fundamentally changed the way society views people with disabilities. changing the hearts and minds of the nation only comes with extraordinary leadership. i would like to take a moment once again to recognize my colleague as someone who has also been a mentor, house majority leader steny hoyer. 20 years ago he was instrumental in passing the

americans with disabilities act. he was instrumental in passing the single most important civil rights law in our country's history. let it say to steny that i will never forget that is largely thanks to your leadership and i am here serving in congress today. of course, he was not alone in his vision to guarantee equal rights for the disabled. he was joined by many in the disabilities community, a civil- rights pioneers, senators like senator kennedy and senator harkin, and that ranking member of this committee, jim

sensenbrenner. they all played a distinct role in the passage of the 88 which codified the collective ideals that no one should -- of the 80 , which caused by the collective ideals that no one should suffer discrimination because of a disability. we can walk through progress even today in the halls of congress. when i arrived at the house, changes had to be made to accommodate my service. under speaker policies and leadership, i have been overwhelmed by the -- under speaker nancy pelosi's leadership, i have been overwhelmed by the bipartisan effort to make the entire floor

accessible. on monday, and have the pummeling honor of presiding over the house of representatives -- i will have the humbling honor of presiding over the house of representatives for the first time. i may be the first quadriplegic to serve in congress, but i will not be the last. i am so excited for all of the individuals who will come after me. i hope that i will serve as an inspiration to all that we can always overcome challenges, always overcome obstacles, and that we can reach new heights. we just need the tools to do it. it is more important than ever that we connect citizens with resources to create more employment opportunities. our work is not yet done until disabilityon with a delu can work and wants to work can

find a job. we must focus on development so that families have the means to become productive members of their communities. we need to inform individuals with disabilities of their rights under the ada and what resources are available should they face discrimination at any level. we have come so far, but of course we have much more work ahead of us. people with disabilities have the unique ability to unite us in common purpose. we could provide the means for every individual to realize their true promise. in, and the on this 20th anniversary -- i am confident that on this 20th anniversary of the americans with disabilities act, there is a better and

stronger america at a bus. i yield back. >> -- a better and stronger america ahead of us. i yield back. >> thank you, and thank you for being here. if there are no further questions, you are excused with our thanks and we will move on to the second panel. >> i am very pleased that you are holding this important hearing on the americans with disabilities act and its impact 20 years following its passage. i want to join my colleagues in appreciating the testimony of our first panel of witnesses. i think it is really important the we take the time to recognize this milestone and celebrate the good work that is happening across the country to remove barriers and improve the lives of americans with disabilities. i do hope that by celebrating his anniversary we can refocus on the work that lies still

ahead. i do want to extend my special banks to the -- special thanks to the wisconsin coalition for advocacy and to the numerous wisconsin organizations which have been instrumental in promoting fall -- full implementation of the ada across the state of wisconsin. we could not have made the strides we have made without their very hard work and attention. i also want to recognize the american association of people with disabilities and thank them for their summer internship program here on capitol hill for students with disabilities. my office was placed with an interim through this program who has been an incredible asset to the work that we do. she is also a fellow smithy, my alma mater, and i have been pleased to get to know her a little bit, and i am glad she is in the audience today.

i would like to ask that my full statement be submitted for the record. i will close by thanking you, mr. chairman, for holding this hearing. i hope it will enable us to take the next ensuring that all americans with disabilities are able to lead: fulfilling lives. i yield back my further time. >> in the interest of proceeding to our witnesses, i ask the other members of the their statements to the record. our next witness previously served as the secretary of maryland's department of labor and regulation which protect a wide range of consumer rights laws.

he was a member of the montgomery county council. he spent 12 years in public service, most with the attorneys civil-rights decision -- division. he received a bachelor's degree from brown university, a master's a public policy from the john f. kennedy school of government, and a doctorate from harvard law school. i am pleased to welcome you. before we began, it is the procedure of this committee to swear in witnesses. will you please raise your right hand? do you swear that the testimony you're about to give it is true to the best of your knowledge and belief? the witness has answered in the affirmative.

please proceed. >> thank you. i want to thank mr. stannum runner for being inconsistent -- the ranking member for being a consistent leader in this issue. i also want to thank mr. thornburgh for, among other things, giving me my first job in 1989. he also has a wife who has been a champion of disability rights. thank you to all of you and too many others. the passage of a 88 was a model of bipartisan efforts to advance -- of the ada was a

model of bipartisan efforts to advance the greater good. at the civil rights division we have used all the tools in our arsenal to give full force and meaning to the ada. we have filed lawsuits to obtain critical relief in a number of cases. we have also created a robust technical assistance program that have helped millions of people understand the ada. we answer one belsen calls from businesses, government officials, -- 1000 calls from businesses, government officials and concerned citizens. our website has received millions of hits. we have resolved complaints more effectively, efficiently and equitably since january of 2001. we were cooperative way with local governments to identify areas and develop plans of compliance. we have reached over 180 agreements to date.

we continue to use our regulatory authority to give full force and bringing to the ada. we will soon be publishing four advanced notices of proposed rulemaking seeking public comment on establishing accessibility requirements for website, movie theaters, medical equipment and 911 call taking technology. as so many people have pointed out, we have indeed accomplished a lot. as my former boss senator kennedy often said, civil rights is the unfinished business of america, and disability rights is no exception. one of the biggest challenges we face is the unnecessary institutional is asian of people with disabilities. for so many people with this -- lization of peoplesia with disabilities. this deprives them of the

ability to make some basic decisions of their lives. it violates the '88. this has been a top priority -- it violates the ada and has been a top priority of this office. we have filed lawsuits in several states and intervened in the case in new york. we have been involved in the case in florida where we obtained a favorable ruling for a person with a disability who was living at home and the only way she could continue to live in a bomb, according to the state, was to go to a nursing home -- continue to live in a house, according to the state, was to go to a nursing home. that made no sense to us, and fortunately, it made no sense to the court. we found ways to make lives easier for people with disabilities, but new technologies have also opposed significant challenges.

it is in the position of the department the title iii of the applies to the website. we are in seeking input on this issue, but we are not waiting to enforce this. the amazon kindle was not fully accessible for people with disabilities. we worked together with the department of education to issue a letter to all colleges and universities nationwide asking them to voluntarily refrain from using any devices that are not accessible to all students. we still confront hardened attitudes and blatant discrimination, such as a an attorney who refused to allow a prospective client to bring her guide dog into his office or an refused toat a

allow an hiv-positive child to use the swimming pool or shower facilities. we have made a lot of progress, but regrettably, we have a lot of work ahead. i am proud to serve with the dedicated career professionals and the department of justice to in the fine tradition of attorney general thornburgh and all who have followed him, have made enforcement of the americans with disabilities act a top priority. thank you for your time. i am happy to answer any questions you may have. >> we will begin questioning by recognizing myself for five minutes. it said that the department will soon issue regulations to address new issues that have come up. we pressed your deputy on this issue in our april hearing. could you give us more detail on your current timeline in issuing those upcoming regulations and

include clarification and confirmation of the department but so long standing position that title iii applied to websites? >> we will very soon be issuing the four advanced notices of rulemaking. does apply to the issues of accessible -- those applied to the issues of accessibility for web sites, captioning in movie theaters, medical equipment. a person with a disability cannot access the doctor's office or a medical equipment, we need to address that. also, the next generation of 911 call taking technology. we're getting input on all of those areas. i hope we can complete this work

in the very near future on the broader title ii, title iii, all of the disability regulations that you mentioned. i assure you that i have people behind me have been working feverishly and many more who cannot be here because they continue to work feverishly because we recognize the critical importance of this issue. >> in addition to website, you mentioned other technology in your statement including e- readers, kiosks and cell phones. >> technology should be the best friend of a person with disabilities. >> that is my next question. will the guidance of technology continue to evolve? >> we certainly hope so, and that is why we are looking to the public for comment. we want to make these regulations and during documents that can survive the evolution of technology -- enduring

documents that can survive the evolution of technology. >> there was a hearing on olmstead in the june. we heard from a witness who positive incomes and have -- positive outcomes in housing could be achieved without institutional care. would you agree with that? >> absolutely. we have a lawsuit pending against georgia. i personally met with the governor of georgia to talk above their compliance. creating sustainable housing is a critical component. if you move people into the community, you have to have the community infrastructure. >> there is a case in front of the mayor of new york that you

might consider meeting about. >> we have a pulp docket of cases, including one involving of we have a full docket cases, including one involving the fired part of new york city, and the one that you -- the fire department of new york city, and the one that you mentioned. >> [unintelligible] >> when you look at the cases that we're doing across the country, georgia for instance, we would not be able to be where we are without the help of the pna. we recognize that they must serve the role in many cases of

a private attorney general. i wholeheartedly concur with your statement. >> lastly, with regard to the involve class-en action suits. do think the class action is an effective way to bring these cases? is there anything about how these cases are being brought to you would recommend changing? >> we have been using a number of tools in the law enforcement arsenal to address these cases. some have been individuals. some have been institutionalized. -- institution-wide. i feel we're well-equipped to address the issues except the that they exist in so many cases across the country. >> thank you very much. my time is expired. i now recognize the

distinguished chairman of the full committee for five minutes. >> thank you very much. we appreciate all of your hard work. you sent me this process and procedure for beginning the regulatory process to get a lot in motion -- get the law in motion. as we all know, the law cannot be effective until the regulations are provided as guides for all involved. could you go through what you sending -- what you sent me?

>> this is basically a to do list from the ada regulatory front. the first is implementing title ii of the american disabilities act. that applies to state and local governments. title iii is the public accommodations peace. we are feverishly working on those and hope to complete them as soon as possible. the final of thing on that list are on the issue of better accessibility. if you are applying for a job these days, in most places, people apply online. if you're a person with a disability and the website is not accessible, it is hard to get the job. the anprm is an acronym that basically is an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking.

what we're seeking is public in but -- been put on the case -- input and the case of website, what people think about how website should be regulated. that will inform our judgment and putting forth a notice of proposal. when you put up these advance notices of proposed rulemaking, it ensures that the notice of proposed rulemaking that comes out later is more fully informed. >> we wanted you to talk to about the challenges of title ii and title iii, how the government would be involved in

ii, and how public accommodations would be involved in iii. >> the challenges and title ii include -- there are so many states where we have seen people with disabilities who are unnecessarily institutionalized. we have these challenges across the country. the volume of work is remarkable. >> what you are saying is that there are so many people warehoused in institutions at the state and local level, right? >> there are people of all ages and unnecessarily institutionalized. in the georgia case, there was a 14 year-old girl with the

psychiatric issue. she could have lived in the community, but in the absence of community infrastructure, she was in an institution. one of the side-effects of her medication was that made her constipated. because she was not treated properly, quite literally, her bowels imploded and she died. she did not have to die, but she did. that is an example of what happens when we have situations like this. we are talking about real people overcoming barriers, but we're also talking about real people who have lost their lives. >> so there is a problem of old people and the wrong people being institutionalized, and we're trying to get to that with

title ii? >> yes that is one thing being used. we are also working very closely with the department of health and human services to use the medicaid program and other funding streams so that we can promote care and treatment in community-based setting's instead of institutional settings. i testified recently before a senate committee about this. money is a great point of leverage. >> some of us are thinking about approaching chairman mailer about hearing on this area of the disability laws because we need to shine a spotlight on impact. maybe we will do that. i am understand the need to seek

additional input. can you make sure that basically the legal principle -- that the basic legal principle, the title ii and iii require accessible technology like website is issued maybe even sooner than most of the ranks? >> we're working very hard on this and i assure you that we believe technology is critical. we are working on all fronts making these advance notice proposals accessible. we are also working with existing cases, like the kindle case. >> i think we will be able to get one more question in before

we have to recess for votes. i will recognize the gentleman from north carolina. >> in the unlikely event that we will be able to excuse the witness before the next vote, i just want to make a comment about having been across the hearing about unemployment and how we address that -- across the hall at hearing about unemployment and how we address that. i am delighted the lead it made it back here to hear the testimony of steny hoyer and our colleague jim langovan, and how inspiring that has been. it sounds like the department of justice has its hands full doing this work. with that, i yield back. >> the gentleman from virginia

is recognized. >> when we passed the bill in virginia, one of the constant refrains was the question of what is a reasonable accommodation. do you have issues with that same question? >> yes. >> what parameters diaz said in -- do you set in the idea of being reasonable? >> the determination a court has to make is whether the expense become so credibly -- supper inevitably -- so prohibitively

expensive to make it unreasonable. we have had success making entire communities accessible through our project so that access and other programs. >> many facilities were grandfathered because they were built before 1990. are we having problems with the fact that they are not compliant? >> we sometimes have challenges in the communities. we have older structures. we have worked very hard and provided technical assistance. it has been our experience the communities want to come into compliance even if there is not a statutory mandate. we have architects that are actually on staff in our disabilities rights section. there but to robust use -- they

are put to a robust use for many things, including stadiums. >> does the department charge for that advice? >> i do not know the answer to that. >> in terms of employment is incrimination -- employment discrimination, are you endorsing religious discrimination as well? for example, are we still allowing federal contractors to practice religious discrimination if they call themselves faith-based? >> we have a number of cases. there is a case -- it is not an ada case -- but a case involving people who wear a head scarf in at the workplace. we had a case in oregon where

the state of oregon had a law on discriminatedthat against religious minorities and the school context. we will continue to work on those as the facts present. >> is it the policy of the administration to allow discrimination on the basis of religion by federal people using federal money? >> it is not. >> faith based organizations sponsoring federal programs can discriminate based on religion? >> it is my understanding that many cases under review continue to be under review at the white house. i know there has been a fairly robust dialogue in that area.

>> your the assistant attorney general for civil rights? >> that is correct. there are a number of entities involved in this. >> is it possible for a faith based program to discriminate solely on the basis of religion? in other words, do have a policy that says we do not hire catholics or jews? >> we're continuing to ensure the reporter with faith based organizations in a manner that is consistent with our laws -- that we partner with eight based organizations -- faith-based organizations in a manner that is consistent with our laws. >> is that a yes or no? >> again, i am happy to convene

the appropriate people and the federal government who have been spearheading this issue to sit down and discuss the concerns that you have. we remain committed to ensuring that we partner with faith based organizations in a manner that is consistent with all of our laws? >> you cannot give a yes or no answer? >> we're committed to rooting out discrimination and to with these organizations and a way that is consistent with our laws. >> i believe the chairman is trying to rescue you from this line of questioning. >> your time has ended. >> there is some bipartisanship

here today. one person said that society is measured by how it treats those in the dawn of life, the shadows of life, and the end of life. we are discussing today those in the shadows of life. i know there is a potential disagreement. it sounded like from that discussion that you were suggesting that there might be a change in policy from this administration to the last administration regarding who could be hired. it is my understanding that there has not been a change of policy because of the long standing realization that religious organizations -- to suggest that a jewish synagogue should hire a baptist would be sort of ridiculous.

i am hoping that we have not changed the policy and that we continue to recognize religious freedom in that regard, to be able to hire based on a religious basis. i commend your effort to repeal a law that says someone could not wear a scarf in at the classroom. with that, i will deal back. -- yield back. >> we have to the votes on the floor -- two votes in the floor. we will recess this hearing and reconvene as soon as those votes are finished. we can excuse the witness. while we are gone, the next panel can take its seat at the table. this hearing is recessed until the conclusion of these votes.

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> we will now proceed with our third panel. the witness has just taken his place. in the interest of time, and will introduce him. richard thornburgh is currently council for an international law firm. previously served as governor of pennsylvania and undersecretary of the united nations. he played a leading role in the enactment of the americans with disabilities act and its implementation. he has taken a special interest in the needs of people with

disabilities. he received an award for civil rights and urban affairs. he was educated at yale and at the university of pittsburgh law school. i would also like to recognize former attorney general janet reno to send her regrets that she is not able to join us today. under her stewardship the department of justice set a standard for the various enforcement of the 88 is in place today. -- the vigorous enforcement of the ada that is in place today. now, mr. thornburgh, a rescue to summarize your testimony in a five minutes or less. will you please raise your right hand to take the oath that do

you swear the testimony you're about to give it is true and correct to the best of your knowledge and belief? let the record reflect that the witness answered in the affirmative. >> i also extend my thanks to ranking member is sensenbrenner and ask that you convey my best wishes to chairman conyers, a longtime friend and sometime adversary over the years. to have the opportunity to be here with you today to reflect on the 20th anniversary of the signing into law the americans with disabilities act. you will forgive me if i share with you today some of my own experiences and views, both professional and personal, as a longtime advocate for disability

rights. in particular, i want to focus on the role played in my life by the ada, the most important civil rights legislation since the 1960's. let me begin with the story. as some of you may know, 50 years ago, our son peter was involved in afor a considerablen after his life was very much in doubt. he suffered multiple skull fractures and extensive brain damage that would result in severe intellectual and physical disability. after six months of intense of classical -- hospital care in our hometown, he returned home just before christmas, and we began life anew. after spending three years as a single parent, i was blessed to meet a 23-year-old schoolteacher, and we were

married 46 years ago and added a fourth son to our family. she is today the director of the interfaith an issue to the the american association of people with disabilities here in washington, helping religious congregations of all faiths to identify and remove barriers to worship for people with all types of disabilities. but our most important advocacy was and is on behalf of our son, peter. today he lives in semi- independently in a supervised apartment near harrisburg, pennsylvania. he worked as a volunteer in the local food bank, where in his words, he helps poor people. he has his own circle of friends and is welcomed by his church and in many other community activities we have been proud to share his journey with him. as good fortune would have it, i have been blessed with opportunities to apply lessons learned from being peter's father in public life as well. most notably as attorney-general

of the u.s. and the cabinet of president george h. w. bush, were a sort -- served as the point man for congressional passage of the ada. the ada develop bipartisan support in the congress under pressure from the disability community and in cooperation with parents, professionals, and providers is of the need to extend the protection civil rights law to those with disabilities the bill was not a quota bill. not one designed to give special preference or set aside persons with disabilities, but was fashioned to empower them to purchase bid in the mainstream of american life. as i noted when i testified on behalf of the bush administration before this committee on october 12, 1989, the ada is fair, balanced legislation that ensures persons with disabilities in this country enjoy access to the mainstream of american life. it builds on an extensive body of statutes, case law, and regulations to avoid unnecessary

confusion that allows maximum flexibility for compliance, and it does not place undue burdens on americans who must comply. on july 26, 1990, the 80 was signed into law by president bush on a glorious summer day and a ceremony was held on the south lawn of the white house. some 3000 persons with and without disabilities and their family members looked on and cheered as president bush called to let the shameful wall of exclusion finally come tumbling down. after 20 years of the ada, we see significant changes. we see new designated parking spaces at the local convenience store, a ramp at the neighborhood movie theater, and a sign language interpublic gatherings. braille on the atm machine for elevators and hotels. most of all, persons with disabilities gaining more access to community living and to employment. although clearly not yet in the

numbers reflect the sea. employment in particular is problematic. there has been no net increase in the percentage of americans with disabilities and employed in the past 20 years. the ada has been good for people with disabilities, but more important, it has been good for america. yes, progress is being made, but it is no time to rest or savor our accomplishments. important issues remain unresolved as the ada has moved from public debate in legislative halls all the way to the u.s. supreme court. increasingly, our courts have been called upon to decide the number of issues arising for passage of the ada. while results of the next, supreme court cases, including two that i was proud to file a friend-of-the-court brief, have practice the right to people with disabilities to participate more fully in the mainstream of

american life. remedial legislative action has been undertaken, most notably in the ada amendment act of 2009, to cure anomalies arising for adverse court decisions in the field of employment law. in closing, i must tell you that when i look back upon all that has been accomplished in the passage of the ada and other laws that did all the way back to section 500 four of the rehabilitation act of 1973, i quickly come to realize that none of these statutes were on the books in 1961 our beloved son, peter, was so seriously injured. it is only during his lifetime that we have taken these giant steps forward. on behalf of all the peter thornburgh's of our nation and their families, we wish this congress godspeed in further endeavors, including the ratification in the senate and

the united nations treaty convention on disability rights. and we pay tribute to this landmark effort, this ada, which empowers all people to live as they choose in their communities. what a magnet is the way to celebrate human dignity is the 20th anniversary of the ada. thank you, mr. chairman. >> you mention your sons' lives semi-independently. what does it mean to peter that he lives in an apartment rather than a larger institutional setting? >> the means he is able to participate in this community. he is able to make decisions about his lifestyle, with the help of staff to be sure, but he's not living the regimented, compartmentalized, segmented

life that institutional care involves. one of the major challenges we had to face when i was governor of pennsylvania was the preponderant of the population of people with mental and psychiatric problems being confined and it -- in institutions. i remember very well the day when our appropriations for community-based living first exceeded the appropriations for institutionalized care. that was the day we broke out the champagne. because that was the very distinctive message sent to the people of pennsylvania. there's no question that there's some persons who require institutional care, and i know parents who have had to face up to that reality, something we had to consider in peter's case, to be honest at the time, because there was a little development of community-based care. we had the right advice and good support, and he has been able to

live a much more fuller life. >> and what does it mean to you and the rest of the family in a way beyond what it means to him? you may have answered that already. >> well, obviously, those of us who have this ability in our families become almost automatically advocates for disability rights. we learned a lot of things. we learn that disability is nothing to be ashamed of. it is part of the fabric of life. we learned of the potential that exists for using the abilities of people with disabilities without focusing strictly on their disability. we learn of the vast support network that is out there that is waiting to be utilized, and if utilize, can magnify the opportunities for people with disabilities. i think that there is a fraternity among parents and family members of people it disabilities that has few rivals in this nation. >> we sometimes hear arguments

or concerns that comply with the requirements of the ada is just too costly. the governor of pennsylvania during economically tough times. how would you respond? >> the question was about -- >> the compliance of the ada is sometimes said to be too costly. you were the governor during tough times. how would you respond? >> the bill was coming through at that time, and we heard about the additional costs it would involve. we answer that i two boys. first by personal example. when i was the attorney general, we took as our number 1 draft choice in the white house fellows that were available that year aimed then a young man, now deceased unfortunately, named paul drew. he severed an automobile accident and spinal cord injuries and had to rely on his mobile chair to get around. but if you walked into his

office, you saw this. use on his computer keyboard mounted on the wall, and his telephone mounted on the wall. in his desk raised a little bit so he could slide underneath. he used a mouth stick to utilize both of those. that was a reasonable accommodation, and it is one that made him extremely valuable. he had a harvard law degree at stanford business a degree, so he was a real professional. but in the olden times, pre-ada or pre-sensitivity to these means, he would of been a neglected resource. the second question -- i wish attorney-general reno was here, the gushy and i after five years of the ada agreed to look into the question of costs on accommodation, and we ended up writing a joint op-ed piece for the "wall street journal" to point to the average cost of most accommodations that were made less minimal.

in fact, almost de minimus, as the lawyers would say. i have advised the the average cost today has gone no higher. what it requires ingenuity and working with the person with the disability to see what their real needs are. it is not one-size-fits-all. i think it is an objection that does not play out in reality and is facetious at best. >> one final general question. what did you think congress should do next? >> the emphasis has to be on employment. it is tough not to crack the whip of the cold economic times. able-bodied people, people without disabilities, are unable to get work in many cases in spite of fast qualifications. that should not be an excuse for neglecting the initiatives that are necessary to build an economic base for people with

disabilities. i think the answer there lays in some respects in the field of technology. i am rate you and i never seen many people who have severe disabilities. an inability in some cases in this terrible policy, for example, to articulate brilliant thought. >> stephen hawking comes to mind. >> yes, exactly. there you go. there are more stephen hawking's other waiting to be developed. to the application of technology and a sensitive aid structure for those folks, they will be important contributors to our future growth. and number two, homestead. how do we further propel the movement of people from institutionalized care into group homes and into community- based a living? >> thank you. my time has expired. gentleman from virginia. >> thank you.

governor, your governor before the ada. >> i was. >> but as governor, you can imagine that their cost challenges in complying ada with complying. can you speak to how governor's comply with the buildings, bringing them into compliance? >> well, i think what we did in pennsylvania, partly because of my own sensitivity to these problems, was to try to be a little bit ahead of the curve. any time that we would search out people with disabilities that are qualified to do state jobs and see what the needs were that they had that could be rectified in terms of architectural barriers first, the attitudinal barriers was a thing that had to grow, and mostly by example. getting somebody that had a disability into a job and watching other progress and seeing how well they did. that broke that barrier down

just like that, no question. the thing about the ada is that it was the catalyst and the sample that propelled exchange that truly has been dramatic. when we think about when we grew up and what kinds of samples was there of inclusion, i cannot think of any. yet, as we all talked about today, what we have come to expect is to see those kinds of aids, sometimes very subtle, sometimes very dramatic that empower people to live what we would call a normal life. >> also, you know the challenges in finding and things like supportive housing. one of the challenges was what we called the woodwork effect. it is much cheaper to have someone with home health care

then going into a nursing home. but when you provide the home health care, there's so many people who are eligible for that, they were at home roughing it. the total budget actually goes up on that line item. do you have the same problem with providing supportive housing? although as you suggested, it is cheaper in support of housing than institutions, that once you start providing the service, costs go up. to save money in the state budget, you wait for people to go into an institution and actually save money doing that on the overall budget. >> i can only speak theoretically as a former governor, because to be honest with you, during that time, the concept of people staying in their homes was just developing. the concept of removing them

from institutions was well underway. we were able to accomplish that. but where the place these people? that had not developed at all. what i was intrigued by was my first encounter with centers for independent living for people with physical disabilities, which are truly astounding in their potential, not just from a money stand. but from the standpoint of the degrading people into the community. my fear is that because of the unknowns inherent in the health care reform bill that you all have passed, and i do not pass judgment on that, but they're clearly some unknowns about the cost factors there, and particularly in medicaid by expanding the population available, there may be pressure at the state level to reduce the amount of service is available for a homestead, post-adjusted services, that it is pretty easy

if you're going to cut to look that as a source. the jury is still out on that. i am a firm believer that community-based living is miles ahead of any kind of institutionalized care or nursing home care. >> i do agree that the question is funding. i said that you are paying more for home care than for institutional care. did you achieve that by increasing home care or decreasing institutional care? >> my guess, probably a little of this and a little of that. that is what governing is about. making tough choices and coming up with a proper balance because we do have, as we are reminded daily, we do not have unlimited resources in this or any other area. >> i would hope we will try to invest as much as we can in home health and relieve a lot of pain and suffering and anxiety so we

can fund those. i think we are a lot better off. i appreciate your testimony and yelled back. >> thank you, gentlemen. i recognize the gentle lady from texas. >> thank you. this is a very, very important hearing. i thank you and the ranking member of the subcommittee for focusing on not only the 20th year anniversary, but what are the next steps going forward. i am reminded of that time of celebration when this bill was passed, and i think one of the striking elements of the bill was the amazing by partisanship that it generated, the recognition by everyone that it was long overdue. in that vein, i think the words of president h. w. bush are clearly speaking to the heightened excitement and emotion of the time when he

indicated that he considered the americans with disabilities act as the emancipation proclamation for people with disabilities and called for the shameful wall of exclusion of people with disabilities from mainstream american life to finally come tumbling down. i believe that we have made some steps toward that. as it is the co-chair of the congressional children's caucus, i would like to focus you on some of the thoughts i believe you may have raised, and i apologize for not hearing your testimony. i was detained on the the floor. but you seem to have stated, to put an emphasis on providing community-based services for children and adults with disabilities as an alternative to large and isolated institutional settings. i would like you describe some of those programs that you may have implemented and the benefits to them. as i recall, many times in my town hall meetings, there will

always be that one parent among other this -- among others that will be vocal enough to ask the question about a disabled child. what are the resources? my school district is not being responsive. i think we still have ways to go. we have made great strides were we not institutionalized those or disabled, particularly with what we call mental disabilities, whether it has something that is from a physical aspect that disables a child but also from the perspective for one might perceive that they cannot learn. down syndrome, for example, were we have found amazing success stories. but if you could answer that, and then, i want to follow-up with a broader question. >> i answer that question with kind of two hats on,

congressman. as a parent of a child with a severe a intellectual disabilities, now 50 years old, and as one who was involved in the negotiations that led to the passage of the act and has followed the act in its implementation after its passage. i do not think anyone can underestimate the impact of the homestead case in this regard. if that case was decided otherwise and given communities across the u.s. an excuse to back off of the deinstitutional edition process, which was well under way by that time, we would not be talking about progress today. we would be talking about dealing with an entirely different population, a truly disabled population,

institutionally by our government activities. mercifully, that did not happen. although justice ginsberg's decision in homestead was really not a call in support of the community-based treatment model as we would have liked, it did open the door. more important, it shut the door on the arguments this was not an admissible way to deal with people with disabilities. i think that the mechanisms available are group homes, our support to families who retain children with disabilities in their homes. our son lives at an assisted community environment, and he is

semi-independent, as i said, in an apartment. all of those, i think in the aggregate, pale in costs when you look at the massive costs on the record of our prior institutional is asian regiment. so it cannot be a cost factor. it has to be a factor that depends upon the imagination of people who are in this field and government, aided and abetted by very vocal community of parents and providers and caregivers that have traditionally been at the front end of advocacy in this country. i do not go down either the path of saying that this is too difficult to do or the path this is a cannot afford it. i think both of those are

inadmissible conclusions. but they require, the alternative, some real banking and real ingenuity about how we are going to reach that goal. as people who you obviously know from your own constituencies, how they respond when having that kind of environment for a child with a disability is as rewarding as i can imagine. >> it is worth the investment, you're saying. finally, d.c. any obvious legal impediments today -- and do you see any legal impediments today does not support the first pronouncement as well as the fact of the obstruction -- construction of that act which said it is a national mandate to eliminate discrimination with individual disabilities. >> as ripleys dimensions his call for the shameful of

exclusion that comes tumbling down. he got that line, as you may know, from the fact that the berlin wall had just -- a shameful wall of inclusion, had come tumbling down. and it was a marvelous metaphor and i think captured the goals of the people who were assembled that day. i do not see any -- i think the picture is unlimited for improving the lot of people with this ability in our society and our culture. once we get over the hurdle, as i think we have, this is simply too expensive or too difficult, that is not an excuse that americans have never accepted in any field. and in this area where there is pay off in terms of lives enriched by participation in the mainstream of america, they should be even less so. >> thank you. i yield back. thank you very much.

>> i think the witness for his participation. the witness is his -- the witness is excused. we proceed with the fourth panel. i will introduce the witnesses while they're taking their seats. , thel sensenbrenner' largest non-profit disability member organization in the u.s., and she has been married to the ranking member of the said committee and former chairman of the judiciary committee for more than 30 years. a younger sister as an intellectual disabilities. in 1972 as a passenger in a car accident, she got a spot of court and jury. she has worked in a number of republican guard positions, both before and after her entry. lt. colonel gregory is inspirational and during his service in iraqi freedom 2007,

he was severely injured by an improvised explosive device the resulting the amputation of both legs above the knee and severe damage to his right arm. he has served in the u.s. army for more than 20 years as a field artillery officer. he served in every major conflict in the last few decades including operation desert shield, desert storm, kuwait, bosnia, operation enduring freedom in afghanistan, and operation iraqi freedom in iraq. it is part of the surge to secure baghdad in 2007. he serves as the director of the u.s. army wounded warrior program. it fosters an abundance and supports the position back to active duty or civilian life. adrienne -- adrian villalobos is an international disability rights network in washington to sponsorship from southern egyptian tradition.

the drugs is on special education and sensibility policy. at the age of eight, he was diagnosed with a spinal cord injury after major car accident left him paralyzed from the waist down. e is an active member of the disability community for 17 years. it is completed his first year of graduate studies at the university of texas at el paso and is working toward a dual master's degree in public and business administration. casandra cox is a former resident of an adult, and the bronx and successfully transitioned to her own apartment more than one year ago. she is a member of the policy committee of the coalition of institutional efficient disabled, a consumer and advocacy organization and a nursing home residents for new york city. earlier this year, the work residents being moved from several community settings as part of a court case. in the case, the federal district judge of the southern district found the state violated the ada c-span.org

integration mandate -- the ada's mandate. it is described as very little resemblance to the homes in which people without disabilities normally live. jonathan young is chairman of the national council of disability, senior counsel of the law firm of fox kaiser. he served in the executive office of the president as associate director of the white house public liaison and project director for the national rehabilitation hospital health and disability research. year and his ba went to lyale and the university of north carolina at chapel hill. welcome all of you. urine's payments will be made part of the record. i would like to remind you to summarize your testimony in five minutes are less. -- your written records will be made part of the record. if you raise your right hands, witnesses. take the oath.

do you swear, a firm, under the penalty of perjury that the testimony is true and correct to the best of your knowledge? the witnesses answered in the affirmative. our first witness is cheryl sensenbrenner. can you use your microphone, please? >> yes, sir. thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, congressman scott and congresswomen. i will try -- the hour is late, and i know my testimony is pretty thick in the written form. i will try to let a few things. about all that has happened in the last 20 years. i myself am here today is a family member again. i was here before and after the ada. i have a sister that is disabled. i have a stunt -- a son that is disabled. i myself and disabled.

i look back as the trouble with my husband over the 20 years and see the difference that all the ada has done not only for our country but globally. they're different things the country has done globally by looking at the u.s.. i was thinking about the most northern community in the entire world in norway. one of the most successful places i have ever been put on his thinking about going to the temples in japan where i come in my wheelchair, could get up any step or in the suburbs because the accommodations. we should be proud of what we have done, but we also should be proud of the leadership we have provided for the world. as i reflect on that progress over the last two decades, i will be a bit negative in my approach because we got a ways to go. it is important we remind ourselves about the pervasive discrimination of then and around then and then see what is going on now.

i can remember the cold, snide remarks in a demeaning looks at my sister, who has down syndrome, got every day. she drove a car since she was 16. she got her high school diploma. she keeps wanting to work constantly, but because of limitations of supplemental security income, she cannot work as much as she wants to. i think also about when i first got back to work after a year in the hospital. my father was attorney general in wisconsin. we went into the lobby of the bank to cash my first check. a big exhibit of stairs at me and says, people like that be long on park benches out front and not in our lobby. i remember very clearly people like that, he said, people like that army? people like that are my son. people like that or my sister. people like that are some of my dearest friends. people like that can be your loved ones, can be your friends,

or maybe some day could be you. we do not know what the future brings. for instance, look today when we see all of our soldiers coming back from iraq and afghanistan. did they know disability would be in their future? i told you about my sister and how much she wants to work and she has down's syndrome and how proud i am ever get a let me tell you about my oldest son, frank. he was diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder as a young child, and we had our share of challenges. he is categorized as a genius. but yet, to find a school that could provide the right combination of structure, mentoring, and challenging academic work, frank cannot take a traditional path. he went through a year in high school. the got his college degree in the u.k., and today he is looking forward to his testimony. he struggles and deserves everything. he is great. he is on the verge of earning a

ph.d. in finance from the university of sydney. believe me, he interned for the banking committee when he was in high school, by the way. is it has attention deficit disorder? taa daa. we know disability in our family. yet, with education, the ada provides protection encourage it to millions of america months. we're trying to figure our own course through the world of education, the world of employment. we look for help, but we have our own unique learning styles, our own way to show what we can do, and sometimes the professionals cannot. disability is a natural part of the human experience. that is what the ada started to make is all understand, and we do not know when in they come into our life. i have one quick story if i have time. you know, we think this is all behind us.

our wonderful intern program has college students come work in the federal government and on the hill. you know, last year as we went around and were trying to place interns, and it is not hard to place them, we were explaining that this particular stellar student from gallaudet would need a sign language interpreter to do her functions within the office. i am not trying to pick on this coordinator, but the coordinator said, what would a deaf person be able to do in a congressional office? as we all know, a deaf person can do what everyone else can do in a congressional office, as long as there provided with a reasonable accommodations. my hope and expectation is that this committee will take the opportunity by this young person in go back and talk to your own constituents and toward the the families to find a wet barriers still exist and how they can help open the doors to employment, home ownership, and participation in society.

thank you so much. >> thank you. the lieutenant colonel is recognized. >> chairman, distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to testify today and share my experiences as a wounded warrior that continues to serve on active duty. i am here on my personal capacity today. although i am on active duty with the u.s. army, my testimony today represents my personal views and does not necessarily reflect the beats of the army, department of defense, or the administration. as physicians in 1989 from the u.s. military academy were played football for four years, and for the past 20 plus years, i have remained living an active lifestyle while serving in the u.s. army, enjoying soccer,

scuba diving, hiking, and even skiing. in may 2007, was severely wounded by an improvised explosive device. as a result of those wounds, i lost both of my legs above the knee and sustained severe damage to my right arm. as you can imagine, my life was turned upside down. admittedly, prior to being wounded, i had no understanding or appreciation of the american disabilities act. but since then, i've learned a great deal of and appreciate the value to our society. i have been fortunate to travel overseas and repeatedly struck by the fact that unlike the united states, foreign countries do not always considered disabled accessibility a priority. in fact, in some parts of the world, accessibility is not even a consideration. i understand how fortunate i am to live in a country where accessibility is not only the law, but it is truly embraced.

in terms of the uniformed services dated emissions and functions, adherence to the bet -- the day today admissions infections, and -- adherence to ada is not required. during iraqi freedom and enduring freedom, the army has begun to accommodate the changing face of its force. the army has developed and expanded existing policies, allowing seriously wounded soldiers to continue to serve on active duty. from my perspective, the army leadership embraces the spirit and the intent of the ada. i am a testament to their leadership -- as a way to estimate that the army leadership understands those who were severely wounded can still make valuable contributions to continued service in uniform to our nation. not only have i been allowed to continue to serve, but i have

been given the opportunity to flourish, grow, and reach my full potential. furthermore, i would like to highlight the army's efforts with respect to accessibility. i am proud to say that i live in an ada-compliant home recently constructed. additionally, all new constricted warriors and transition complexes are also adrian villalobos compliant. -- are also ada compliant. i assume duties of the army when did warrior program. the u.s. army wounded warrior program assists the army's most severely wounded, sick, and injured soldiers and their families. we facilitate their transition back into active duty service or their transitioned into civilian life. it is a program that takes great care in making sure that we assist those that have made tremendous sacrifice in getting back on their feet.

thank you for this opportunity to testify, and yes are ready to address any questions. >> thank you. mr. young is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ranking member. congressmen this item and the other members. thank you for the opportunity to be here today. it is profound honor for me to provide testimony on behalf of the national council on disability. it completes the circle in my life. let me first say that in light of what i have been hearing today, one of the poison want to emphasize is the critical role of this committee, this house, this congress in continuing to deliver on the promise of the ada. the ada is neither self sustaining or unavailable. we must continue to rededicate. let me tell you live from my personal experience about what your role is so important among others in our country.

my first encounter with the national council on disability was in 1996 when i began to work on the history of the americans with disabilities act under a contract. i was a ph.d. candidate in american history at the time of the university of north carolina at chapel hill, writing a dissertation. the irony of minor taking about the history of the ada was it was really my first encounter with being a person with disabilities. even though i had broken my neck 10 years previously and was partially paralyzed from the injury. i did not identify as a person with a disability. i did not think of myself as part of the disability community. disability was the enemy. i was embarrassed. i wanted to hide. i wanted to be as normal and be perceived as normal. i was only vaguely aware of the ada when it passed in 1990, probably much like many people with disabilities around the country. i also went through about of

depression, and it was about the time was asked to write about the history of the ada, and i was about the time where i did not know if i could hold a meaningful job. i entered the members of congress and advocates in the disability community, some of them have been here today, my own internal is testing whether the disability ran headlong into the extraordinary stories of power and strength, of pride of the with disabilities and the extraordinary collaborative bipartisan, intense effort to pass the ada. in retrospect, i saw the dawn of a new day. it was as much about my own personal experience unbecoming and identifying as a person with a disability and becoming a part of a community. disability became a source of liberation rather than its stigma. my life had a purpose and meaning. i am thankful that i had the chance to read about the ada.

agents for my life. the personal account i had with ada their history is a story you hear again and again but you had heard from the others. the ada, justice anthony kennedy once said, is a teacher of sorts. we depend on the ada to teach all of us individually in our society about ending the exclusion in a deliberate and powerful way. it was suggested that we cannot forget where we come from, even while we have a long way to go. ugly loss, as i recall, pervaded 19th century america. the mere appearance of unsightly people was enough to be excluded. the american history museum at the smithsonian featured an exhibit before the ada with a beautiful suburban community with a sign that said no wheelchairs' permitted be on this point. we take for granted now that those things are not allowed. but we have to maintain

vigilance to make sure, because the attitudes do not change overnight. there's a lot of work to be done, and it has been an individualized process. as i mentioned, we depend upon congress to convene hearings like this, to provide opportunities to continue work on things like personal assistant services in communities. in the second. i want to make is i am here with you today as a young person, not having any role in passing the ada, benefiting from the extraordinary work of you and many others. but we need a new generation of leaders in congress, among congressional staff, in the advocacy community, in the administration. you all have a critical role in the educational process that justice kennedy talked about in continuing to be vigilant in enforcing the ada. i know my time is drawing to a close here. i would like to mention that as we talk about what the ada

means, it is not just about raising expectations for our businesses, for our schools, our government offices. it is about changing the expectations of people with disabilities themselves. the ada is about taking a risk, giving all people with disabilities a chance to take risks, to succeed, and to fail. there's no guarantee of success. it was pointed out that disability is a natural part of the human experience. it is not about a particular interest group. it is for all americans because all of us, at any time, could use what the ada provides. not only when we have disabilities, but because of what the ada does to change society. you have heard about things that help people with wheelchairs', but would get merchants with carts, parents with strollers, a bicycle enthusiast. this law is for america. it is for our veterans.

a panel at a summit next week will focus on themes of living, learned, and earning. a sergeant will be there that was wounded by not one but two improvised explosive devices. when he joined the service in 1990, i do not think we thought that the ada was about our veterans. but as we undertook two wars in iraq, d ada is changing our society so it can deliver on the promise to our soldiers than when they return, we're making sure that we appreciate their service as continued contributors to our society. the work of the national council has a critical role in working with congress and with the administration. by closing, let me say that i am proud of the legacy, the hope, and the promise that the ada indore, we know must work was begun to transform the law into life. together, we can all be a catalyst for our nation's

continued transformation. thank you. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen of the house judiciary committee. >> user microphone, please. >> good afternoon, ladies gentlemen of the house judiciary committee in the subcommittee on constitutional civil rights and civil liberties. it is an honor to appear before you today to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the americans with disabilities act. my name is casandra cox, and i am a. burke -- former resident of an adult home in the bronx. prior to moving there, i worked 29 years for an organization of america for women. towards the end of this time, and became sick and was unable to continue working. my mental health affected my life to the extent that i was not able to function. at new york presbytery colonial medical center, i requested an

appointment with a social worker and asked for help. she called adult protective services immediately and to me before the new york state supreme court, and the judge appointed a guardian. with the guardian celt, i was able to have representation -- with the guardian's help, and representation in my legal and financial matters. eventually i had been hospitalized in voluntarily entered a psychiatric clinic. i was there for three months. while there, i was evicted from my apartment. i had no money. leno is discharged, i had no place to go. i was advised that i had two alternatives. either a shelter or an adult home. jimmy, a shelter was a no- brainer, and never heard of an adult home. an interview at an adult home was arranged. i went into shock as a was less than ideal. my pain case manager accompany

me. she had a lot of experience and told me on my return that it was and it the better homes i offered good programs. >> it had a federation appointment and guidance service. >> yes, and i reluctantly accepted. living in an adult home was one of the most dehumanizing experience as i have gone through. we were not treated as adults. we were treated as set humans. there were always the feeling that you are a resident and therefore not normal. they talked down to you. there is a stigma present at all times. this is also drew on the outside. we have to fight the stigma of the mentally ill at all times. you live in a regimented sitting on a daily basis. rooms are shared and there is no

privacy. you have to lock everything up. fights break out occasionally. it was very stressful to live in this institutional setting and not good for anyone's mental- health. while i was a resident, my primary goal was to get back to life as i knew it before. i was not encouraged. i did become involved with an organization called the coalition of institutionalized disabled. it is an advocacy organization of the mentally ill and elderly live in adult homes or nursing homes. i attended a meeting for them and signed the people's waiting list. it is a list of names of those residents who wish to move to independent housing. i joined the policy committee at that time because no one was offering to help me move toward independence. there were comments from the adult homestead's such as, why would you want to leave?

we take care of you. you have everything here. if i missed an annual function, i would be told, do not worry. you'll be here next year. you can go to the one that will happen next year. the mine said was that you were here to stay. it hit me almost three years to move out. as a result that the advocacy of the group of the new york state coalition for adult home reform, an initiative to move 60 new york city adult home -- i lost my spot. sorry. as a result of the advocacy of the group and of the new york state coalition for adult home reform, an initiative to move 60 nyc adult home people was opened

up, and i was able to be one of those peoples to move on under this initiative. thank you. >> these apartments were created by the new york state legislator. the group held housing forums in brooklyn, queens, and the bronx to help residents. i was one of the lucky 60. it was a difficult process, but i was willing to do anything to be about to gain my independence. i celebrated my first year of independence living this april. and i continue to work with the group. ciad filmed my move to the new apartment, and this video captures the joy of the move, but the true joy comes from a daily basis of being able to wake up to a new day filled with the promise of the freedom and

reality of living as it should be. i could and clean, wash clothes, shop, budget, and the movies, and meet friends. i have support from my housing provider. i see a psychiatrist and therapist, take my medication on a regular basis, and continue to work with ciad. i cannot tell you how wonderful it is to have my life back in said of the dead and existence of the institution. i am now able to plan my own day, prepare my own meals, and that i have a future. my c withiad is very important to me as i feel i need to be a day for the work that was done told me as well as the many others in the past. as a member of the policy committee, adult home residents, veterans committee -- a committee of former residents and food committee, i am able to go to many of the adult homes in

new york city and observe firsthand the same condition that described to you. residents who want to and can move on to independent living and approached me. i will continue to do all that i can to see that they do move on. i have witnessed the ada at work for many years. i was a union representative when i worked and the ada was enacted at that time. it was a great help in protecting employees rights, and they help handicapped all over the u.s. in housing, transportation, and deployment. i followed with great interest at the trial in new york. so have the ciad leaders and former residents, and the testify. i consider the case a landmark decision for people will suffer from mental illness. it is the perfect application of the ada as it was meant to protect those who need it most.

it has given me back my life. for that, i am honored and grateful to help you celebrate the 20th anniversary of this great law. thank you. >> thank you. i will now recognize mr. adrian villalobos. >> good afternoon. thank you for inviting me here. my name is adrian villalobos, and yasser from el paso, texas. i work at the national disability rights network through a fellowship. july is as american love for me to those born in july and so was the americans with disability act. i as i live to enjoy accident in july. they ada was 3 years old when my life changed, and i was essentially reborn. growing up with the ada, i consider it my metaphorical big brother. when i was 8, and was hit by a car. i was in the hospital for two months and missed my summer vacation. i missed six weeks of class is. it was my first case of -- i was

in a wheelchair that was not accessible. the right of people with disabilities to be fully exploited to society, and i was unaware of these services. the third grade teachers refused to have me in the classroom. the intense million rejection my parents experienced on my behalf of the to push forward. finally, a teacher agreed to have me in the class. i had to drag -- my chair had to be dragged. the only export classrooms was in the portable. i was unable to get in the main building, and none of the restrooms or accessible. to get to the cafeteria and auditorium, i had to enter through a loading dock. i remember my return to school falling because of a mutual friend to buy had with my peers. they were happy to see me, my friend, not a kid in a wheelchair in fourth grade, i was assigned to portables. my school was still accessible, and my parents pushed the

president and school administration. but this time my family was more educated about my rights and pointed to the ada. the school administration acted. rams were built. a bathroom was made it accessible, and i was allowed to use the elevators which was previously restricted, and give me access to the nursing station. in elementary school, i get a taste of his accommodation. my middle school had a different tone. it did not have facilities but made major changes to the school, so my experience was positive. when i was going, the ada was growing. my principal wanted me to have the option to be part of any school event or activity. he insisted on a modified cello saw to learn an instrument. i lived so i could get on stage for the drama club. and a ramp to the football field. middle school taught me inclusion. by high school, had good friends in new how to navigate comfortably and felt self-

empowered two i attended high school and a brand new building that was completely accessible. it was 1999, and the ada was in full swing. i understood that perceived limitations are not actual limitations and despite my disability, as responsible for reaching my potential. i enrolled in a liberal arts college in ohio. excited to stars of the intelligence and new, i learned that an accessible is not equal. the disability of is that only one staff member that granted me with a remote access bathrooms and showers. but the problem with my room was it was alone in my dormitory. the others work in a traditional dormitories setting. i was the guy that lives in the lobby. i return to a feeling of isolation. accommodation was no longer adequate. i needed inclusion. the ada recognized that, too. i did not survive the college in ohio. instead, i transferred to the university at taxes and passive,

back to my friends, family, and that rep. even -- i returned to the university of texas at el pass up. on graduation day, i was excluded from the commencement recession because "i was a fire hazard." as an individual with disabilities, so has the ada. this concept is not new or forum. the people in my life had become aware of disability rights. as the ada evolved, it is support for policy makers to be proactive about inclusion of all people with disabilities. yes looking to have a family that would help when needed. in el paso, many families did not speak english. i wonder how their children with disabilities fair? advocates are needed to enforce the ada. my experience with disability rights motivated me to pursue a career in disability rights policy.

i want to go beyond the two defendants an ad for myself. i want to be an advocate for others as well. i am presented joint degree in public at business administration. i want to work in the university to bring a disability issues and to bridge is a bit fully in my commencement ceremony when i complete my graduate studies. beyond that, i feel limitless. thank you again for granting me the >> i want to thank all of the witnesses for their testimonies. you have articulated extremely well why the ada is needed. now recognize the staff for questions. if someone is injured in the service, what job opportunities are there? what usually happens in terms of people that are disabled during the war? >> i will speak for those that

are severely injured and the process for those who were less injured are essentially easier. the first thing is about rehab. the military is committed to making sure that the soldier and that their medical conditions are taking care of. at that point, the medical community will make a determination whether or not the soldiers able to continue service or not. in my case, i was determined to be not able-bodied because of the loss of my limbs. at that point, i had the opportunity to continue on

active duty. that is what i pursued. >> did you have an absolute right to continue? >> it is their right to apply. i would not say it is an absolute right to continue, no, sir. it is my opinion and my interpretation that you still have to have an ability to contribute. there are lots of ways to contribute in the military in the army. they are very amenable to find a way to allow you to continue to contribute. >> is there an assessment of what you can do? are you offered various jobs are virginities? >> i would say yes. -- job opportunities? >> i would say yes. it may not be in the job

specialty that york, but there were others. an assessment is made over whether you can continue. >> what about housing? >> as i said, i live in and 88 complied home. n a d a-compliant home. >> is their excess ability for spouses? >> i am aware that accessibility for spouses and children have always been accommodated.

>> are there more opportunities that can be made available or worked at harvard? -- worked at harder? >> i am just getting on board. but i think there are tremendous opportunities. there is a paraplegic at fort campbell that has been allowed to stay. as you look across the board, you will find that, if someone is looking to continue to serve and they show some ability, the military is more than accommodating. >> i want to rescue what our legislative authorities should be, in terms of finding or legislative changes specifically, that we should be looking and specific recommendations for legislation.

crook>> i would like to speak te of the issues they came up earlier. one of the challenges we have is the way things are costed out. it is difficult to calculate the benefits -- the relative benefits versus the cost. we do not know as well as we ought to precisely how those costs are going to fare with what you call the woodworking affect. there is some analyses where a number of states, including maine, when shifting toward long-term services and support has actually seen spending declined. there are a number of states that have seen increases in cost, but the rate of growth has been lower than other states.

that has been a huge party for people with disabilities. it goes squarely to the dignity of risk that we talked about earlier. self-sufficiency, independent living, you cannot do that if you're out of society and the institution. that is the basic issue that we need to find a way to remedy. one of the challenges also -- there are coordination issues between different agencies and departments. one is to try to work with a hug with a 60/80 degree vision. >> you have any other specific recommendations? >> yes.

again, i do not have specifics, but i would agree with governor thornburgh. employment is number one. that is where things are not increasing much at all. i agree with you, jonathan, that the independent living situation, how we crossed that out and come up with it. again, i have no answers, but i know what i would like to see happening. there are social security income limitations. >> certainly, we have members living, learning, and earning as the three core things. when you talk about earnings, aided not just -- it is not just on employment, but as it acquiring.

-- assets acquiring. right now, it is possible -- i was at an event where an award was given to the national security agency. this year, they will exceed hiring 20 people with disabilities. that is an effort that began with a group called thunder consulting, bringing in qualified people with disabilities. if the national security agency with its highest of high requirements of security clearance are protecting your country can make dedicated efforts to hire people with disabilities, not because it is a charity, but because they're finding that they are phenomenal engineers, budget people, managers within the national security agency. part of the dedication to employment is more transformative, commitments, it individualized agencies and companies who can recognize what

is possible and not an obstacle. >> thank you. sheila jackson lee. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. this has been enormously instructive on what are our steps going forward. some of the most descriptive and disturbing stories about the treatment of the disabled in a variety of ways. i think it is important to remind ourselves everyday that justice anywhere it is -- that in justice anywhere is injustice everywhere. i would hope that you'll continue to build the story. that is how legislation is passed. i do agree on the social

security income threshold. i think what you're saying is that it is so that people can become independent. and let people do not know that, if he were to lose the ssi or social security, you also lose access to services. it is not just income. people want to be independent. i think that is when to be particularly strong with respect to lt. colonel gregory's constituents. but oppose this question to go down memory lane for a second. you mentioned your sister. could you give us a sense of what it would have been for tara if we had had the ada in place and whether or not you think the amendments of 2008 were effective where we have seen in bribing of the definition or included the definition are clarified the definition of disability so that others could not be left out?

>> i certainly hope it doesn't sound like miami beating your question. this jump over to memory -- like evading your question. this jumps over to memory lane. some of us has had opportunities and that the average person would not have. so whenever self identified. we never understood or had to labor as others did. i was injured when my sister was about unborn. so we have a symbiotic relationship. -- sister was born. so we have a symbiotic relationship. i could not get out of bed. she would physically held may and would work with her all day on her intellectual.

she was a bit spoiled. she had opportunities that other people overtime did not. who has down syndrome and could drive a car at 16. she took college courses. the early stimulation helped. of course, we had a special situation because she had a disabled sister with her. but many of her friends are not like that appeared in some ways, she is -- not like that. in some ways, she is a unique woman because she is able to function so well. none of her boyfriends are as hip or cool air she is. she can do so many things. her vocabulary blows away my brain sometimes. i do not know exactly how to -- >> i think you have answered it. she had her own ada and her own ada proved that that kind of assistance, intervention can change lives.

you have entered and i appreciate it very much. lieutenant colonel, you are doing very important work. thank you for your service. i think it is important to reflect what you see in the numbers of wounded warriors. you deal with the most severely wounded. i know you interact with returning soldiers all the time. i think america needs to hear that. although they are courageous and overcoming their injuries, we will be dealing with the soldiers for a long time. is that your understanding? >> yes, ma'am. it has been documented in history that the scars of war are long and deep. i think air services have tremendous recognition. we have grown tremendously in ofms of the recommendatiorecogn

those kinds of loans, especially those that are invisible. >> i think there will be sounds as. there were treated 65 other soldiers coming back. but many think -- there are 365,000 soldiers coming back. >> i never really heard or understood the ada. intuitively, i did not know with the ada was, but i also grew up with it. there were things you saw that you never really thought work 88-related. -- thought were ada-related. it is important.

i recognize that i have been able to do many things from learning how to ski to learning how to golf because accessibility is important. having that accessibility is what has been instrumental in my recovery. self identity is important. i have done my confidence back because of access. i believe i have been allowed to flourish and continue to grow because our culture, because our nation is grateful and makes accessibility a priority. >> that is a very important statement. i'm good just three quick statements. -- i am going to ask three quick questions. mr. young, what is the mixed

battle that they have to engage in as a relates to people with disabilities? >> they have a budget of $3 million with an obligation to advise the president and congress on every manner of disability issues and policies in the federal government. it is a tiny agency with a john mission. it is difficult that looking at 54 million americans with disabilities and say that this is the one thing we have to do. >> you have set up your problem. you have $3 million and you have a tremendous task. >> one thing that is not exciting, but critical, is coronation. income and support policies, if we want people to go to work, that means losing support. losing ssi means losing food

stamps or access to housing vouchers. our system is not working in a coordinated fashion. i understand that departments are pursuing vigorously their department told mission. somehow, we need to find a better way to working accorded fashion. a sweeping challenge around national security issues since 9/11, those are not unique. what i am trying to do is build an agency that is equipped and capable of answering your charge and trying to deliver on coordinating. a lot of things are good and in place, but not working the way they are to. >> i think you have given me the answer. maybe we can work on the ssi issue. please understand the question is a positive one. you hear individuals say that it is dangerous to have individuals with disabilities living on their own, mainstreaming.

what do you say to that? >> that is not true. when they set up the 60-bed initiative, we had eight of the people at my adult home become part of that initiative. we are all living use full lives -- useful lives. we are part of the community. on a daily basis -- we take your medication on a regular basis. we are not a danger to anybody. all 60 of those people are living useful lives and have become a part of the community. in many instances, some of the people who were part of the cia d-policy committee, one of the guys who was on the policy committee worked on the census,

this past census. he was one of the census takers. we do what everybody else does because we are normal. we are normal. we have a health issue. we have a mental health issue. that is what is wrong with us. there's no reason for anybody to be afraid of us at all. >> this is my last question. let me just say that, coming from texas, the university of texas at el paso owes you a graduation. i would like to be in a court of law and put them on the witness stand and ask them what higher learning means for the young men and graduating and allowing his family see him with the rest of the graduating class? that would be too long for you to enter, but what i do want to have you answer -- for you to answer, but i do want to have

you answer is, growing up as a child disabled, you clarify that it can be done. the elementary school was behind the times. the children were welcoming and accepting. your high school students were welcoming and excepting. obviously, college. give us what we should do to continue to grow that kind of acceptance as more and more disabled persons, just because of the nature of life, coming to the education system. >> absolutely. as i said, i am a fellow with the southern education foundation. they have internships since 2004. this is so applicable with -- for students with disabilities. how can you ever anticipate to have a good citizen participating in a committee if you deny them an education? that is precisely what is happening with some students with disabilities.

that is the first time that a child is introduced to the community and they cultivate that ability to identify with friends and peers and things of that nature and they recognize what they cannot do and they recognize what they can. it is important within the education system itself because you were building that opportunity to not only recognize -- not only below within the school setting, but they have the right to live in the world. that is the origin of how we come to know each other. -- to know each other as citizens of the united states. that is how long sought as well, growing up with the ada. if i did not have the ada on my side, i would not have been able to participate in my educational setting. >> and other children except do?

>> absolutely. -- other children accepted you? >> actually. before my accident, they love me. afterwards, they love me even more now. >> this has been powerful testimony, mr. chairman. thank you for your indulgence. i see many pathways to go forward. i want to conclude by saying that excepting in knowing that we all have something to contribute in this world. thank you, mr. chairman. >> i want to thank all of our witnesses for their testimony. this has been a tremendous hearing. without objection, you can

submit additional questions and ask the witnesses to respond as promptly as they can so that the answers may be made part of the record. with a objection, that will be done in five days for inclusion in the record. this hearing is adjourned. [gavel] >> tonight, testimony from the former electronics assessment on

the deep water horizon. he said earlier today that a key alarm system was turned off prior to the explosion and that led to the gulf of mexico oil spill. you can see that even tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern, 5 pacific -- 5:00 p.m. pacific here on c- span. we have live footage from bp's cameras beneath the surface. it is available at c-span.org /oilspill. the house returns monday at 12:30 p.m. eastern for morning hours speeches. legislative business gets underway at 2:00 p.m. eastern. he will debate several bills at 6:00 p.m. on the agenda next to cut 2011 spending bills for military construction -- on the agenda next week, 2011 spending bills for military construction.

life house coverage is on c- span. the senate will be back on monday at 3:00 p.m. eastern to begin work on the campaign finance bill that serves as a legislative response to the supreme court decision in the citizens united case earlier this year. a procedural vote on the measure takes place on tuesday. senators are expected to return to work on small business lending bill after members voted to limit debate on legislation before leaving for the weekend. follow the senate live on c-span 2. as the senate prepares to debate the energy bill, find out about previous bills with c-span video library. look up a bill with their new build search feature and watch congressional hearings in previous debate on the house and senate floor. it is all mine and free. the c-span video library, it is washington your way. >> this weekend on book tv,

saturday, the eagle collegian's -- the eagle forum collegian's summit. on sunday, starting at 1:00 p.m., the roosevelt reading festival. authors talk about their books on fdr, his policy and his legacy. it is a weekend filled with nonfiction books on c-span 2 appeare. >> a discussion on the fiscal health of states around the country. from today's oakwood washington journal" this is about 45 minutes. journal" continues. host: joining us from the capital of pennsylvania is gov. ed rendell, a democrat, from harrisburg. i just want to read a little bit from "the new york times" this morning about something that

happened in the senate last night. it said the senate rejected a house version of an emergency spending bill that also contain billions of dollars for domestic programs, including $10 billion to help states and local school districts avert teacher layoffs. what is the impact in pennsylvania? guest: a double impt. not only that money but the money the president has proposed. and interestingly, the senate passed once and house passed ones for expansion of the stimulus aid for increased medicaid funding. that has not been approved in one bill. the combined impact will mean hundreds of thousands of layoffs in 30 states which counted on that that money for budgeting purposes. we cnted on it because, as i said, each chamber had passed it in a separate bill and the president was for it and now it looks like the political and ideological battles in washington are not going to make that funding come through, and in fact -- if that is the case in pennsylvania we may have to

lay off between 10,000 and 20,000 workers. state workers and teachers and because we have to give less money to the county's, that will mean police and firemen and emergency workers and caseworkers. it is a disastrous step, especially now when our economy is showing signs of recovering. pennsylvania has gained over 60,000 private-sector jobs in the last four months, i think second only to texas in job growth. for us to lose 10, 15 + thousand jobs all at oe is just extraordinily counterproductive and shortsighted. host: what is the unemployment rate in pennsylvania? you come with a lower -- guest: we areower than the national average, 9.2, we have been lower since the recession started. we have a thing perhapshe strongest economy than any large industrial state but it is still a very difficult situation. host: what is the impact of the stimulus bill put into lawfter

the crisis? guest: significant. particularly in the field of infrastructure. between transportation infrastructure -- bridges, roads, highways, mass transit, water and sewer, we had about $1.5 billion that have gone into the economy and create tens of thousands of good paying jobs not only on the constructio site, but back in the factories, the steel factories and concrete and asphalt throughout pennsylvania. we have seen a significant uptick in good paying family- sustaining jobs, jobs that cannot be outsourced. we have done a pretty good job -- and pat myself on the bad -- of spending the money. congressman oberstar runs the states on how quickly they put the transrtation infrastructure stimulus money for use and i think we are tied with no. 1 in the country. stimulus has got a bad name with the american people, but it has worked very effectively in pennsylvania. guest: -- in-line host: you

asked the feder government for more stimulus. are you beyond aid to states? are you also asking for additional aund for transportation jobs, it severed? guest: i think specifically if there is another bill to help the economy, i hope that it would focus on infrastructure. the infrastructure part of the bill has been the most successful of all in creating good family-sustaining jobs." i remember in congress, senator boxer and senar inhofe, people on different sides of the political spectrum, they urged increasing infrastructure spending in the original stimulus bill by two or three times of what was in the bill eventually. it that would have been a good thing for the country. i would like to see a very narrow-tailored bill, much smaller than the first, but puts additional and the structure funds into the economy because, again, those are great jobs, they cannot be outsourced and

they help american manufacturing. construction and manufacturing are right now the keys to this recovery, in my judgment. host: at the beginning of this you said that pennsylvania's economy has grown and created 60,000 jobs in the private sector -- guest: in the past 4 1/2 months. as though there are some who argue, including a harvard professor who will be in washington today at th american enterprise institute, he put out a steady in october of 2009 saying that his research shows that stimulus does not have the that the gdp that's -- keynesian economists believe it es. in fact, he thinks when the government tries to stimulate the economy by putting money into it, that it causes the private seor to take their money out, and that perhaps if there had not been stimulus, maybe the private secr would have grown beyond those 6000

jobs. guest: no offense to the professor whom i never met, but i think it is ludicrous. first of all, transportation funding in this country is 95% to 90% government funded. i would like to see more private-public partnerships. we should get private sector dollars into and the structure. i tried to lease the pennsylvania turnpike to the private firm of the legislature here was against it. but even if we get the private sector in, transportation funding is going to the essentials funded by government investment. it is one of the things government should be doing. senator i nhofe, certainly a deficit hawk, he said publicly in a hearing -- and i testified, that is how we became close on this issue -- he said it infrastructure spending is the second most important thing the government can do next in military spending. let me give the professor another example. we have a program at the to the

endicott capital redevelopment assistance program where we give projects money that they can construct factories, laboratories, you name it. what happened in this economy, the private sector, whether it is banks or holding companies, those people are reluctant to take risk. but when government money comes in and takes part of the risk, it emboldens the private sector to go ahead. look, we've got government money -- would that government money we feel more secure. i think it is directly opposite what he is saying. i think when government money put -- puts money in a pject it makes it less risky for the private sector to invest. host: here is what he wrote in "the wall street journal." the empirical evidence does not support the idea that spending multipliers exceed one. in fact, stimulus progra will

likely raise -- by lesshan the increase in government spending. if our viewers are interested in hearing the presser -- professor in his own words we will be covering it live at 2:30 p.m. re on c-span. guest: i could suggest one thing. i think viewers should go to the pennsylvania website, recovery.com, are stimulus website. you can see that at the end of june we took a snapshot of how many people were working on construction sites where the project was 100% stimulus funded and there were about 9000 pennsylvania's on the job and site. we asked all of the vendors of those projects, how many workers that had either brought back or hired a new to fulfil the stimulus contract and it was over 3000. we noticed in one month, stimulus funng had created 12,000 good paying jobs. at and those jobs or not already -- always greeted in june

because projects take 16 months 18 months to fulfill. i know hard, concrete irrefutable facts that stimulus funding has created good jobs and have a ripple effect putting thindirect jobs back into factories because would you do a bridge, you need steel to repair and buttress the bridge and the steel comes from ftories and those factories bring workers back to the bill those orders. so professor -- he could not be more wrong. no offense. i am sure he had a lot of degrees. host: louisiana. jackie on independent line. caller: thank you. just fine. i do see you a lot out there on the airwaves but it out your opinions on how things should go. can i ask a question is there a spending at all that the democrats to not want to do? i have been ting -- i am 54

years old. i have been voting since i was 18. registered independent probably for 30 years. is there anything you all don't want to spend money on? i will take the answer over the air. -- we do not want to spend on things that don't work, programs -- guest: we don't want to spend on things that don't work. at bell hold pay as you go debate, interestingly, i vetoed several bills of by the legislature that were republican dominated, things not paid for. i would ask -- what was running? host: jackie. guest: when was theast time we had a balanced budget? i think it was when there was a democrat in the white house, not only balanced budget but significant surpluses because that democrat bill clinton worked with the congress and knew how to control spending. i think, jackie, it is unfair to say that.

in fact, democrats have proved to be good fiscal manage and republicans, when george bush and a republican congress controlled the government proved to be reckless spenders that eliminated the surplus and jacked up the deficit to record levels. host: we asked our viewers earlier if ngress should extend the bush tax cuts, n only for those that make less than 200 of the it thousand also for the wealthy. where do you come down on that? guest: i think those tax cuts should expire. host: acrosshe board? guest: no, no, for people over $250,000. i love it when people say we wish we were back in ronald reagan's times. if we let the bush tax cuts for the wealthiest americans expired the tax rate would be exactly what it was under ronald reagan. right now they are paying less taxes. it is time for the tax cuts to expire. it is interesting.

there is a real level of hypocrisy out there in the republican party. not all republicans, but many. they say the unemployment bill they oppos because it was not paid for and yet when we have to put extra money in the war in afghanistan, nobody in the republican party said i will not vote for because it is not paid for. if we extend the bush tax cuts, no one in the republican party is saying i will not vote for the extension unless we find some way to pay for it. so, pay as you go depends on what the issue is. again, not all republicans. but many. host: "the wall street journal" ways and on the debate and they say the reality is the increase in the top marginal income-tax rates higher than 41% will hit the most profitable small businesses because millions of business owners pay individual rateunder subchapter-s of the code, so if you increase taxes on the wealthy it could hit

small businesses in pennsylvania. guest: pennsylvania has the second lowest state income tax and the country and it affects the small businesses that are subchapter-s but that same argument was made when president clinton in 1993 passed a budget that raised taxes on the 2 percent wethiest americans. that same argument was made that it would hurt small businesses and we would lose jobs. i ask you, did we lose jobs after that tax increase on the wealthiest americans? no, as i recall we gave 23 million jobs. host: pocket to gov. ed rendell of pennsylvania. oklahoma, dave, republican mike. caller: good morning. how are you this morning? gov. rendell, thank you for king the call. u mentioned about -- a couple of things you mentioned was the last budget balan -- balanced

budget under clinton. well, clinton was not responsible for the balanced budget, it was controlled -- both houses of congress were controlled by the replicans, and they were the ones that balance the budget by forcing -- guest: i want to interrupt to say it was a combination of things. less spending, which president clinton went along with but it was also the tax increase on the wealthiest americans that generate revenue that allowed us to reduce and eliminate the deficit and reducehe surpluses as well. it was a combination. caller: but it was still the republican congress which caused the thing to be. clinton could not override -- guest: the republicans did not put up one vote in 1993 for the increase in taxes on the wealthiest 2 percent of americans and that was the trigger to let us eliminate the deficit and balance the budget,

so there was not republican -- one republican vote. we have to keep it in context. i give the republican congress credit for working with the present back then. i wish we would see more today. but remember, there was not one republican vote for the increase in taxes on the top 2 percent. host: one of your constituents to joining us from philadelphia on the democratic line. good morning. caller: yes, good morning. host: go ahead, morris. caller: yeah --good morning. host: we will come back to you but we will movon to newcastle, pennsylvania, shirley on the republican line. just a reminder that you need to turn your television down. caller: good one. i thank you for taking my call. mr. rendell, you are our governor and i do respect you as our governor.

but i just want to say a few things. number one, how many years since you have been in office that there was not a balanced budget and state workers all over the state are not able to get paychecks because you did not have a budget in place and there was all kinds of flynn fleet excuses why there was not a budget? -- flimsy excuses why there was not a budget? guest: let me correct the colubrid every year i have been governor we have a balanced budget. we had the -- we have to by law, i believe 40 out of 50 states have a constitutional requirement. what the caller is talking about we have never, because i had a republican legislature, whenever passed it by the end of the fiscal year. we fought over many different things in the budget. last year -- not this current year -- last year it nt on for 100 days, much too long, and i share some blame.

we always had a balanced budget and the caller is happy to know that "the wall street journal," fiscal conservatives, found pennsylvania was only one of 10 fans -- fiscally stable state in the union and the only one in the northeast and midwest. you could be very proud of pennsylvania government producing a fiscally stable budget. host: let's go back to mars from philadelphia. what is your comment or question? caller: my comment is, i want to thank governor rendell for his administration and what he has been doing since he has been governor for pennsylvania. what i want to say is that, the republican party that is calling, those are calling for the republican party, i don't know why -- everything the democrats -- it is no, no, and never bring any ideas.

ideas that would improve the government, they never bring anything. all that want to say is no, no. everything the say no. guest: let me say, i share some of their frustrations but it is not true for all republicans. for example, like i said, senator inhofe, a conservative deficit hawk and a very smart man, he and i offered this op-ed piece that this nation has to invest in infrastructure. i think this whole debate abo government spending is wro. it is not a lot of government spending or a little, it should be good, targeted, effected government spending. should wespend repairing roads, bridges, and i was? sure, we should and the name o public safety and the quality of our lives and economic competitiveness. if we don't invest in infrastructure we would be stopped. should we spend properly educating our children?

yes, but we don't give school districts blank checks, but we give to programs we know work like extending kindergarten to a full day, a science show that is as important as anything we can for a child's educational development. the key is for republicans and democrats to get off of these ideological barriers and to combine and spend government money on the things that we know spending can be effected live. and don't spend on things that really cannot make a difference. there is a debate -- i did not know enough about it to be involved -- but the spending we are doing in afghanistan, is that 10 years from now going to make any material difference to what happens to that part of the world for american security? we are spending hundreds of billions of dollars annually over there. we've got to find out what spending is a fact of, what spending improves the quality of lives of americans, and let us put all of this political stuff -- everyone says we can't do this because of the 2010

elections are coming around. then after the 2010 elections that are going to say, we can do this because the presidential election is going around. look, all of us are elected to govern, to move the country forward. we were not elected to protect our own jobs. until we get that added to this country is in the pits and we are not going to move forward until we put all of the stuff aside. so, i agree with you. there are a lot of republicans who for political reasons are just saying no to everything. no to any spending. they are not listening to common sense. granted, i know you know who david walker is of the peterson foundation. deficit hawks. david walker and pearson say, yes, we need a long-term plan to do something about our deficit and debt but at the same time we can have a short-term spending, government spending, that does generate economic growth. they are not mutually exclusive. of course, everybody knows they are right. let us get together and get it done. host: the front page of "the financial times" this morni

quotes european central bank she is sing all industrialized countries need to tighten,ut back on spending and increase taxes. guest: well, i am sure it you will get agreeing the republicans to agree on cutting in spending butot increasing taxes. it is interesti, the caller, i think he is from -- i forget what state he was fm, but he was saying it was a republican congress and not president clinton who produced the balanced budget an enemy of the deficit. it was both. it was president clinton's pl to increase taxes on the wealthiest 2 percent of americans joined with the republican congress and president clinton agreeing to cut spending. those two things eliminated the deficit. you really have to do both. you have to generate more revenue and reduce spending. but at the same time, all invement cannot stop if we in

the name of deficit reduction elinate all investments in things that we need in this country. it will not matter because we will not have much of an economy left to generate the revenue we need to balance the budget. we've got to continue to invest in growth. and infrastructure is a perfect example. i was on a show with mike pence once, a bright and able guy, and he said was in a bar and spend, and i said how will we repair roads, bridges, and highways, and he did not have any answer because there are some ways we need to keep investing in, even as we reduce the debt and deficit. host: jacksonville, north carolina. arlene, democratic line. caller: i wanted to say this but i have to preface it first. it you came on the program and said there was a bill and it would not vote for the bill even though both sides were for this

bill the in never told anybody -- but you never told anybody what was attached in this bill that made everybody change their mind about voting for this bill? you have to start off by telling us, what is attached to this bill? guest: that is a very good question and i am sorry that i was not clear. the senate and house of both at one point several months ago passed a bill that would extend the extra money that the states were given during stimulus to absorb their additional medicaid costs. to be an example -- >> we are anticipating 61,000 additional people who will join the role of medicaid. if we did notant them to enroll because of the cost, we are required by law to enroll them if they're eligible -- the 61,000. the president suggested, and the

senate and house passed legislation that would have given the state's the additional extra money they got during the stimulus -- extended that throughout this entire fiscal year. but they passed it in different pieces of legislation. now, with the election nearing, it has become a political football. the republicans say, we do not want to give that money to the states for the medicaid funding unless it is paid for, because we cannot add to the deficit. democrats say, this is like a war in afghanistan. it is an emergency situation. we're going to lose jobs if we do not add that money to the deficit. we cannot pay for it now, but it is an emergency, just like funding for the war. they cannot agree, because an election is coming up in four months and both sides are posturing for the election. republicans are the ones that are doing the most posturing here they are making this into an ideological football. host: let's go to florida.

what is the name of your town? caller: we-- it is easier than it sounds. guest: it does not sound easy. caller: thank you for being here to explain this stuff. i have one point. democrats who have been advertising for this method of government have been saying just what you said. they used -- the talk about bill clinton's tax increase -- they talk about bill clinton's tax crease. the other fellow said the republicans in the congress -- everybody seems to forget that bill clinton took advantage of the peace dividend where he did

commission tend visions of the army -- 10 divisions of the army, the navy went to over 300 ships. i suspect that all of you i believe, degree-holding governments, lawyers -- ivy league, degree-holding government and lawyers. the job you're trying to create --t is not going to work. you have to move out of the way of private industry. host: governor? guest: the calr made a good local about military spending. the united states in non-war years spends about $800 million -- $800 billion on our

military i wonder if the caller knows the second-highest country. china spends one's last 10 of what we spend. that is the largest -- the 1/dark -- if china spends 1/10 of what we spend. that is driving our economy. we are the policemen of the world, whether that is good or bad. i will leave that to another program. that would take hours to debate. that level of military spending is one of the reasons that our budget is so high. it is no question about that. but, ifsuggesting this, tomorrow, the troops were withdrawn from iraand afghanistan, the overall government spending would go down dratically. let me go back to what the caller said about government spending not creating any jobs. let me talk about infrastructure, because that was

why i was asked to come on c- span. infrastructure spending does create jobs. every analyst who has looked at it says that directly and indirectly infrastructure spending -- money spent on building roads, repairing bridges -- it creates anywhere from 25,000 to 30,000 jobs for every $1 billion of spending. that is a direct impact. those are good paying jobs that will revive america's factories. our manufacturing is not dead. i agree that it is in trouble. if we went on a 10-year infrastructure revitalizion program -- roads, bridges, highways, water, wastewater systems -- that would revive the american economy. the group that i belong to -- building america's futures -- i am one of the co-chairs. michael bloomberg, the mayor of new york, he is an independent.

we all agree, many people agree, we have to prepare the american infrastructure. caller, we know that creates a direct, good-paying jobs that cannot be outsourced and that will help revive american manufacturing. host: we're talking with governor ed rendell, the 45th governor of pennsylvania. they have a $23.3 billion budget. the independent line. good morning. caller: i understand that when we went into iraq the oil was supposed to pay for that. don't know why we are not upset about paying for it. the tea party is so upset with the spending. what does anything about the president have to do with spending?

-- host: do you want to give us your thoughts on the tea party and what impact it will have on this november's election? guest: thealler is right that there is a great deal of hypocrisy about this spending debate. the republicans say we cannot pass extended unemployment benefits for the unemployed because it is not paid for. when it came to spending for the wars, they did not insist that it be paid for. when it mes to extending the bush tax cuts, they do not insist that it will be paid for. the caer is right. depends -- the tea party, the republicans, some blue dog democrats -- they tend to be very inconsistent about what they are willing to pay for and what is good and bad spending. that is a very good point. all of us -- the tea party years, independence, republicans, democrats, we should all think about that. if we are against spending, let's be against all spending

across the board. that is number one. number two, the tea party will have a significant impact. when i say the tea party, i mean the movement of americans were angry about what is going on -- who are angry about what is going on. in anff-year election, elections are decided by turnout. right now, for progresses and democrats, but are less motivated, less excited. if that holds, we will not do well in november. my message to democrats who are is getng or independentbans out there and looked. -- and vote. you may not be 100% happy, but if you do not vote, the deeper years will have a tremendous impact and it will not be -- the iers will have a

tremendous impact and i do not think it will be a good one. host:he democrats' strategy to preserve their house majority became clearer. can you put your demratic strategist hat on? you were the former dnc back in 2000. what is your advice to the democrats who are running for conservative and liberal districts? how should they run their campaigns? guest: they should talk about the things i talked about. there have been some mistakes. their mistakes in any endeavor at any time -- and there are mistakes in any endeavor at any time. but there have been more good things then bad things. when the american people find out what is in the health care bill, they will be very happy. if you have a child with a pre- existing illness, as of september, before the election,

your child has to be granted health care coverage because of the new health care reform bill. talk about those good things. when you broke down the elements of the health care bill, the american people like it very much. talk about the financial responsibility bill. we did something with very little republican help to ensure that we do not have another crisis like what we had that has brought us this terrible economy. that is a significant and very positive achievement. there are many things the stimulus has worked. it has not been perfect, but it has worked. there are good things to talk about. we should talk about republican insensitivity. they said the president was wrong and it started bp to get that $20 billion to help repay small businesses -- and exported -- exported -- extorted bp to get that $20 billion to

help repay the gulf coast businesses. how about the republican party basically opposing the extension of unemployment compensation for americans? they said those unemployment benefits keep people from going to work. people just take the benefits and do not go to work. in pennsylvania, the average benefit is $370 per week. if any elected official things th you can raise a family of four and pay all your bills on that amount, it is obvious that they are out of touch. the democratic party is still the best vehicle for working americans to protect them, their families, and their future. that is the message we have to get through loud and clear. if we do that, november will be better than people think. host: president obama did sign into law that extension of

unemployment benets. republicans said that they were not against the benefits themselves, but that they wanted the benefits to be paid for. let's move on. eleanor on our democrat line. caller: good morning. guest: the republicans who said that were willing to vote for more money for the war without it being paid for and willing to extend the bush tax cuts on people making more than $250,000 without that being paid for. caller: good morning, governor. i was going in pennsylvania. my father bought a house in equinox in 1942. we moved there right after the big flood that got allot of the bridges and infrastructure. i watched a woman being rescued out of the top of theree there. my uncle bill hauled milk at the

time. we went out to see the devastation. when we move to equinox, the retaining wall to the bridge next to our house had been washed out. it was never replaced. now, with the flood two years ago, the bridge next to the house was washed away. there was a lot of an erosion. although i do not live there anymore, it is kind of sentimental to see that now. the state is, through eminent the main, going to take part of the yard and garden, to put in this big, i believe it is $5 million bridge. for that small community, really does not require such a large expansion of the previous

bridge. are bids submitted so that you can scale that back? guest: i do not know about that individual project. if your e-mail the folks at c- span and give me your address, i will find that information and get back to you. one of the things i am very proud of -- it is not politically fashionable to say that you spend money -- but as governor, i have tripled the spending on repairing pennsylvania's bridges. we have the most structurally- deficient bridges of any state in the coury. we increased our spending almost fourfold. you have 1300 bridges under repair right now. that is helping generate a lot of economic growth and development, and jobs as well. that spending is good spending. let me give you an example of how spending can work to save money. this all happened before i was

governor. this city had been prone to flooding because it is on the eastern branch of the susquehanna river. in the great floods of the 1950's and 1960's, it was almost wiped out. people got together to get federal and state money and spent nearly $200 million building up the levy to a significant height. in ivan and the three major storms that swept through pennsylvania, many towns were flooded. because of the money that was spent, there was not one drop of water that hit. the mayor estimated that we saved over $1 billion in dage from that $200 million of spending. we ask the folks in cedar rapids and new orleans whether they wished they had spent money

building up their levies, they would probably say they wished they did. there were billions of dollars of damages and loss of life in new orleans and in cedar rapids, because we did not spend the money repairing those levies and building that broad infrastructure. investment can save money, improve public safety, help our economic competitiveness. we have to do it. when jim inhofe and ed rendell agree on something like that, you know it has to be correct. st: pennsylvania, the republican line. guest: i live in washington crossing, pa.. when you talk aut infrastructure, this is an iconic piece of america, which most americans are not aware is under the auspices of phmc. it has taken a 40% hit. there is a house bill that is

about to give 27% of that park to a private entity. i belong to an organization that has gotten over 4000 signatures to not give away that part, and to keep the iconic 500 acres of the turning point of the revolutionight here where some of america's first patriots died before the successful battle of trenton. we're all hoping that you will not allow this piece of american history to be given away. host: governor? guest: i have not seen that bill. we just finished our budget and we're now in the middle oa special session on transportation funding. i will take a strong look at it. i am with you. we should tread very lightly before giving away things that are part of our heritage. my inclination would be not to

for that bill. i will not prejudge it. the concept of that commission -- it is painful to me. pennsylvania h cut $3.5 billion of its budget in the last 20 months. for pennsylvanian who are angry about that -- for pennsylvanians were angry aut that -- there is talk about wanting the deficit to under control. we have to have a balanced budget. people are against spending until it is something they like. then they want us to spend money. you cannot win. we had to cut across the board. they were painful cuts. i urged the legislature to raise taxes. we do not tax cigars and smokeless tobacco. we get a vendor discounts for paying taxes on time. i said that is ludicrous. let's get rid of that discount. i wanted the sale to be taxed.

it looks like it will be taxed. we could have produced over $350 million of additional revenue and would have been able to forestall a lot of those cuts. but i was not elected king. i always remind constituents that i have to reach agreements with the legislature. there were a lot of common-sense enhancements that or not agreed upon. walmart gets 01% discount for taking the sales tax that we pay them and remitting that on-time to harrisburg. isn't that ludicrous? that is one reason we have had to make cuts in things like our historic parks and museums. host: we have time for one lt, quick phone call from texas on the independent line. can you make a quick? caller: i will try. governor, you d the republican party -- democrats are all the same. it is a party of one.

the republicans want to send jobs overseas. democrats want to keep labor coming to the united states of america. that is why you all want the illegals here. i am saying illegals. you can understand the difference. -- cannot understand the difference. the american people have spoken out. the democrats are telling the american people to go to hell. thank you. guest: i cannot speak for all democrats. andennsylvania, a supported enthusiastically -- in pennsylvania, i support enthusiastically a very tough bill against employers who some -- who employ illegals. that is the best remedy

>> this weekend, the former "new york times" editor on the changing newspaper industry. >> i worry about the standards and maintaining journalistic integrity as we move from one media world to another. >> clark hoyt on sunday night. c-span is now available in over 100 million homes, bringing new washington your way, a public service created by america's cable companies. house majority leader steny hoyer outlined a legislative agenda heading into the midterm elections in remarks today. he talked about initiatives targeting the u.s. manufacturing sector and contrasted the democrat and republican policies dating back to the great depression. the center for american progress action fund was the host of this event. it is about 45 minutes.

>> good morning everyone. i am the executive vice president of the center for american progress action fund. on behalf of all my colleagues here, let me say that we're very honored to have house majority leader steny hoyer with us this morning to talk about the number one question in the country today. what is the best plan to create high-quality jobs and promote long-term economic growth? the gallup poll recently found that more than half of americans surveyed across all spectrums point to economic issues as the most important problem facing the country today. 31% said the economy in general. 22% said unemployment and jobs as the number-one problem. the economy is job 14 speaker pelosi, majority leader hoyer, and their teams working to tackle the broken economy left in the last decade of conservative rule. the clinton administration had its checked -- share of

challenges with poverty, business, and debt. there was progress on every single indicator. the bush era had flagging returns and regress on each of the factors. in contrast to the 22 million jobs created during the administration, job growth under the bush administration was the worst in any positive cycle and more than 60 years, even before the onset of the great recession in 2007. that has no cost us over 8 million jobs. let's face it. the boom-bust economic cycle has failed. to many seem to want to return to the policies of the past. old wine in new bottles could leave us with the same hang over once again. the new administration and congress are hard at work repairing the broken foundation, filling the polls, stabilizing the economy, repairing the overhead of the financial markets, and beginning the process tackling health care

costs, moving us to a low carbon economy, and must more. we must turn our attention to rebuilding an economy for the modern age baltimore stable foundation. we must attend to the quality of the jobs being created to stop the loss of middle income jobs that are the backbone of the country. we must step back and develop a national strategy for long-term job creation based on progressive ideals. progressive leadership has spurred growth through education, investment and technology, and smart practical economic policies that support our nation's investors, entrepreneurs, and economic leaders as they create quality, reliable jobs for american workers. no one understands that objective and strategy better than our speaker today. steny hoyer has been a great friend to the fund. he needs very little introduction anywhere in this town. let me briefly say he started his career in 1966. at age 27, he graduated from the

law center and won a seat in the maryland senate. in 1975, he was elected president of the maryland senate, the youngest ever in the state's history. in 1981, he was elected to represent maryland's fifth congressional district. he was first elected by his colleagues as house majority leader in 2006 after serving as democratic whip. he has kept an unrelenting focus on jobs and opportunities for america's struggling workers and their families. driving the development and investment of new policies to make an american agenda to which the house is turning its attention. with ford to hearing his thoughts about the right course to take -- we look forward to attend his thoughts about the right course to take for america. please join me in welcoming steny hoyer. [applause] >> thank you very much. i am voice pleased to be here at the center. i am particularly pleased to be

here facilitated by the action fund. thank you very much. -- i am always pleased to be your at the center. i had the opportunity to speak with others before we came in. i am always pleased to be here with my good friend mark frost, a former member of congress, was done an extraordinary job in the congress of the enormous disparity not only represented our country well represented the state of texas very well. thank you for being here. america has based its share of trying times. times when not just our economy but our nation seemed in decline. each time with ingenuity, hard work, and our distinctly american optimism we have built our way out and emerged stronger. no one doubts this is one of those testing times.

the question that will be in front of us this fall is not where we are, it is where we go from here. it is a choice between two dramatically different directions. our decision comes down to three questions. how far we've come, what remains to be done, and which party will keep moving us forward. first, and for how we come? -- how far how come? let's consider an alternate history. america is facing the worst economic crisis in a generation. americans are losing almost 800,000 jobs per month. over 1/4 of personal wealth in america has been wiped out. businesses have been forced into layoffs. innovative start-ups cannot start up. foreclosures are devastated neighborhoods. the massive deficit left behind

by president bush makes responding to the crisis even more difficult. a new president and the democratic congress are struggling for solutions. negotiations break down. congress remains paralyzed. in the end, we do nothing. as a result, cb partisano tells us we are looking at 2 million additional unemployed americans. economy would likely have continued to shrink instead of growing for three straight quarters. retirement savings would have remained devastated. the global recession would have been catastrophic. it was that bleak picture that led former reagan economic adviser martin feldstein to indorse substantial deficit spending to pump life into the economy, saying "i do not think we have a choice."

thinking about how much worse off with could have been is not much comfort to anyone struggling to find work. but any honest look at our economy has to start with an honest conversation about the disaster we have to this point averted. that is as a result of the actions we've taken. a mere year and a half ago, economists were talking in all seriousness about the risks of the second great depression. instead, we have stabilized the financial system, injected demand in to the economy, and created jobs. in fact, almost as many jobs in the first six months of this year as george bush created in the eight years of his presidency net. the private sector has added jobs for six straight months. it took more than two years after the end of the last

recession. our economy to return to six consecutive months of job growth in the private sector. that progress started with vital investments, not just an hour and the recovery, but in the foundations of prosperity for years to come. we are rebuilding roads, railways, bridges that is the backbone of our economy. we're using build america funds to help local governments invest in the infrastructure projects that they need the most. we are investing in our children's future. we've kept teachers in the classroom. we've helped more young americans reach their goal of a college education. we are helping doctors and hospitals computerized medical records so that patients can be treated even more effectively. we have funded clean energy technology that will help us to save energy and become less dependent on foreign oil. technology like the smart grid will respond to changing energy

needs in real time. just as the internet was created in america with the support of the federal government, today in partnership with the private sector we are laying the groundwork for transformational technologies. it can shape our economy and shape jobs we create jobs for years to come. for 90% of americans, taxes are now lower than they were in any single year under president bush. -- for 98% of americans, taxes are now lower than they were in any single year under president bush. they cannot dispute the nonpartisan analysis that show they have been responsible for as many as 3 million jobs. they cannot ignore the investment benefits in their own communities, not on the house minority whip himself has had features with employers who benefited from federal funds. it is a policy voted against. while all house republicans

voted yes to these investments, more than half of the republicans in congress have taken credit for them in their districts. president obama has signed into law a hire act that cuts employers' taxes for every unemployed worker hired back. the treasury department has reported that between february and may, the act gave small businesses $8.50 billion in tax cuts for millions of new workers. democrats have also passed legislation helping to support $28 billion in new lending for small businesses. we hope to do another $30 billion debt leverage and to $300 billion. unfortunately, senate republicans do not see it that way. we have protected americans from abuse of credit card lending practices, making the biggest investment in student lending in history without adding to the deficit. health insurance reform will have an important jobs impact as

well. a harvard study found it will create up to 4 million jobs over the next decade. it makes coverage more affordable for businesses and the self-employed while putting american companies on a more even playing field with their foreign competitors. it will free the next generation of american entrepreneurs to innovate and make business decisions on the grounds of opportunity, not on the grounds of keeping their health care coverage. president obama has just signed important legislation to put the referee's back on the field. it will hold wall street accountable for the reckless conduct that helped crush our economy. wall street reform will create an important new consumer financial protection borough to make sure the borrowers and lenders live up to the common- sense standards of responsibility and honesty. ends tarp and ensures that the

cost of any future and as a crisis will be borne by the financial industry, keeping taxpayers off the hook for future bailouts. by the way, those were requested by president bush. sector paulson and ben bernanke also requested them. wall street reform will remove uncertainty and help to free up $8 trillion in cash sitting on the sidelines of corporate america as we speak. that is private sector cash poised to redeploy into job- creating investments, the kind of investments that led to the tech boom in the 1990's. the more we strengthen the integrity and transparency of our financial system, the more we rebuild the confidence needed to encourage investment in america and the more our financial system gets back towards its core purpose of helping to allocate capital to families investing in their future and of prisoners investing in job creation.

all those policies have a common thread. after a lost decade, middle- class americans now have a congress and an administration that is helping it make up lost ground. we're building for future prosperity. all that work has helped to move our economy back toward strength. for far too many people, that is still not the reality. millions of americans are still out of work. no one claims that we have reached success. therefore, neither congress nor the administration can rest. the second question becomes, what remains to be done? democrats are fighting for middle-class republicans as much as they want to use the economy as a political weapon. they're looking to go back to the very same policies that caused many of the problems the

middle class confronts today. in fact, the chairman of the republican congressional campaign committee whose job is to recruit members to come to congress to make policy said "we need to go back to the exact same agenda." that means the bush agenda of the 2000's that have left is in the deepest economic recession we have seen in three-quarters of a century. but almost all indications, it was an agenda that failed. that is the agenda to which the chairman of the campaign committee says the republicans want to return. democrats on the other hand are putting forward their ideas to drive our recovery, particularly when it comes to our vital manufacturing sector. white house democrats are

launching the naked in america agenda. it is a strategy to boost american manufacturing. for generations, americans have looked to manufacturing as a source of economic vitality, a source of good paying jobs, and a source of pride. americans always been proud to be a country that makes things. some think that is a thing of the past. democrats do not believe that. we're committed to regaining america's manufacturing edge. the naked in american agenda will include bills to encourage investments in industry, improve manufacturing infrastructure and innovation, strengthen the american work force and create a level playing field for american manufacturers to compete worldwide in this flat world of which tom friedman spoke. the make it in america agenda is made up of a range of bills that

will move forward in the coming weeks, including u.s. manufacturing enhancement act. the past in the house on wednesday. it makes it easier for american companies to get the materials they need to manufacture goods here. another act passed the house this week. it forms partnerships between businesses, unions, and educators to train workers for some of the most needed 21st century jobs. in national manufacturing strategy pact will direct the president to develop a manufacturing strategy for the nation every four years. there is the end of the trade deficit act now that will lead to policies that will reduce the trade deficit. the clean energy technology, manufacturing, and export assistance act will ensure that clean energy technology firms have the information and assistance they need to compete at home and abroad.

the ways and means committee will also be holding hearings next month, actually in september, on the issue of china's currency policy. that legislation was introduced by 10 ryan -- tim ryan. these are just the start. this is not an agenda for the balance of the year. this is an agenda for the long term. there is more to come. many house democrats are coming forward with ideas that can contribute to manufacturing revival. we welcome ideas from our republican colleagues. we welcome them from the american public, particularly the manufacturing sector itself. all these efforts will bolster president obama plan to support 2 million more jobs by doubling u.s. exports in five years. the plan is already showing success with exports up significantly over last year. they will build on the impact we

have already had since the beginning of the year. our private sector has created 136,000 new jobs in manufacturing. i hope the republicans will join us in working towards strengthening, expanding, and growing our manufacturing sector. i am glad many of them supported the manufacturing enhancement act in the house. there seemed to be some reluctance, but ultimately they reconsidered those votes and turned to yes. i am glad we're seeing some bipartisanship in this make it in america agenda. republicans and 18-month ban a standing with near unanimity against every measure to create jobs for working americans. a wide range of job creating ideas are waiting to be enacted. they continue to face partisan attraction -- obstruction, even

though many of those have had strong bipartisan support in the past. we would help businesses develop and bring to market new technologies to increase productivity. we would further invest in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education. we would encourage entrepreneurship and investment by letting businesses deduct startup expenses and exempt small business capital gains from taxation. we would establish a new fund without increasing the deficit to help community banks lend to small businesses. 45% of small businesses seeking loans were turned down last year. we would extend the r&d credit. we would stop tax breaks that encourage corporations to outsource american jobs overseas. republicans unfortunately are fighting to keep that local -- loophole open. democrats want to close it and keep more jobs in america.

republican obstruction has extended to unemployment insurance, as is so well known by the american public. they're still five applicants for each job -- new job opening. unemployment insurance is one of the most effective ways of stimulating demand. it is quickly spent because it is essentially needed. moody'seconomy.com found it creates over $3 stimulus for every dollar spent. republicans say we cannot afford it, but then they demand $676 billion in debt finance tax cuts for the most privileged among us. i am pleased that president obama was able to sign the unemployment bill that we passed yesterday. that money will be coming into the economy.

from a moral standpoint, it will provide sustenance for families in deep distress still in this economy. an msnbc analysis from last weekend found that both co sessionrny andn corn i and -- found that both sessions and cornyn were unable or unwilling to discuss it. republicans were not willing to make concessions. sessions did not make a single one. that is the same thinking that condoned record foreign borrowing under president bush and did severe harm to our long- term prosperity. democrats understand that short- term deficits have been necessary for our recovery. in my view, they continue to be necessary if we're going to

bring the economy back. we will never solve the deficit problem if we do not solve the building and growing the economy. the house will extend middle- class tax cuts for next year. we expect the senate to act first. all the job creation measures are have discussed, along with the middle class tax cuts, represent only a small fraction of our real long-term deficit problem. we do have hard choices to make about our fiscal future. i have spoken about them a few weeks ago in detail. in making those choices, we have to steer between two great mistakes. one would be following republicans who want to use our structural deficit as an excuse to put the brakes on recovery while millions are still unemployed. that would put even more

americans out of work and increased deficits that we're trying to reduce. another mistake would be putting ourselves even deeper into debt by making tax cuts for the wealthy permanent. republicans seem to be able to hold both of these positions at the same time. a combination of reckless borrowing and middle-class neglect that frankly characterized the previous administration. that brings us to the last question. we pulled our country off the edge of disaster. we know what needs to be done for the americans were still struggling. finally, the question becomes, which party can you trust to do that? we know what republic and economic philosophy looks like in practice. cut taxes for the wealthiest, cut regulations that guard against everything from wall street access to oil companys' negligence. we know the policies those

regulate. it drove our economy into the ditch, the deepest ditch we have been in in three-quarters of a century. they created a decade of stagnant incomes. during the eight years of the bush administration, it was the worst job record since herbert hoover. it is a stark contrast with the clinton administration that created 21 million private sector jobs in 96 months, as opposed to the net 1 million jobs created during the 96 months of the bush administration. over eight years of president bush, our economy added just 1 million private sector jobs. it was president bush iran a $2.13 trillion in deficit and wiped out the biggest surpluses in history.

the national debt was more than $5 trillion turned into a national debt of more than $10 trillion. that record is not an aberration. decade after decade, democrats are performed better on the economy than republicans. some may be surprised to hear that. market analyst larry greenberg studied administrations from john kennedy to george bush and found that "jobs grew more slowly for each of the republicans than for any of the democrats." princeton political scientist larry bartell studied income growth from truman to george w. bush. he found that when a republican president is in power, people at the top of the income distribution experience much larger real income gains than those at the bottom.

by contrast, democratic presidents generate higher income gains for all income groups. in 2008, "the new york times" asked this question. this is a compelling comparison. imagine that starting in 1929, you had to invest exclusively under either democratic or republican administrations. how would you have fair? you make your choice in your head right now. -- how would have dared fare predict fa -- inred would you have fared? >> $10,000 invested in republican administrations would have netted you today $11.737.

that is probably not fair. let's take out the hoover administration. that is arguably the worst. let's take that out in fairness. if we're charitable and take that out, your $10,000 invested exclusively during republican administrations over the last 70 years would have resulted in51 $,211 -- would have resulted in $51,211. under democratic administrations with the same $10,000 invested exclusively under democratic administrations, that would now be worth $367,071. 600% more than a few had that money exclusively grow under republican administrations.

when we talk about republican economic failure, we're not talking about a passing trend. that is not withstanding the fact that i can point out to you that during the course of the clinton administration, the dow group 236%. the s&p 500 crew about to hundred 90%. the nasdaq group by almost 300%. -- the nasdaq grew by almost three and a%. though statistics are almost all-under the bush administration. democratic policies have supported innovation, the interest of working people, and a better standard of living for all americans republican policies have favored the privileged and left working americans behind. you might be able to write off the record of republicans gave any indication that they have reconsidered the policies they created that created that. as they put themselves, "we need to go back to the exact same

agenda." i do not think americans have that in mind. when you remember that republican behavior, that makes perfect sense. apologizing to be pete when democrats hold them accountable for the apologizing to bp when democrats held accountable, working with bankers and lobbyists to water down wall street reform, and then simply portraying it as a bailout, putting debt finance tax cuts for millionaires ahead of the unemployed -- i am proud to put our party's middle-class record against theirs. our work is not done. we've stood up to wall street, brought access to affordable health care for all americans, reinstated pay as you go and fiscal discipline, gone to bat

for job creation in the face of ideological opposition again and again for the last 18 months. democrats can tell working americans with confidence and pride that we have stood for your interests. we have met crisis with the optimism that defines our country. at its best, it can make a great nation even greater. so often, our biggest need to come out of the darkest moments. -- so often, our biggest jumps have come out of the darkest moments. in the middle of the civil war, we late railroad tracks from one coast to the other. in the twilight struggle for freedom, it led to a nation of highways, an american on the and the technology that shapes the world today. if we choose shared growth over spoils for a few and our common interest of the special

interests, then this can also be one of those remarkable moments in which we build our way out we will make it in america once again. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you. i will start with just one question. then i will open it up to the audience. if i could see hanse pleas from members of the media for the first round of questions. please wait until the microphone comes to you. please identify the organization you are with. before we do that, let me ask one question about the tax cuts issue. i see this is emerging to the forefront. help me to understand the argument of those who would say it that we should be renewing

the upper-class tax cuts. i think people are fuzzy on that. what is it that your party is arguing for on the tax cuts. contrast that with what the republicans are saying? >> the republicans put in place a policy that cut taxes but reinstated this taxes next year. they would all go up. we have indicated that we believe that this point time with the recession, we ought to have no increase in taxes on middle income working americans. in a time of recession, if you want to make sure that working people have the ability to support themselves and their families. we are going to continue the tax cuts for middle-income americans. how we define middle income americans? those making $200,000 or less

individually, or $250,000 or less as couples. with respect to the tax cuts for the wealthiest in america, we have a severe deficit problem. those who are doing well will not have their lives and adversely affected by continuing to contribute at a rate that provides for the bringing down of our deficit and continuing to invest in the growth of our country. that is the policy we're going to be pursuing. thank you for that overwhelming applause. [laughter] the middle class taxpayer and the back of the room. >> please identify yourself. >> i am from reuters. use of the house will renew the middle class tax cuts for one year -- you said that the house will renew the middle class tax cuts for one year. what is the significance of the one year? >> i do not think i said one

year. that has not been decided, how long. did i say that in my speech? >> you said for the next year. >> certainly for the next year, but not necessarily just for the next year. that is in discussion. the speaker indicated, and as a result of our discussions with the senate, the senate will probably move first. we will see what the senate does in terms of the time frame on the middle income tax cut. we want to make it very clear that working americans will not receive a tax increase. >> you have not made a decision on how long? >> that is under discussion. >> do you think you will take up before or after the election? >> we expect the senate to act first. we're waiting to see when they act. we have one week left to go before the august break. the senate will be in for another couple of weeks. we will see what they do so we can determine when we get back

what product we have in front of us. >> media, with the red strap. >> i am with "u.s. trade. though i wanted to follow-up on the manufacturing initiatives. there does not appear to be any action in the senate. can you help us understand this? how would you defend against the accusation? on manufacturing in particular, how do you explain to someone this is not just election politics in these bills have no chance of becoming law this year? >> it is not election politics. we believe we have invested a great deal of money in building our economy. we think we have had progress in doing that.

i make the distinction between progress and success. success will be when we have 8 million jobs for the 8 million people who lost their jobs in the previous administration. 3.8 million lost their jobs in the last year. they lost as a last year of the bush administration. we want to contrast that with the 1.9 million new jobs created last year of the clinton administration. we are making progress, but we have not yet have success. this is a long-term agenda for bringing back manufacturing. no one is one to turn a light switch on and all the sudden have that happen. we need to adopt policies and a strategy. we need to renew our focus on making it in america. that has two meaning. first of all, manufacturing, making goods and america so that people in america can make it in

america. the to have good jobs, good benefits, and a good future for themselves and their children. this is not a question of what the senate can pass in the weeks remaining of this congress. it is establishing the principle that we intend to pursue both now and in the next congress as a major focus of making sure that america grows its economy and creates jobs, particularly in the manufacturing sector. that has provided such a good paying, stable jobs in the past. there is no reason why american workers cannot compete with workers anywhere in the world if they have a level playing field. >> one more media question, please. >> i am from "china trade extra." you have anticipated my question.

you mentioned the china currency bill will have a hearing. is there any doubt in your mind that this legislation fully fits within this initiative? should it get treated in the fall? >> there's going to be hearing. we need a level playing field. we are prepared to compete with anybody in the world. we cannot compete with the rules are skewed against us. that is what the hearing will address. i am sure that secretary geithner and the administration will be looking at this as well. we think there are a number of areas in which china is not playing by the rules and that our competitors do not have a stable playing field there. i.t. is another area. proprietary information is

another area. we will be looking at a number of areas, not just in china. china is obviously the focus of the ryan bill itself. we will be looking at other trading partners as well. >> we will open it up more generally. let's come back up to the front. please identify yourself. >> >> julie harris of pennsylvania. someone else did this is election politics. last july, i ran into you on the hill. i was talking to you about make it in america. you sent me to your chief of staff and your staff. they worked with us and the pennsylvania company on technology. i know that making it in america has been on the agenda. we did get someone in the senate, senator burris.

it is very important to have our technology and circuits made here. it started with defense. if you going to include adding defense into that measure to protect more jobs? >> a number of the pieces of legislation deals specifically with the offense -- defense. we have passed defense reform for the house and senate. the answer to that question is yes. >> congressman frost? >> here comes a tough question. [laughter] >> martin frost, a longtime admirer of steny hoyer. this is an interesting question i am going to pose. probably the most cynical thing to republicans have done tax

cuts is how they handled the state tax. over a period of years, they increased the exemption to help small businesses and family farms so they would not have to be sold. then they have the estate tax totally disappear this year. so when a billionaire like george steinbrenner dies, his family does not have to pay any estate taxes. next year, they would revert back to a low exemption that would not be helpful to family farmers and small business people. congress has not been able to deal with this issue. do you think there's any realistic expectation that congress can deal with this issue this year? if congress does not act, it will go back to low level and not be helpful to a lot of family-owned businesses. >> as you know, i believe that we absolutely should and must act.

i think we will act. the house acted last year to continue the 2009 rates. that was the responsible thing to do so that everybody in america would know that they had a $7 million it exemption. every individual would know that they have an exemption of $3.5 million and would know the break. the fiscal year responsible ploy of the republicans to phase out their tax cut in 2010 was a policy to raise everybody's taxes in 2010 and 2011. that is the fact of the republican policies adopted in 2001 and 2003. they will respond quickly that they had to do that the cb o --

that they had to do that because of cbo scoring issues. the effect of that will do what congress and frost is indicated. because we failed to act on the estate tax in 2009 and the senate did not take up the house bill which would have given some certainty to families and individuals, we are now in a position where the estate tax is at 0. because of the republican policies adopted in 2001 and 2003, it will go back from 45% in 2009 to the $1 million, up 55% rate in 2011. that is unacceptable. presumably, it is unacceptable to most republicans. that undercuts their major strategy for the last eight months, to delay and obstruct.

they need to have this past. their policy will result in an objective they say they do not want. i am very hopeful that it will give families the certainty of the rate. my own view will be that when the house passed the 45%, it was a good compromise and should be adopted. it reflected inflationary increases in the values of the states. it gave over 98.5% exemptions from paying the taxes. >> this will be our last question. he needs to get back to the hill. >> thank you for your comments. i appreciate it. i am monica mcguire of the national association of manufacturers. that was quite a victory.

thank you. >> you encouraged a number of our republicans to reflect during the course of the vote and change their vote. we had a really good vote on that. that was great. >> thank you for recognizing that. the manufacturing strategy was released last month with three simple points. one is that the united states ought to be the best place for companies to have quarter. the united states ought to be the best place to do research and development. 3, the united states ought to be the best place for a manufacturer to be. regarding the r&d credit, bipartisan support, it it is been mired in the senate for some time. expired at the end of last year for the 14th time. manufacturers claim nearly 70% of those credits. is there any prognosis to whether there will be a retroactive extension this year of the credit? it is a jobs credit.

more than 70% of the credit dollars go to job creation in the united states. >> i do not want to anticipate what we will do on that. my personal view is that we need to make it retroactive again to encourage. we have adopted statutory pay- go. i think that was the right policy to adopt. when the republicans jettison the statutory pay-go in 2003, they eliminated the statutory pay-the requirement. it allowed them to incur a great debt without consequence in terms of procedure. the consequence was that we created great debt without paying for it. these are subject to statutory pay-go requirements. we need to pay for the tax credits. having said that, my view is strongly that those credits are very important to the make it in

america agenda. encouraging manufacturing in any way that we can, through the education component, so that we have the kind of technically scientifically, mathematically, engineeringly trained people to take the kind of jobs that will expand manufacturing. we believe that america is the best place. we have the best resources in our people. given the proper environment, we will be able to compete with anybody in the world. i want to say to you that you can take the message back to the national association manufacturers that i personally, and the members of the democratic caucus, look forward to working with the national association of manufacturers towards our joint objectives. we do not always agree, no one would expect that. on this objective of creating jobs and making sure that the

rest of the world knows that we can and do make it in america, america will be a greater economy. our people will be much better off. thank you all very much. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> both chambers of congress are in session next week. the house returns on monday for morning our speeches. legislative business gets under way at 2:00 p.m. eastern. they will debate several bills with those and general speeches at 6:00. on the agenda, spending bills for military construction, housing and urban development. will also seek a war and

disaster spending bill for 2010 after the senate sends it to the house for consideration. white house coverage is on c- span. the senate is back on monday at 3:00 eastern to begin work on a campaign finance bill that serves as a legislative response to the supreme court decision in the citizens united case earlier this year. a procedural vote on the measure takes place on tuesday. . . >> "washington journal" continues. host: let's begin with talking about the difference between what refineries do and what bp was doing in the gulf of mexico

so people understand the difference. guest: absolutely. first of all, thanks for having me this morning. it is a pleasure to be here. what we as domestics do, we don't produce the crude oil. we make it better. we make gasoline, deisel and other products that surround us in our daily lives. host: how many refineries are there in the united states right now? guest: probably 147, 148, depending on bho who is counting. those are owned by interest crated companies, independent companies, large, small, and meedyum sized. we go through the whole gamut,

the biggest of the big to the smallest of the small. host: how many are we talking about? >> we're talking a low of two to 2.5 million direct jobs. ans larry to that, what we do p provide, d -- do, you're talking over nine and 10 millionectobs that we were directly responsible for. host: what's the impact on our economy? >> hundreds of millions of dollars. just in 200148ectust from the o and gas and refining sector of the business,r n -- $ 10 billio in federal tax were paid. host: refineries have to pay

taxes? guest: sure. whether you are signing it out on the pipelinvide there are corporate taxes you have to pay. at the end of twathvideectust i the federal -s,rend ofrs.008. it doesn't count the taxes the employees bay. we consider ourselves -- and i think rightfully so -- we are the economicening -- economic engine that drives the economy of the united states. host: did the refining industry receive tax subs divides that the oil companies were getting for a while. >> i think it is important for people to understand, there is a major dpdiference between taxes that are in the toed that were intended to do two or twe geeti

things. one, very well oil and domestic resources, two provide employment, and three, keep the economy moving forward. they have been dp ng that, and they keep us competitive with s oreiare s competition. and gin, compare and contrast wh a subsidy, which is a direct government subsieed that you don't pay taxes on. so again, if they mortgage the did he deduction for your taxes, is that a subsidy or a provision. >> what le.pact is the moritorim having on the refinery?

guest: we are the first customer of crude oil. we have to buy crude and get crude from a varied number of sources, and naturally the gulf of mexico is a prime source. if you are not getting that froi the gulf, you will find it in other places. it is' misconception from many that we are so dependent on all foreign sources of fuel, of crude oil. we are relying on crude from all over the world, but you h, ke t remebuyer, crude is a global commodity. the other thing you h, ke to remebuyer, we get most of our crude from foreign yude, ò upplied right here in the westewith hems fear. whether it is in the united ò tates, canada, or mexico, that's the lion's share that we use are either home groin oral sie and our nkeepghbors.

host: here's what ken salazar had to say about the moritorhat. du> i think it was important to put in place until we can monitor capeabilild, as well as oil well sponls capeability. hoast: why not keep a moritorham in place until you can assure safety? guest: you have to remember, my association represents the refining industry and not the crude production. but to answer your question is, we don't stop air traffic after an accident. we don't stop bugs traffic ae pr an accident. we investigate and we find out what went wrong. by anyone's calculation this is a trageeed that hsay apened in

gulf. a tragedy for the whole nation, bhu many -- but for the ones who lost thkeepr lives, their -- yo hearts and prayers go out. what will happen with the moritorium? there these rigs move. will we be more dependent on other southe ges of crude oil f perhaps unstable regions of the wowe are ds? i want to emphasize, we are the first customer. before that gasoline or diesel gets to the pump or before those petrochemicals get turned into liast lien, those are the -- ths is sent to us fpble -- it costs us to refine the crude oil. we pay.

host: i see. guest we're the first customer. we pay. the market price is what the refining industry pays. the mao uet sets the price. when there is volatility or high crude prices, we're the first e pestomer. it impacts us before it impacts the consumer at the pump or elsewhere. host: let's go to calls. arizona, republican linvide you are firsnsw caller: i would like to make a statement first. the statement is, i believe the president of the united states is a socialist, even thoweh he dbetwesn't want to say so. he wants to change america s undamentally. s tost: edwarim wysre g move on, because that's more of a commennsw

lialler: years ago they said we were out of oil and today they have more oil than we have ever had. you guys just keep coming off of that -- they closed some of the refineries down, and that's why the price of gasoline is $3 a nd gllon, and you guys just kee coming off of this. the american petryle are so egrainwashed it is pathetic host: can you plane that -- explain that a little more. caller: in the 1950's they produced a newspaper, cmonl, al they had wasrs.0 years lefnsw now they come up with this oil thing. they take more cmonl out of wes virginia now than they have at any time. that's what i'm talking aare tu. the crude oil, they are out of oil, they have people believing that, and that's why gas is what it is today.

s tolvet:. s tost: ok. guest: we are, again, just as much impacted by the crude oil s luctuations as consumers are. it is not any market which sets the plice for crude whiaso will dictate the price for fuel, but the is more or less state-o haed p l companies. independent private companies only control less than 6% of the total resouthe ges of the world crude. whereas the companies o ha the rest. when you talk about refineries being shut down, the problem is supply and demand. the problem is supply and demand.

first of all, the industry has hit every industry very, very hard. so gasoline demanim diesel demand has come way, way down. secondly, the ad vent of p egio-fuels whiaso we are n opposed to, but thredoo cut into the amount of gasoline that needs to be produced. every individual has to be looked at as an individt isl profit or loss center. there has been a consolidation. a consolist,tion in the railrmo and steel industries simply because of scommick considerations and the fact that we're a global economy. when you spoke years ago aare t what we could do in this country, we more or less didn't have the international liompetition coming from china and india. those days are gone. we live in a glo ral economy, ad unfortunately we're in a dog s ight tomondeep our american

economy moving forward. >> smath senate halts effordom o lisay a. cap and trade fails to lure broad political support. where was your few to implement a cap and trade type situation? guest: i think it is the position of most americans. our position is no energy bill should be approved unless it improves the lives of the american people and strengthens the demi and the -- econo mor a the person people. if it fails to pass those twe g tests on any l to mel, that wou

imposeing -- the self-imposed economic sanctions here in the united states to the shear delight, in oir opinion of s orkeepare s competition, whia mentioned earlier. their economy is going to grow. we are putting sel? constraints on fuels, on fructs -- pro, thcts, on everything americans need in their daily lives, but we need to get , eericans out of this economic doldrums. >> that leaves the door open for liongress to regulate carare tn emissions. some in the industry aid they would rather h, ke congress do something concrete that they know about rather than leaving ãwat ll, to e.p.a. to regulate. guest: i totally agree.

any greenhouse gas rfruulating s terriblutt terrible policy. i believe the e.p.a. has taken a sll,reme couht decision with a very narrow ruling and have tried to expanned it to -- expand it to encompass the whole clean air act. . lulu

epa and the administration believe this is the right avenue to take. they said themselves, it is so much better to do it legislatively. but again, let's go back to what we should be doing legislatively. energy bills need to improve the lives of americans, and not

force more billions and billions and billions of not so hidden taxes on them that will make us less and less competitive in the global economy. host: can you quantify how much time you have spent up on capitol hill talking to members of congress, pushing back against a capt. trade proposal? guest: if you are talking about hours and hours -- it is frequent. it is not just talking to members of congress. because i think we have done a better job talking to the american people and getting them to understand and getting them to see -- peel away the sound bite and actually see what is in the legislation. it is not the oil industry or any other industry that prevented the senate from passing what we think would be harmful captains -- capped and trade legislation that the

american people saying, no, we do not want this. host: philip, thanks for waiting. caller: speaking of talking points, keep hearing that we did not ground all airlines when planes crashed and i got curious and i google american airlines ground planes but it not only came up with american airlines -- 4200 hits. i am sure a lot are repeaters. but american airlines grounded 200 flights in march of 2008 and 900 more in april of 2008 and midwest, 14 maryland-80's for wiring problems. the problem with the deep water horizon thing is it is 5,000 feet underwater. you have to shut it. what would happen if a second well set up the same way went off and started leaking again? you have to be a little bit

unproven. we need the energy. we use to much. we've got to cut back. people have to relax just a little bit and let the government and industry work things out together and get it done legislatively. it is very immediate now because it is today but we can hopefully look back in a month or a year or two or five years and think, well, it was rough, and we got over it. host: mr. drevna. guest: the three-quarters of the end of your statement, i could not agree more. we all need to take a deep breath and where cooperatively instead of conflict and get to the root cause. but when you mention the fact that one airline shut down so many planes but the whole industry was not shut down. that was my point. i did not want to overstate that. the point is that you should not shut the whole industry down there it but you have to remember, my organization, we are manufacturers.

we gathered the crude from all over the world. and we would like to gather it mostly from our sources and the united states because we think it is the path of energy security. going forward -- yes, you are absolutely right. i could not agree more. let's take a deep breath and set back and figure out what went wrong and let us make sure it does not happen again. but unilateral moratorium we don't believe is the right way to go. host: a tweet from one of the viewers -- this person seems to think this has an impact on local gas costs, that gascon cost more in some reason -- regions than in the city. guest: first of all, the refineries and, we don't set the prices. the market sets the prices. no more that the farmer sets the

price for potatoes and tomatoes, we don't set the price for fuel. now perhaps the answer for some regional disparity in the price of gasoline and other fuels is the regulations of what kind of particular gasoline that has to be. in some regions -- like here on the east coast, we have to use a reformulated gasoline. it has to be for environmental regions -- reasons. it may be somewhere in the midwest or elsewhere you could continue to use conventional gasoline because their air quality status is not as severe, so congress has said, no, you only have to use certain types of gasoline. then again, it is all based on the market, it is supply and demand, where the supply is and demand is. as an industry, as a refining industry, i think we've done a tremendous job providing the

american people with the fuels', these gasoline, diesel, aviation fuel, that are needed. we provide it reliably and effectively that are needed to, again, keep this economic engine running. host: st. augustine, florida. mary on the republican line. caller: i think he is going a good job taken to court and i think they should just change awards around every time it is run out of it can go back, like what obama did the last time when they told them the moratorium stood. it is also funny that a lot of people that are for the environment -- and i know this because i have friends -- they did not stop driving their cars, they did not turn their air conditioner down. they like it cool. they like to drive around instead of riding bikes. i get tired of hearing all of these people saying we should do this but they don't do it themselves. host: ok.

shville, tennessee. caller: good morning, america. i would like to rebut some of the things that mr. drevna has been saying. first off, there was a total shutdown of the airlines, it was called 9/11, the skies were not very friendly. and bp has not been very friendly in the gulf, you could say that. the second thing is, it is more than just supply and demand. it is also speculation in the market. people that cannot receive the crude oil that this man receives can speculate in the market. the people that should only be bidding on all i should be the persons that can refine it -- bidding on oil of the persons that can refine it. we should look forward several generations out, like the native americans.

oil is a very useful commodity. it helps us to make plastics and other manufactured goods. and if we burn it all up in our automobiles we will not have it for our future generations to use. guest: i will agree that we don't -- as refiners, we don't have anything to do with the speculation in the market. but there is a major difference between market speculation and manipulation totally illegal. -- of course, the latter is totally illegal. it helps balance, it helps keep him volatility down to a point. if it gets out of hand like it did two summers ago. but the point about -- he made several points, but the point of about needing the oil -- we have to save the day oil for the

future and for petrochemicals. unfortunately you will not have a refinery just to provide one fuel or one product. refineries take a barrel of crude oil, which is a complex mixture of compounds, and separate them out into useful products. this is what makes the refinery and petrochemical facilities so unique. today are the building blocks of the nation's energy and the building blocks of the nation's chemicals and all the products we use. so again, i agree with a lot of things the gentleman was saying but i think it is a little bit off to suggest that a terrible terrorist event could be equated to an accident, too, i wanted to mention that. accidents happen -- my goodness, we tried to prevent them. we have to get to the root

cause. we would do would by working what words of late and not in conflict. that is in everyone's best interest. host: in response to the news that senate majority leader harry reid, the democrats will not afford a comprehensive climate and energy legislation. "the new york times" editorial. they criticized harry reid as well as president obama and a dozen senate democrats mainly from the south, at a later, in the midwest, who share the blame for not putting forth a comprehensive bill -- the south, appalachia and the midwest. jim, independent line. good morning. caller: thank you very much. i am naturally calling because i don't believe the moratorium has gone far enough or will go far enough. a very important point to bring up, it was lower from bp brought forward high level e-mails from

email executives about a platform called bp atlanta that drill deeper than horizon and pumps more oil. we know there are systemic problems going on with the oil industry right now this -- right now. this is another disaster waiting cabin. this moratorium is not going to shut down this platform, which is a tremendous problem waiting to happen and we need to get these platforms shutdown so we know that they are safe and we know they will move forward. and workers who lose their jobs during that period of time needed compensated by the industry before their lack of responsibility in this as well. host: has the refinery industry asked bp to support them at all? first, let me ask you, what is this a tuition in the gulf for the refineries down there? -- t: again, we don't have not responsible for anything

that happens upstream. what has happened? the whole industry is being painted with the brush. again, i don't think people understand it. the refining industry and petrochemical industry, we are many factors. we do not produce the crew. what is the impact? the impact has been devastating to the population -- not only to the refining industry and the work down there but the fishermen -- the refining industry in all areas. host: can you quantify? guest: which are still refining crude down in the gulf, just getting it from other places. but the question is, longer- term. but i can't emphasize enough that the whole nation is impacted by this. not just the refining industry. and whether we agree or disagree on the moratorium, that is not the part of the industry i represent.

i think, to go back to what you were saying about "the new york times" if i may, for a second, if you look at those areas where "the new york times" criticizes the senators for listening to their constituents -- basically what "the new york times" is saying, don't listen to your constituents, listen to us. if you look of the areas of the high unemployment, to those are the areas in the midwest where unemployment is very, very high. i come from -- my background may be here in this industry but my background is steel industry, i used to work in still -- steel mills, but nothing compared to what my dad did 44 years in that same bill and i watched steel mills and pittsburgh and other areas of the country just go away and not to come back.

and those were some devastating times. what "the new york times" is suggesting is that we repeat that and other people are suggesting we repeat that with the refining and petrochemical industry and the oil industry. we just believe that without a strong domestic american-made refining and petrochemical industry, that supports all of these jobs throughout the country, we are going to be in for some very, very difficult economic times. while the rest of the world continues to use carbon-based fuels at our expense. host: let us listen to what senate majority leader harry reid had to say about not pushing a comprehensive bill. >> we have a responsibility, not only to our constituents and our children and grandchildren, to take on the energy challenge that we have in america -- not that we have in america -- not once, not