-- important because a great deal of money is involved. the federal circuit got the matter wrong relating to royalties from oil and gas leases and that ever will cost the united states treasury upwards of $20 billion and the thought that it was important to go to the court for that. any number of interest we will think about, but we will also think about how will look from the court's perspective. we know that they count on us to take into account its own set of criteria and standards for deciding on petitions. in terms of oppositions, -- there are so many to write. in a decision the united states

as one is being called into question. . . serious questions, questions were the court would want to hear from an opposing party. we basically look at all of them. about half of them, we just wave our opposition rights. we look at them and we said that it is not really a serious question -- we look at them, and we say that it is not really a serious question and we do not have to oppose it. sometimes, we get it wrong. sometimes, the court says to us, you waive your opposition rights, but we think that this raises serious questions, and we wanted to file an opposition here. in that case, of course, we will. >> just looking at the numbers, between 1985 and 2002, statistics i read suggested that

the solicitor general's recommendations were accepted 50% of the time, and since then, it has increased, maybe 70%. that, compared to 2% or 3% from average lawyers who file. >> we apply different standards than most lawyers do. if i am in private practice, you may want to take it to the same court. even if another is not a great chance that the court will accept it, you might say to the client, there is not a great chance that this will happen, but it declined is fit, were you

to say otherwise. -- who are you to say otherwise? part of my day is spent taking phone calls that sake, why are you taking this case? it is important to us. i take these calls all the time. people say their credibility is on the line. war i will say, forget our credibility. it is not worth the time of the lawyers in my office. we have to be pretty careful about the way we use our lawyers and allocate their time. so i say no all the time. and i think about those figures, i think they are a result of that. somebody said to me recently that maybe the figures are too high. they're up to about 70% of the time, they will take our advice. maybe that is an indication that you are filing too few

petitions. i used to be a fan in my old job as dean of saying that if you do not fail sometimes, you're not trying to do enough things. and there is a point there. i took a look at the statistics over the last 10 years or 20 years, and i noticed that around six or seven years ago, there was a drop-off in the number we filed. so i think that we may take a close look at that and steve whether -- see whether we are using to find a filter -- whether we are using too fine a filter. >> there are different perceptions about role of solicitor general, and perhaps different perceptions of the different philosophies about the office. some say that the solicitor general should be an advocate

for the branch, and there is also a view that the solicitor general is more of a conscience of the government. and some think they should serve at the bidding of the executive branch. they are not neutral --mutually- exclusive propositions, but there is tension between them. i wanted to ask where along that spectrum you see yourself. >> that is interesting. i am sure i'm still developing my philosophy, and i will give a different answer several years from now. the challenging part of the job, but also the fun part, is that you are bouncing a lot of

different interests. you name a few of them, but i will name a few more. you're very much an advocate for the executive branch. i represent the united states and the highest court -- in the highest court by defending policies and regulations, and that is a critical part of the job. that means that i am a member of the executive branch. i'm part of the president's team, i am part of the attorney- general steam. that is an important facet of the job. at the same time, i have obligations to other parts of the government. we have separated powers, but i owe obligations to each of them. one of the most important parts of the solicitor general's job is to defend statutes, regardless of whether the executive branch likes them. that could be controversial, because people are saying, what are you talking about, your part

of the obama administration and you are defending statutes that they want to change. but the department of justice generally has known that part of its responsibility is to defend those statutes in court. but those are very important obligations to the court, and particularly the supreme court, where we are a key repeat player. people have talked about [unintelligible], and whether that is a part or not, i think the solicitor general has a different relationship than any litigant with any other court. it involves a candor, honesty, and directness with the court that i think judges seldom see. it will go into the courts

sometimes -- we will go in the court sometimes, or we will write briefs that say that the case is marginal, which is something litigants do not often do. so there is an important obligation to the court. finally, as you say, my client is none of those actors. my client is the united states. in some sense, that means that one is representing the most fundamental principles and understandings of our constitutional system. that, also, is something that has to be thought about and might be in contention with some of those others. i think that the great solicitors general, and there have been many of them -- the great solicitors general are people who have been able to balance all of those competing interests, to take all of them,

to accommodate them, and do it in a good and wise way. and that is where the balance of this job really is. >> before passing the questioning to kelly, i wanted to mention that i am trying to save a few minutes for audience questions. questions, not speeches. [laughter] as you are listening, i want people to think about the possibility of asking questions. >> justice souter has said [ inaudible], and justice sotomayor seems to have the opposite view. if you were asked about c-span televising hearings, what would you say, and why? >> i have the feeling that they are going to make this decision

themselves, and they probably should. they're the folks who best of the dynamic on the court -- who best know the dynamics of the court, and i would not get in their way on this. but i thought about it as i watched the court in the past several months. i was confirmed by the senate on march 21, and literally the day after that was the supreme court. i went to every argument there in the march sitting, and every argument in the april sitting, as well. what i was struck by is that if cameras were in the court room, the american public would see an extraordinary event. this court, i think, is so smart and so prepared and so engaged, and everybody who gets up there

at the podium is, you know, the toughest questions, the most challenging questions are thrown at that person. and there is a debate of really extraordinarily intellectual adultness and richness -- adeptness and richness. when c-span first came on, they put cameras in legislative chambers. and it was clear that nobody was there. i think if you put cameras in the courtroom, people would say, "wow." they would see their government working at a of really high level -- at a really high level. that is one argument for doing it. >> sometimes we see a solicitor

general confess error. [inaudible] the next thing that happens, we hear, "no, the court of appeals was wrong. we were wrong at." -- we were wrong." tells a little bit about how the court goes ahead and makes that decision -- tell us a little bit about how that decision gets made. >> i did this once last month in the supreme court. >> not a ninth circuit case? >> there is still time. [laughter] i do not actually remember which

court this case was coming out of. it was a criminal case, and the petition was honestly not very good. it was rambling, and it was hard to tell what kind of argument was being made. honestly, the most natural thing in the world might have been for the solicitor general's office to waive its rights to even oppose the position and just let it go. one of my deputies, michael, who some of the prosecutors no doubt know, he probably knows more about criminal law than anybody in the country. he took a look at the position and realize that although it was

not written appropriately and you never could have told there was a strong claim and it -- when he took a look at the petition and not just the underlying papers, he realized that there was a meritorious constitutional claim that this criminal defendant now in prison had regarding his sentencing. and he decided that the sentencing was a violation of due process. so he brought it to me, we talked about it, and we ended up writing the court's saying, "we did not catch to this -- "we did not catch this. we did something wrong and we did not catch it. we have taken another look at it, and now we realize that this man has a really good claim." we filed it with the court, the court accepted it, and they

vacated the decision below. and i can understand, judge, why you think after you have argued for something in trial court and tdeg@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @

get it wrong for whatever reason, the important thing is to get it right in the end. kelly? >> i read that your first argument as solicitor general will be september 9, when the hillary clinton financing case will be heard before the supreme court. i have a two-part question. first, how are you going to prepare for that argument, your first as solicitor general, and second, what are you going to wear for the occasion? [laughter] >> i will take those in order. one prepares very thoroughly. so i will read everything that might be relevant, and then i will read it again, and then

maybe again, and think hard about the kind of questions that they are likely to throw at me. this is a case that, as you say, is being re-argued, and the court has set the question, which is if two presidents ought to be overturned. they regard the appropriate restrictions that can be placed on independent expenditures in political campaigns by corporations and labor unions. so for many, many years, there have been restrictions on expenditures in federal and in many state areas, and the question that the court clearly wants to think about now is whether those restrictions violate the first amendment, contrary to what was said on other occasions. so this will be an important occasion, and an important case for our democracy, i think. so i will read a lot, i will try

to think about every possible question they could throw at me in this argument, and i will try to think of the answers that i could give to it, try and come up with the best answer. i will go through several moved courts, which is very typical in our office. they look at our office, and the quality of representation is exceedingly high. people ask why, and one reason that we have is that we prepare people better than anyone else does. everybody in our office gone before the court has been subjected to at least two, sometimes three moot court ses sions. the office knows the supreme court so well that we do a very good job of stimulating but the actual -- simulating what the actual supreme court argument will be.

and if you get through the court, you are on your way, because they are harder than the supreme court actually makes it. so i will do all those things. what will i wear? that is a good question. it probably tells you something about the washington supreme court bar. if garner's some attention. as you say, the solicitor general -- everybody wears these outfits. there are women in the solicitor general's office, and they have taken a variety of approaches. somewhere normal clothes. others have these suits made out for them. some have them with skirts. i have kept it kind of a secret.

i have kept it a secret as to what i was doing. i told you, i would have to shoot you, you know? [laughter] >> i know that david would want me to ask if he were here, is it also going to include jimmy choo shoes? can you tell us that much? >> they have too high heel for me to wear during oral arguments. [laughter] >> before i open it up to questions, you clerk for -- clerked for a truly great supreme court justice, justice thurgood marshall, who himself was solicitor general and an incredible advocate for the supreme court. i was fortunate enough to meet

justice marshall. in fact, after the poker game, you may not remember the second time that we met was when i was visiting with of the clerks to the supreme court -- with the clerks to the supreme court. [unintelligble] pecking away at an electric typewriter. tell us, insofar as you can without disclosing confidence, about the influence of justice marshall has had on you, on your career in your life -- and your life.

he was a man who almost -- he would say "oh, shucks, i don't know anything," and then he would come out of left field with something incredibly incisive. >> there's a tradition in the justice department that when you come into the office, you are given a list of portraits of former attorneys general, and you can pick which portrait you want on your wall. but there's a hierarchy. so the attorney general picks first, and then he has a lot of wall space. big office, a big conference room. so he takes the number, and then the deputy goes next. and i'm not even third, i am

fourth. the associate goes after that, then the solicitor general. so by the time they had taken everybody that anybody in this room knows about, i was given a list. and i had never heard of anybody on this list. and i thought, well, i could go out and research will of these people are and what they did, or i could check this practice. i should have a portrait of agreed solicitor general in my office. so i went to the photography office of the department of justice, and there was a great photograph of a young justice marshall, many years younger than when i clerked for him. they blew it up and made a great portrait, a black-and-white portrait.

it was a sort of an official portrait. as people who know -- as people who have seen the young justice marshall know, if he was an incredibly good-looking man. every day -- every day, a look at this portrait. you are right. he was underestimated as a supreme court justice. i think he was the greatest lawyer of the 20th-century by far. if you're measure is who has done the most to advanced just just -- justice and advance the lot over a lifetime, i do not see how anybody else compares. so it is inspirational to me to have him up there. and you are right. by the time a clerk for him --

by the time i clerked for him, he was an old man. he had turned 80. in some ways, he looked it and acted it, but he was as sharp as sharp comes. he did have this talent that you talked about, where he could say he did not know anything, and then he could come up with these questions or oral arguments that pierced to the very heart of the case. and i was reminded of this when there was talk last time around , when judge sotomayor was nominated. there was talk about how little trial court experience there is on the third court. and i was reminded of justice marshall, because much of the way he looked at cases reflected

the fact that he was a great trial lawyer and really understood how cases litigated. and he could sometimes get everybody to think of the case in a whole different way. >> we have about five minutes left. other questions for the audience? now would be the time. please identify yourself. >> my name is chris jennings. i am a member of the board of the historical society of the ninth circuit. i would like to ask you a question. you mentioned earlier that you would defend congress in laws they have enacted, even if the executive branch is trying to change them. what thoughts go through your mind? the president executed a signing a memorandum that took great

exception to the idea of what -- the law. >> the question of signing statements and their legitimate see -- led tennessee -- legitimacy is a hot one, and they have been used over time by both republican and democratic presidents. they became particularly controversial for various reasons in the bush administration, but as i know from my days in the clinton years, they were frequently used in the clinton years as well. at least for now, they are continuing to be used. i am not sure exactly how many have been done, but at least one, maybe more, has been done since president obama took office. i think in terms of the solicitor general's responsibilities, the question is, is there a lot -- a law on

the books? has it been passed by congress and signed by the president even if the president has stated reservations? even if there is, the heavy presumption is that we will defend that law. there are some exceptions. one set of exceptions has to do with if the surrounding law has changed when you look at the statute, it is now happily unconstitutional. then you have a different set of responsibilities. so that is one set of exceptions. the other set of exceptions actually has to do with their role of the solicitor general as representative of the executive branch and more particularly of the president, because where there's a statute that

interferes with executive prerogatives, the historical practice of the office has been to assert those a ticket if progress is pretty in other words, the statute seems to infringe upon the president's constitutional function and abilities -- at that point, when you have dramatic conflict between your obligation to defend statutes and your obligation to defend executive prerogative as part of the executive-branch, you go with the letter. if-- you go with the latter. >> from the solicitor general's perspective, if you are at liberty to tell us, and focusing on the cases as to which the supreme court has already

planted for the 2009 year, what do you see as the biggest issues coming up for the solicitor general? >> the case i mentioned will be my first in september is a very important case. there are a number of other cases involving the constitutionality of federal statutes that we take very seriously. i should have mentioned when we were talking earlier about what criteria i use when i asked the court -- ask the court@@@@@@@ @

that will be extremely important. another case was called comstock, concerning the constitutionality of a federal statute governing civil commitment of sexually dangerous persons. there was another. it has to do with a congressional decision to transfer land on which there is a veterans memorial on the form of a cross, and whether if that is in violation of the establishment clause.

always when there is a federal statute issue, i think it sounds to us like a very important case. there is a very important patent case in the courts this year involving which types of business practices are patentable, and i think that the intellectual property bar will look at that carefully. another case may not be important. it involves the application of antitrust laws to the nfl. it could be a small case, but the nfl would like to be a large case. it could give them license to act as a single entity for all purposes, notwithstanding antitrust laws. i think that will be watched very closely by the bar and also by the court. >> what are the odds in vegas?

[laughter] >> that is what is coming to me right now. there are several important criminal cases, as there always are. >> it is obviously more of a full-time job for you to do the things you have to do, and i think it is a full-time job for several weeks. >> it is a great question, and what i'm still trying to come to terms with. i definitely have a full-time job, but as you say, there is a very significant part of it that i have not done. there are a number of things

that the solicitor general has to do. the solicitor general supervises all appellate litigation and the united states. doctors to the decision making with respect to the supreme court, but to give you a sense of the overall responsibilities of the job, and i am trying not to let this go to my head, but there is not an appeal taken in any court in the united states by the u.s. government which i happen -- haven't approved. i have to approve every single appeal and make all decisions with respect to what we are filing, not to in the supreme court, but in appellate courts where we might intervene. so there's a lot across my desk. as you say, then, there is this other very visible part of the job, and very time-consuming part of the job, the actual arguments before the court. i think the solicitors general in the past think that is an

important part of the job, and i will too. it is important that the most important cases be argued by the solicitor general. i think there is a face of the u.s. government in its courtroom, and i think that that has been generally the case with the government. on the other hand, there are lawyers in my office who are extraordinary and want the chance of doing those arguments. one solicitor general said to me that i will be a hero in the office. so there are lots of different

dynamics to think about. i think most solicitors general in recent memory -- is there are seven or eight sitting each year, they have done between five and seven cases themselves. >> in light of your terribly important and busy job, we are pleased you chose to join us. i really appreciated. thank you for a very informative, entertaining, and useful discussion with us. >> it was a real pleasure to be here. thank you for inviting me. [applause] >> this took place at the ninth circuit court of appeals judicial conference in monterey, california. you can watch this program again or other recent programs at c-span.org. just click on "america and the

courts" under the series of linked --

henry x dgs waxman opposites in his place. they're getting ready to hear kathleen sebelius, health and

human services secretary. she'll talk about preparations for the h1n1 swine flu season. meeting will please come to order. today's hearing on the 2009 pandemic h1n1 flu is a continuation of this committee's ongoing interest in learning more about and staying on top of this developing and concerning situation. the hearing builds on the work of chairman palone's house subcommittee which held an additional meeting on the issue earlier this year. since then, one thing has become crystal clear. even as events continue to evolve, as a nation, we must be prepared for whatever the h1n1

virus brings in its path to fight it as best we can and to ensure adequate and appropriate resources to treat those who fall seriously ill. we are especially pleased to have as our witness today the secretary of health and human services kathleen sebelius. secretary sebelius will share with us the government's plan for addressing this enormous challenge. when the house subcommittee first met six months ago, there was much we did not know about h1n1 virus. we didn't know how dangerous the virus was, we didn't know if there would be a vaccine available, we didn't even know if the virus would return in the fall. many of those questions have now been answered. we know this outbreak won't be the false alarm of 1976 when the surge of swine flu cases never materialized. indeed, we are already seeing a large increase this cases, a pattern that is likely to continue. the epidemic will undoubtedly lead to hospitalizations,

schools may close, health care facilities may become overwhelmed, and almost certainly, there will be some who will die. but there is also good news. this administration has carried on the efforts begun several years ago to prepare the country for the very situation we must now tackle. the plans developed appear to be unfolding appropriately and experts tell us that so far the 2009 h1n1 epidemic will not be anything like that which occurred in 1918 when an unusually dangerous flu virus devastated our nation. more good news was reported just last week. we not only will have an effective vaccine in place, studies now indicate that the vaccine will probably require only a single dose rather than the two doses many had predicted. as a result, i hope secretary sebelius will report today that across the country, we'll have a good supply of vaccine, allowing

us to avoid both the additional cost and the additional needle stick that a second dose would mean. i expect that we will hear more about this as well as other h1n1 flu activities from secretary sebelius. i know all of us are particularly interested in getting the secretary's perspective on not only the progress we are making in taking on this virus, but also the difficulties we surely will face along the way. but as we make preparations and carry out detailed plans for dealing with this new virus, we must also take heed of the battle we confront annually against the seasonal flu. each and every year, some 36,000 americans, mostly among the elderly, die from this preventable disease. we can and should do much better than that, and i hope secretary sebelius can also share with us the administration's thinking on addressing this concern, and in particular, how that approach

relates to its h1n1 strategy. with that, on behalf of the entire committee, i want to thank the secretary for a before us today. we all look forward to hearing from you and learning about the h1n1 challenges that lies ahead. but before the secretary will be recognized to make her statement, i want to call on several members of the committee to make opening statements, and we'll start with mr. deal. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank you for holding this hearing on the examination of the nation's preparedness of the h1n1 flu virus as we approach the flu season. i look forward to secretary sebelius's testimony and welcome her to the hearing today. as i mentioned during the subcommittee hearing last april, the global threat of a swine flu pandemic is the greatest threat we face today. from speaking to scientists and health care providers and other experts in the field, i truly believe it's not a matter of if a flu pandemic hits but when.

i believe we have the greatest responsibility to protect the public as best as possible when the situation arises. we all recognize this is not a simple matter. since the first reports of the strain began to surface earlier this year, the u.s. international authorities have taken aggressive steps to mitigate the spread of the illness. this has taken the dedication and cooperation of all of those involved, both private and public sectors, particularly as the rates have increased. as my home state of georgia and other areas in the south have witnessed the easily transmittable h1n1 strain has it has spread since we now have begun school earlier than some in other parts of the country, we all recognize this is a real threat. i have been in contact with my state's agencies, and they are also coordinating, of course, with your offices at the federal level, and also as you are coordinating with international groups during these months that lie ahead as we try to deal with this problem.

the durcurrent response to the 1 strain were coordinated in large part to plans developed to a similar situation, the aifian flu. in 2006, congress provided at least $6,000 for pandemic planning and cross-corroboration. these and others in preparedness for emergencies have streamlined the response to this situation. while our efforts to combat h1n1 have been aggressive, we must continue to monitor the situation closely and be proactive as we@@@@@@#b@ rr

market today or how quickly it would develop resistance to those drugs, and we didn't know if and how quickly we would be able to develop and manufacture a vaccine. while we've learned more about the virus and we've made progress on a vaccine, it has spread worldwide across continents and hemispheres, and now as a level 6 pandemic, the highest level there is, it has continued to spread to the u.s. in the summer months, which is unusual to the influenza, and it rein forces the fact we still have to take it seriously. in my state alone, 17 people have died since the beginning of the outbreak and over 570 have been hospitalized, and we have yet to see the disease at its strongest. in addition, the peak of this flu coincides with the normal flu season which on its own can be extremely taxing on the health care delivery system. i'm curious to hear how the

federal government is tackling the fact that this tends to hit individuals under 50 years of age, unlike the seasonal flu that hits the elderly the hardest. the younger population tends to not seek medical care as readily. there have been many questions about our ability to respond to medical mchblemergencies. unfortunately, it's hard to justify spending money on programs that are in place in case something bad happens, especially when the programs needed on a daily basis have been kron cally unfunded. at a time when our economy is just beginning to me understand number of uninsured is rising, we must be prepared for such a situation, and we don't want to add to the health care crisis and we don't want to behindhind recovery. i want to commend you for the work you've done on this. i know you've worked around the

clock to provide tests in states to develop the vaccine to aid state and local governments and keep the public informed of the latest information on the virus and how best to protect themselves for becoming sick. i want to thank you for that and look guaforward to hearing more about how the federal government is prepared for this next wave of h1n1. thank you. >> mr. barton? >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for holding this hearing, and thank you, madam secretary, for being here. i want to say that this is a very important issue. obviously, america and the world is worried about the pandemic flu. we have begun to discuss this this year back in april when we had a hearing on the h1n1 virus. i'd like to review some of the recent history. the department of hhs has responded by declaring a public health emergency which has allowed the food and drug administration to approve the

use of approved anti-virals and other measures. the centers for disease control has responded by releasing anti-viral drugs from the strategic national stockpile. to date all 50 states have received their portion of that stockpile, which has been replenished through purchases. hhs is working with the department of homeland security and is coordinating response efforts. much of this work has been successful because we're not breaking new ground. this committee and the federal government has begun serious work back in 2004, so in 2009, while we're not totally prepared, we are better prepared than we ever have been. there are still some issues that should be addressed as outlined in the president's advisory council of science and technology. it's my understanding the administration is actively working to address these concerns, and i look forward to hearing from you, madam secretary, on those issues. i guess that is it. mr. chairman, i have another part of my statement, but it's on overall health care reform,

and i understand that you limited your statement to the pandemic flu. so in the spirit of this hearing, i'm going to do that. i want to take a point of personal privilege and say i appreciate all the good wishes many of you have given me about my birthday. today is my 60th birthday, and i feel about -- [ applause ] >> 30 didn't bother me, 40 didn't bother me, 50 didn't bother me, but 60 bothers me. i'm blessed to have a great family, great friends, and i think i'm on the greatest committee in the house of representatives. >> thank you, mr. barton. i, too, want to wish you happy birthday and tell you you don't look a day over 59. mr. dingle? >> thank you, mr. chairman. the gentleman from texas is

spoiled by opening remarks. it was my intention to congratulate him as a fine young man who has performed well in his responsibilities and congratulate him on his 60th anniversary and hope that he reaches many more. i'm sure that at least i am the first in this committee to have the privilege and pleasure of doing that. so mr. barton, all of us on the committee do wish you a very, very happy birthday and many, many happy returns. now, mr. chairman, i want to thank you for holding this important hearing, and i want to welcome secretary sebelius and thank her for joining us this afternoon. madam secretary, you will recall that your father was a member of this committee, a very distinguished one, and i'm sure that gives you good memories when you appear in this room. you have taken a proactive role in preparing our country for the upcoming h1n1 pandemic by

implementing surveillance procedures to attract an outbreak, measures to keep americans healthy, a proper vaccination plan and a strategy to disseminate information of importance. i want to commend you and look forward to hearing your update on the administration's progress in planning for a potential outbreak. at the same time, i want to recall that on an earlier occasion, we made some fine mistakes in dealing with a health problem of this kind on a related virus which led to some splendid costs and some fine earnings for the legal profession. and i want to tell you, madam secretary, i'm pleased that you have not fallen into any of the holes that your predecessors did on that one. in any event, we have held, as all know, a hearing earlier on h1n1 when there were only the first few people who were infected with the virus.

it appears that the spread of the influenza virus that we're discussing did not let up during the summer as some had hoped, and experts predict an increased number of cases in the upcoming months. as of september 5, 2009, my own state of michigan has already seen 3,419 confirmed or probable cases of h1n1. further, 11 people, most with health conditions, have died after contracting the virus. all 50 states have reported now that there are cases of the virus within their borders, and nationwide about 600 persons have died and 9,000 have been hospitalized. these figures highlight the need for the congress and the administration to work together to prepare for the months ahead. preventing the spread of h1n1

will require collective action not only from federal, state and local governments but also from individuals as well. to address this, it is imperative that we prepare evidence-based programs for parents, children and businesses and also public health professionals on what to expect as the nation prepares for more flu cases than seen in the past few years. i want to applaud the administration and the federal government for stockpiling vaccines, masks, anti-viral medications, ventilators and other things necessary to address the potential, upcoming problems. influenza is unpredictable, and we must, indeed, be prepared for a wide variety of surprises. today federal, state and local officers are planning on executing multi-media outreach campaigns to arm americans with the information they need to best keep themselves healthy or

to address their problems once they become ill. this is imperative because while we wait for h1n1 vaccine to become available, we must each play a part in slowing or reducing the spread of the virus with simple steps like hand washing and staying home when sick. additionally, it's important for families and businesses to prepare their strategies for dealing with h1n1. i have created an h1n1 agenda for my own office and urge other businesses here and elsewhere to do the same. i look forward to working with you, mr. chairman, and the committee, and also with you, madam secretary, as we seek to mitigate the outbreak of h1n1. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. dingle. mr. stupak. >> thank you, mr. chairman, for holding this important hearing on the pandemic preparedness. ms. secretary, i look forward to

hearing your testimony on the health and human services actions getting ready to prevent or respond to the spread of h1n1 flu. when the pandemic began in late april, state and federal officials worked quickly to prevent the outbreak. aen-viral drugs were rereesd from the stockpile and many steps were taken to come up with a vaccine. they spent 1.9 billion for flu response, and that additional 5.8 billion was authorized dependent on a release for the additional funds. i'm interested in learning how much of this money is actually going to public health agencies. in our communities, particularly world districts like the one i represent, our local public health agencies, hospitals and clinics will shoulder responsibility for responding to a public health crisis. it is vital they receive financial support from the federal government.

h1n1 is unique from flu season. unlike the seasonal flu, h1n1 affects a different population, particularly young children, young adults and pregnant women. from all accounts i've read, the vaccine will not be ready until mid-october. i'm looking forward to hearing from you what type of infrastructure the cdc will have in place to distribute vaccines in a timely fashion for pregnant women who live or care for young children, health care personnel, people between six months and 24 years of age and people between 25 and 64 who are at a higher risk from the h1n1 because of chronic health disorders like asthma. as chairman of the subcommittee, this is a situation i'll continue to monitor following today's hearing. i look forward to your testimony in learning how the federal government is coordinating with state, and particularly local officials, as a nation we

respond in hopefully preventing the spread of h1n1 outbreak. thank you, mr. chairman, for your time. >> with a previous understanding from the minority, we said the only ones who would be recognized for opening statements would be the chairman, the ranking member, mr. dingle, and then the chair and the ranking member of the health and the oversight subcommittees, but without objection, the record will be held open for any opening statements from any member that wishes to include them. i want to do this, move on because secretary -- mr. walden, are you ready for your opening statement? >> you know what, mr. chairman, i'll submit it for the record because i don't want to take too much time from the secretary. i appreciate your offer to do that, and i do hope you'll come back at some point because i believe we have questions on the

overarching health care bill. the flu is something we're all concerned about. i have a son who is a sophomore at wake forest university that got swept pretty early on with the outbreak. he got it, i don't know if it was h1n1, he doesn't, either, but he's recovered, and i'm thankful for that. thank you. >> madam secretary, we're delighted to have you with us. your full testimony that's been submitted in advance will be made part of the record, and we want to recognize you for your oral presentation to us. >> thank you very much. >> there is a button on the base of the mike. be sure it's on and bring it close to you. >> i believe i hit it. the green light is on. chairman waxman, ranking member barton, dingle, mr. stupak, mr. walden, members of the committee. it's good to be back before the energy and commerce committee, and i appreciate the opportunity to give you an update on