senate 9:00 a.m. eastern, describing the two healthcare distracted in the senate and the political hurdles to them. headlines on phone and twitter. washington journal is next. >> an increase push on both sides a report that john karlter from texas for represent charlie wrang will to step aside as he undergoes an ethics investigation. later on, we'll discuss plans

the representative from oout. we are going to talk about the economy, specifically looking at the resent job numbers that came out. if you want to start weighing in. >> headlines this morning with the resent job numbers. rising u.s. job figures provide a reality check. one of the things he does is quote chief economic strategists. he is quoted as saying the idea that the economy was on a self

stating guest: we saw significantly higher job losses. the actual number was 2763,000 jobs the u.s. economy shed in

december. this recession is deeper than anything we have seen. from white color to service and any kind of job is suffering across the country. there's pockets. we know of the horrible story of what is happening in michigan. this is everywhere and it is affecting a lot of people across the country. do those two things even each other out. most economists agree the job market is what they call a

lagging indicator. while the rest of the economy may be turningz7s >> i'm looking at my own business and prospects, my own

sales figures and estimates of how things are going. the retail sales are huge. this country's economy are largely based on what the consumer does. if they are not spending, buying cars and homes, the economy is not doing well. retail even says they'll take flat holiday sales. we all know about black friday. after that is when retailers make most of their money. if they are talking flat sales period. that's really shocking.

overall, the retailing industry has reported a decline when the commerce department started tracking holiday sales figures.

>> there's certainlyjg0 a lot o people out there. the government can only do so much to pull out of an economy during a recession. >> there's only so much. the more people they hire and the more people work and the more spending they can make the

u.s. saving rate has increased quite rapidly. if something happens or if someone in their family looses a job, they have a little bit of a an nest egg to fall back on. historically, it's still pretty low.

>> as i said before, my principle focus and that of my economic team is putting our nation back on the path of prosperity. we are going to need to grind out this recovery step by step. from the moment i took office, i made the point that employment is often the last thing to come back after a recession. that's what history shows us. our task is to do everything we can possibly do to accelerate that process. i want to let every single american know that i will not

let up until those seeking work can find work and businesses seeking credit can get credit and thrive and all responsibly homeowners can stay in their homes. that's our ultimate goal. that's one we are working everyday in the white house to 2 accomplish. that's why i'm working to explore helping to build a

better future for their families. an economy where folks can receive the skills education to compete for the jobs of the future will not happen overnight but we will rebuild it. for that, i am confident and determined. on behalf of every american, i will continue in that effort each and everyday while i am in this white house. host: a call from michigan on the independent line. go ahead. caller: i have double interesting comments in regard to this u.s. unemployment problem. i think your listeners and yourself will consider this to be quite interesting. there was an overextension of

credit designed by the republicans. the mrinz under obama administration got to spend all the money. they are going to sit on the money and exacerbate the unemployment picture. obama is not going to bring the troops home from afghanistan. if he did, it would cause a hemorrhaging to the unemployment. >> this economy wasn't created

to take care of women and men. there's not enough jobs for both. >> host: arizona on the democrat line. linda. caller: i hope you'll give me a minute. one would be of course employee owned companies. in the your peon union, they tried to figure out what to did with businesses. they gave these people their entire salry. i'm not saying that. combine, say, 100-200 persons,

you'd have a half a million or a million to buy up existing factories and get your low interest tooling equipment loans. employee owned company koz build solar panels. this company is entirely employee owned. >> the business you mentioned, what kind of business is it?

>> solar paneling. the manufacturing jobs are the real ones. only the people that own the companies can work there. jo you put a lot on the table. >> where are you located caller: it's a tribal land in michigan. i live at the catholic church right now. i work full time as a teacher assistant with autistic children. i have health insurance. i cover myself and three

children. i work full time and still living at the poverty level. president obama has got to start looking at how it is that the banks were allowed to take so much money from the american people. i really enjoyed the piece on the american life. mine is not affordable, it is comprehensive. we built it is not acceptable. it's sinful.

it is a very big part of it. i found my father, one of his last statements. he was working with 32.8 years of employment at flint. his wage at that time with $13.30. with insurance, $20 something an hour. that couldn't support the family but it was enough. it was enough there were so many factor that's brought the country to its knees. if everyone had health insurance where they didn't feel afraid to go to the doctor or hospital, whoever their needs are, have

car that's are dependable. we can do it but it's going to be a long time. thank you for the input. >> looking at various factors of the economy. talking about how she was living at a church. what are hourly wages looking like? guest: they are not growing. this is what happens when we have a weak job market. this isn't just a blue color or white collar point. i don't see anybody has seen an increase in how much take home they make.

host: compare the numbers to those who can't find a job to those who can't make money at all. >> in michigan, it's over 15.6%. the real number is closer to 25%. the 9.8% is those people who are deemed to be actively looking for work. the long-term unemployed. they tried and tried and can't find anything. if you include young people fresh out of university, the real unemployment number is higher than that, which is officially reported. >> the predz in his statement who talked about one of his goals stucking about banks and businesses getting more credit is that happening?

everyone who has tried get a mortgage last year understands. people doing the lending are weary of who they are lending to. the lending criteria has tightened up. who callers ago, somebody was talking about line work and manufacturing. where does manufacturing stand? are we seeing a recovery in that sector?

serlly of all the economy, there's little improvement. is that because of the last call for the suggest foreign goods. >> yes. it is nothing new. u.s. companies have been shipping u.s. jobs overseas. you look at the bulk of things you already own, they are made in taiwan or china. it doesn't make a lot of sense for the economy. >> good morning. i'm glad to have reached you.

my whole complaint is we do not hear anything about department al care at all. or maybe having rates that are comparable to your income. my personal bill right now is $3400 which i almost cannot afford. i cannot even get the va to help me out. it is not covered at all. we give to charity and serve our koirpt and then our mouth is not important to the va.

host: on the democrat line from florida. caller: i think carry nailed the nail on the head. remember mr. obama, nobody is talking about the trade agreements. i think we are headed to becoming a third world country. play those old tapes of what was going to happen to our economy. you can get it for $1 an hour wages. you done have to worry about health insurance. nobody in the media gets affected by this.

they are making a good living. if obama has to address chievena, maybe this will get better. i don't see it getting any better for the united states. >> go ahead. i think that the problem with the economy in my opinion, when you look at the way things are going, they kind of hit it on. there has been some kind of an anti-rich sentiment right now where the rich are being punished. >> we all try to tax our way through what used to be the american dream. people grow up and go to school in order to become something and make a reasonable amount of money and become rich. that's one aspect.

i think president obama needs to do a little more. host: when you say "a little bit more," what do you mean? caller: he has to stop just talking about making the economy but putting his hands in to certain factors. look at the medical schools education. it's no longer an education, it's a business. it is a shame. >> university middle school of medicine takes 13,000 application and accepts only 1034. for every one student who gets rejected from medical school, law school or business school, 100 more americans will suffer. look at the school sis tem teem why are people dropping out? look at the way things are.

guest: i don't know about an anti-rich dhsentiment. >> if you ask the average person on the street what is the credit market, they don't know. a large number of very large banks got overextended. this probably is a lot of anger out there about the very fact that these people are largely the ones to cause the economy to

go so sour. host: someone on twitter who asks if you think that the obama stimulus plan is working? guest: the one area it has worked is a lot of the first charges and money that went out went to state and local governments. that allowed them to prevent more layoffs. most governments are legally required. they were facing a crunch and a prospect of massive layoffs. the money trickling down allowed

them to do that. we are seeing a bit of money going out. fixing roads across the country. that money is starting to get out there, only lower than a lot of people expected it would. a lot of this money hadn't gone out yet. the process of money going out to state and local governments, this takes time. it is not going to be really until this time next year that we'll go past any kind of verdict. >> the senator weighed in on the stimulus plan. here is what he had to say. >> if you recall, earlier this year, there was an effort to rush through.

the job loss is picking up. the unemployment percentage is going up. this is a quote, in my wildest % >> we don't have any sign. % to most persons, the way they judge is by employment rate.

i'm not blaming him. we'll look >> dan on the line from dallas, texas. >> one of the problem is it is built an unrealistic expectations.

we put pressure on wall street. the question is how do we get oit of this? we need to improve the structure education and spend money to put people back to work we need to get out of here. that's not us causing the

problem. caller: we saw michael moore's movie last night. i encourage everyone to see it. it does point out that the rich are getting very, very rich. in the days that they were taxed more, they still had a wonderful lifestylety >> with that, the ability to

have a home and that sort of things. everything he talked about as being the second bill of rights happened in those defeated countries. so what michael more is saying we can always do something the things they did was funny. not one person could scomblan it. host: oceanside, california. linda on the republican line. caller: thank you for taking my calls. i wanted to respond to the president's comment.

when he said the unemployment is the last thing to come back. i will add that it is the last thing on his list. the jobs he wants to add are green and construction jobs. there are other areas that need help too. i'm not knocking all democrats. i used to be a democrat and my sister too. we changed over to republicans. look at the economy with the majority of democrats in the office. i have one more comment on wealth. rich is not evil. it takes money to start businesses, money to hire people and keep them employed. businesses need tax breaks to keep the jobs here. does anyone work for free?

i used to be a democrat, like i said. i'm tired of the republicans being be littled for saying they are the party of the rich. host: we'll have to leave it there. massachusetts on the independent line. caller: i think we should do what the europeans do. charge a vat on all goods that go into the countries. host: a value added tax? caller: that's right. they do it. all these countries that flood the united states, when they reenter the united states, they should pay double. host: that is there been discussions about changes in tax policies? guest: that's actually just-u÷ sales tax. most states do charge.

it's not some sort of reimportation tax. one thing i'd like to say quickly. you aired senator mcconnell talking. i asked him that question yesterday. what they are working at the senate now is an extension of unemployment insurance. the government has acted several times to further insurance benefits. for the senate and the hougs, there is talk of providing more federal assistance for people who might be trying to find a job. what is the limit.

how many weeks? >> the current federal limit is 33 weeks for most states. virtually every state now. what they are talking about doing is adding every four weeks. those with a jobless rate of 8% or higher adding 13 weeks. that would bring the federal benefit of 14 weeks. before i get a large group of callers. the level $vary around the country. for some people, i think i'm right in saying you get up to a year, year and a half worth of people. some people given that time span can't find work. host: what are we doing to move

along the health. guest: there is certainlily an argument that the u.s. is overly weighty on the u.s. market. i think there is structural problems in the u.s. until very recently, the saveings rate was a negative number. you compare that to places in france and germany, it's about 10% in asia and china u. in this country, we don't have that culture. people are strongly encouraged to keep up with the jones and buy that new car or washing machine or whatever it is.

what happens.  entire economy grinds to a sudden halt. host: cape cod, massachusetts on the republican line. caller: good morning. our taxes have gone up 25% for sales tax in august. we live in an area where there are a lot of small businessmen in construction, restaurant owners. right now everyone is starting to feel the pinch. i know people that have worked 30, 40 years in the business. business is dead. they are selling their property if they can. there is no help from anybody for these people who have done

absolutely everything right. people are getting desperate. they don't know where to go or what to do. it is getting really sad to see employ years of five and six people, everybody is starting to be unemployed. there's no help. you go to the super market and you see people with the ebt card. it doesn't done anything for this country but is getting ugly. host: we'll go to the democrat line. caller: thank you for taking my call. the challenge it seems to be since we have the new president is the sdrib use of wealth.

there needs to be some sort of situation it is not that there is not enough resources. it's the way they sdrib ut it. we can't expect to continue to succeed. we have people who are educated or not educated. we have different needs in our country, we should really only have one party. that party should represent the diversity. we are the most unique koirpt on the earth. people can come here and embrace the american dream. there should be a level where your basic necessities are taken

care of. host: ray monday on the independent line. caller: thank you for taking my call. outside of pittsburgh, we have a high way going past one of the major malls. i see the american investment and recovery act sign up there. the only problem i have with this, the funds provided from this act. this highway was started and almost complete two years before the sign was posted and before the act was even put into place. the democrat governor in this state. they lie. they promise you things when they get into office. the people don't understand the credit market. the banking system. they don't understand.

they don't understand. they are going to understand now what they will be taken down to. if obama continues to tell us these little lies, he promised more countries would lead this country. indiana is loosing whirlpool. we are going to lose her -- hershey's chocolate. it's going to mexico. none of these people are any good. get a new government in here. host: carry, a couple more topics. consumer credit. what's happening on that front? guest: people are using too much to be honest. in terms of the government, there is talk of both passing

laws in the federal reserve and treasury to put a lot of pressure on credit card companies. some of the rates being charged are the high double digits again. the fees for a late payment, missing a payment, all these things -- i'm not taking a point of view here. i think credit card companies are in it to make a property. they are not charities. the company that's are unnecessarily strict and unfor giving. to put pressure and crack down on some of these practices by these companies. host: can you give us a general sense of where we are as the stock market is concerned. guest: the first attempt at passing -- people call it the

bank bail out. it's an asset relief program. the market dropped 700 point that's day. the stock market has rebounded very sharply. it's up to nearly 9,000 now, which from the low of 7200-7300, something like that. has rebounded too quickly and isn't necessari necessarily linked to the wider economy. a lot of observers think maybe it's going to slow down. some people think it might pull back again. it has improved too quickly. there's a lot of money out there. both retail and individual investors. big banks and retail investors. a lot of money got pulled out of

the market in the last year or so. when that happens, they'll pile back in. the stock market doesn't really follow the real economy. host: to the republican line from florida. . . .

just like they did to the banks. and you know what? you'll see a recovery quick. so watch all of us do that. watch you politicians. send us the money directly. you've got a social security number? send it directly. host: do you want to address that? guest: they tried that last year in the bush administration. most americans who paid tax seaveed check in the mail and it didn't work. what i think happened, largely anecdotally is people used it to pay down debt. people didn't go out and spend the money in the economy as had been intended and there was a brief blip in retail sales and a brief recovery and things got worse again. there was a small portion of the stimulus plan this time around, small, i'm talking several billion dollars but in the context of the nearly $800 billion which is in the plan a

small portion which was redirected as tax cuts, there was benefits for senior citizens. but most of the money is being used to pump into the economy in a wider sense as opposed to giving it back directly to citizens. host: you talk about blips in the economy. talk about stories this week about cash for clunkers and what it did for the aut motive industry and what it will do now that the program has stopped. could you clue us in? >> that was a fascinating example. they pumped a lot of money into the economy basically by giving every person who traded in an old polluting car and gave them 3-to $4,000. and then you saw a sharp increase in auto sales. but the program only lasted a month or six weeks, and as soon as it finished we saw this week boats general motors and chrysler reporting a steep decline. so i don't know that it had

much long-term impact. now, there is stories coming out of michigan and indiana and other places where there's large aut motive presence. there was talk of them bringing back people who they laid off. a relatively small number compared with all the people who lost their jobs. so it did have some impact but it wasn't the bomb to stave economy. and as much as it provided a shot in the arm to the car companies, i doubt whether it had much long-term impact. host: troy, michigan. go ahead, please. caller: hi. i just want to say how soon we forget. the problems that we have today started many years ago. and i remember especially in the 80s under president reagan was the beginning of deregulation, the greed and the hostile takeovers of companies, the change in the tax codes that removed credit card interest as a deduction. and then under bush one was the drafting of nafta, including

the loophole to give incentive to businesses moving out of the country. until phil graham put the loopholes in the laws to allow this run away greed. what should have happened, and this is still under second president bush that instead of giving the banks the money it would have been better to give it to the people who have the problems, the everyday worker out here, and let them with the stipulation that they had to repay their mortgage or whatever it was. they couldn't just take the money and spend it. and that way, the people would not have had the home foreclosed. the bank would have had the money. and maybe that would have been a better deal rather than what happened now. thank you. host: california is next. larry on our independent line. caller: the health care bill should be called the indjens bill, because when you lose

your job and your wife and you are looking at each other and you don't have a job, you actually become indjent. and the same thing that applies in hurricane katrina. we had health care burks they didn't have the way and means to get out. so the health care bill is not going to fix economy. they need an indjent bill. host: on twitter. guest: i think we're going to see a continued slow and very gradual recovery. in economic terms they talk about a v or a w. and a v goes down shorply and comes back sharply. a w is more worrying, it goes down, comes up, and goes back down. i don't think it's going to be the v because i think that a lot of people and in fact i presume the consense suss

opinion is that the recovery is going to be very slow and very gradual. host: we have a few more minutes with our guest. san antonio, texas, john on our republican line. caller: good morning. i'm curious about several things i guess. we have in this country what i consider to be the people who creates the wealth in this country and those who create the debt. government, business, federal and state and local create the debt of this country and yet they continue to hire government employees as if they're going to create wealth. government does not create wealth. they only create debt. if you want to get rid of the problem we've got, get rid of government. i know we need police, fire department. but we don't need these high-paid government employees making over $800,000 a year to do nothing but create more debt. if we can get half of them

gone, we will solve the biggest problem we've got. if we reduce the taxes on these businesses, these major businesses we've got in america, jobs will come back up and we'll get the economy rolling again. but as long as they take away from the people who create the welts of this country and waste it as they know they do with this stimulus package and everything else, we'll never get anything done that we need in america. host: charles on our democrat line. caller: good morning. i think there's two things going on. the biggest cup prit that -- culprit that everybody is going to have is the internet. the internet has destroyed the economy if you really look at it from the perspective of people being out of work. retail outlets are closing by every day stores are out of business, out of business because people no longer have to walk into the store to make a purchase. and the second thing as far as taking money out of the consumers pockets, the states around the country continue to

hike up bridge tolls, $6 to cross the bridge between brooklyn and queens. my state connecticut don't charge toles. but people are paying out their pockets too much money just to get from one place to another. thank you very much and have a nice day. host: george on our republican line. detroit, michigan. caller:ia. i've got a problem with unions, period, in general. i think the charges -- host: alabama, debbie. caller: good morning. i want to make a comment. and people need to understand this. i'm a registered nurse. and it's so easy when a patient comes in and they have symptoms that you just want to treat the symptoms and not try to figure out what the disease is. now, i'm not trying to defend the banks but everybody wants to yell at the banks.

but why did the banks have the ability to take this risk and invest all of our money and lose it? because our politicians deregulated everything. now, when they deregulated and got rid of all the rules it's like saying it's ok to rape. now, men don't rape women because it's illegal. but if we got rid of the laws that said it's ok then maybe we would have more rape. so what my point is why did the politicians continue to deregulate and allow the banks to take all this risk? and the reason they do that is because the financial sector funds their campaigns. so how do you solve that? you have to amend the constitution and have true public financeed election. as long as we allowed the banks to fund our politician's campaigns, we no longer have a democracy. we have a corporate run government. host: i wanted to -- we're

running out of time. so i'll leave your statement there. but to jump on that, there's an effort being done by this administration putting a new level of regulatory oversight over the financial industry. what is being considered and ultimately what's the hopes of this new regulatory body? guest: i really think this is one of the most important things the administration is doing. health care gets all the attention but the efforts that are under way to basically overhaul and completely rewrite the regulatory landscape for financial companies is very significant and may never get the attention that it deserves, but i think it will have a very considerable long-term impact. they're talking about a number of things. trading a new body -- this probably won't please your viewers out there who think there's too much government baufplt new body that would be tasked with looking after consumers. so they would regulate mortgage brokers and make sure that they're explaining risk and all those things which perhaps they didn't do a good enough job

until now. they're talking about really cracking down upon derivatives trading, these complex financial products which very few people understand, but which were traded and are necessary but perhaps aren't oversought as much as they should be. they're talking about, and this is very important, about really increasing the capital that banks have to hold not telling them they can't engage in risky behavior but saying if you're going to go out there and you're going to engage in quite risky behafere, whether it be operating hedge funds or whatever else it is, then we're going to require you to have a lot more money sitting aside in case something happens. that's one of the pointing we've seen. banks didn't have enough capital. so when things went wrong they overextended, they had too many bad assets on their books, whatever the case, and the federal government was forced to step in. host: tom on our republican line.

go ahead. caller: yes. i have what i think is a radical idea. instead of putting more money into the economy, giving money to the banks or to individuals, why don't we try to hold the prices down, keep the prices maybe even institute tax laws that will decrease some of the prices particularly for the housing, it's 250, $300,000 for an average family home. that's ridiculous. and if we put more money into the economy by giving up any kind of stimulus money, the greedy vicious business people just raise the prices and you're just like dogs chasing your tail. that's the way it's coming to. we've got to stop this continually raising prices, this continually trying to improve on last year's profit even -- i mean, exxon made $44 billion last year and if they don't make $44 billion this

year they'll be considered a company that's not doing well. host: boston, massachusetts. betty on our democrat's line. you are the last call. caller: good morning. i would like to say all the houses that are empty and that are sitting there and getting torn apart, why don't they rent them out? how many toasters can we buy? how many houses do we need? we've got two and three houses, we've got three cars in every garage. so if we have everything we need, why are we going to continue to buy? we have to pake responsibility as citizens of what we've done for ourselves. we buy, we buy, we buy. we don't need any more. we need to rent out these houses that are sitting out there. we need to realize that we don't need four foasters. so there's not going to be any jobs to make more toasters.

we don't need the fourth car in our garages. so we don't need as many cars being built. 10 million a year. who is buying the cars? all the millionaires got enough houses. it doesn't make any sense. host: and with that being the last call, we've talked a lot about different issues this hour. what would you add to our discussion, things we haven't talked about, things we should consider as we take an overall look at the state of the economy? guest: i think it's really bad out there. my e-mail in-box at work is virtually inundated with horrible stories. i had a woman who called me yesterday, and she said 18 months ago she was middle class and now she's two e weeks away from being homeless. and things are tough out there and fuffer than perhaps they've been in many decades. but i would like to think things are getting better. whether next month or the month after, the economy is very gradually turning the corner i think and hopefully, knock on

wood, within not too many months we won't be talking about potentially double digit unemployment. the jobless numbers are going to come down and things will start looking a bit rosier. host: cory reports for down jose news wires. we appreciate your time. guest: thank you very much. host: here's what's coming up for the rest of our show today in just a few minutes, we're going to take a look at a story that you may have seen the "new york times" yesterday looking at senator john eensen and stories looking at the ethics committee looking at allegations of improper conduct when it comes to things that stemmed from the affair that he had with a friend's wife. we'll take a look at that issue later on in the program. we will take a look at health care, especially as we take a look at comparing the various bills in the senate and how they will match up with the house. so all those things are being considered. up next, a look at senator john

ensign. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009]

if you stop to think of oit, you will see that if one of us leaned tover bench as far as we could lean and the lawyer arguing at the podium leaned toward us, we could almost shake hands. and that is a very important thing, because it means that when the arguments take place, you are physically and psychologically close enough to each other so that there is a possibility for real engagement.

>> at our set right now, lisa of the las vegas sun who reports on the congress for that publication. lisa, senator ensign back in the news over the last couple of days. for those who may be following the story, what's at the crux of the new story on this? >> sure. it's been interesting, because senator ensign had really returned to normal after having disclosed this summer that he had an affair with his staffer, a former staffer who was also the wife of his best friends who was also a staffer. but he had really returned back to normal. there was a lot of regular legislative activity and talk about the affair had started to die down. but the new story out yesterday from the "new york times" really offered more detail and

information about the relationship that senator ensign had with mr. hampton, the husband of the woman, and the way that the senator had helped mr. hampton get employment after he left the senator's employment. and that itself is not news and not necessarily anything wrong with that. but what's raised questions is the fact that mr. hampton then came back to lobby, allegedly according to these conversations that the times was able to report on, the senator. and that would be a violation of the one-year ban on staffers coming back to lobby. and if the senator was aware of and encouraging this as the times alleges, then that could be a problem. >> just to give the folks at home a visual sense, there is a photo that was published yesterday. here is senator ensign. is this the man in question? >> that would be doug hampton and next to him is his wife

cynthia hampton, the woman who the senator had the affair. >> so as far as it stands, will they take this up? >> the senate elicks committee routinely does not talk about what they are doing. but we and other publications talked to a lot of experts yesterday who say with this new information it seems likely there would be some sort of investigation by either the ethics committee and or the justice dps. we talked a lot of law experts and also a lot of ethics experts who said that the potential violation, if what the times talks about happened did happen, that those are sort of wide open there to be looked at. there are other cases like this that have been looked at in congress. and so there's sort of a blueprint to follow. host: if you want to call in on this topic on senator ensign,

with our guest here are the lines. so what are the questions that have to be asked? >> i think the question is what was said about the arrangement. it's fine, people have said it's fine if the senator helped mr. hampton get a job. but did he then encourage mr. hampton -- back up. some of the job he helped him get was to open up a consulting job and work with companies in nevada who might have business before the federal government that needed assistance on different items. and so to what extent were those conversations between the senator and mr. hampton? what was said? how was that relationship explained?

now, the senator has said that he has had a long-time working relationship with these companies and it's nothing -- it's normal for members of congress to do work on behalf of their home state constituents that whether he was asked by mr. hampton to do -- to intervene in situations that these companies may have had before the government and then responding directly to what mr. hampton had asked, i think that's where it gets into the question area. you know, mr. hampton clearly says he did not register as a lobbyist, and so he is apparently in violation of the rules that that you do need to come and register as a lobbyist and state that. now, to what extent senator ensign was aware and encouraging that, that's what needs to -- we need to know. and as one person told me

yesterday, this is something that really would take a bit of untangling. it's not sort of just a quick kind of open and shut kind of look. you have to interview a lot of people, a lot of staffers, a lot of people who were aware of these conversations to see what happens. >> do these stem from long-standing rules or the rewrite of rules regarding lobbyists over the last two years? >> that's a good question. these are long-standing. the one-year lobby is a long-standing rule. so members of congress are well aware of this. it's the revolving door policy. i couldn't nail what year actually it was put in place, but somebody was telling et it dates back at least to the 80s. i think this is sort of the post watergate era reforms. what was broadened in 2007 when the new congress came in and passed rules was some enhanced -- enhancement of that. instead of a one-year ban for

members of congress it's now a two-year ban if you're a member of congress. for staffers it still remains one year. there was some changes about who you can lobby. your own office versus anyone in congress. and so that was one of the other enhancements. tose those laws went into effect at the end of that 2007, so early 2008. >> apart from the new information that surfaced tover last couple days, was there a great desire by democrats to look into this kind of relationship? >> you know, it does seem like it had sort of calmed down. there was a lot of public interest in this story when it first broke in the summer, in june and july. but again, it's always sort of hard to know what the senate ethics committee is doing but you didn't really hear anyone in the senate calling for at all an investigation.

senate democrats were not clamoring for this. and then like i said, it seemed things had started getting back to normal. >> so what's the worst case scenario? >> these violations are criminal and carry penalties of jail, five years in jail for some. so there would -- they're criminal violations. >> our guest with us until 8:30. and to your calls now. chicago. caller: i just want to say that you say that the senate is not really looking into the investigations. but it's based upon the "new york times's" article as to why this is even being discussed more so than the senate ethics committee bringing this up. my question is, on this program have you had discussions regarding senator conyers and his investigations or have you

had discussions on this program regarding charlie rangel, the congressman from new york and his situation? and as an investigation. so i would like to hear your angle not only you ma'am but also you, sir, as to the relevance of this being on this morning. thank you. guest: well, sure i work for a paper out of nevada. i work for the las vegas paper. so senator ensign, because he is the senator from nevada is why i'm covering that issue. and not covering the others. that's not in my sort of job description of what i focus on. i focus on the nevada delegation and folks from nevada. and -- who are here in washington and what's important to the folks back home about what their law makers are doing. so for me that's my job and my sort of marching orders is to pay attention to the folks in

nevada here. and i think there are a lot of other news outlets that are looking into some of these other members of congress that you've talked about, certainly congressman chairman rangle and chairman conyers. but i think that's about what i can say about that. host: and from our end, yes, we have looked into both of those on this program. our next call for lisa of the las vegas sun as we take a look at issueses involving senator ensign. we speak with andy. go ahead, please. caller: i just don't believe that they'll do anything to mr. ensign because there's too much loyalty between the senators both republican and independents and democrats. i just don't believe they'll do anything. thank you. host: where does the sense of loyalty? guest: there is that sense in the senate. they call it the club of 100 and there is a real hesitency

among senators i think to strongly criticize one another. it's just an old-standing sense of decor rum. that said, the senate does have a history of taking these matters up when they become important enough that the senate feels like it must act. the senate ethics committee did take action on senator packwood several years ago and so i don't know that this will rise to that. i have no way of knowing how the investigation would go. but i guess you can kind of see it going both ways. host: frank on the republican line. caller: hello. i have a question. and my question is there's a gentleman who just called and asked a question about charlie rangel and conyers. and there's a lot of listeners

who do not know what they're being investigated for. can you talk a little bit about that? and also, about chris dodd. actually the senator from connecticut. can you talk a little bit about his mortgage situation, getting behind the scenes deal with the mortgage company that you've been investigated. can you just talk a little bit about that. guest: thanks for your call and i'm sorry i will disappoint you, but i'm going to have to take a pass on that. my focus is fairly limited in washington as to looking at the issues important to our readers back home. not that those are not important because they are nchings and i readily admit that but that's not my area of expertise there are a lot of other reporters that are doing a lot of important work on

those stories and i feel like i would be out of my element in what i know to give you an insider's look at those. so i'm sorry, i won't be able to talk about those. host: there is a story, however, on mr. rangle this morning. and this is by carl holets of the "new york times" out of washington. part of the what he writes this morning is that despite so many democrats saying they are willing to stand by mr. rangle and will resist efforts to topple him from the chairmanship of the house ways and means pending the outcome of the investigation that mr. rangle himself requested last year, it is represented that representative john carter from texas says he intends to force a vote next week on a resolution requiring mr. rangle to step aside from the helm of the ways and means committee. there's more on that in the "new york times." caller: this whole thing with

the congress having an ethics committee seems to be a joke. these people here just mentioned everybody i was going to mention. they forgot barney frank who was running -- whose boy friend was running a brothing out of the house. you already mentioned rangle, conyers, d o odd and the rest of them. everybody seals seems to be a thief. the older ones are the ones pushing these ridiculous bills through that aren't working, health care stimulus package that turned out to be a joke. host: we'll leave it there but we do have someone on twitter who asks, what is senator co burn's role? guest: that's a good question as well. senator co burn has play add role throughout this situation, sort of a an interesting role that we can talk about and there have been questions of

whether now he would be caught up in this investigation. he, senator coburn and senator ensign are house mathes. they live in a house together over on capitol hill that very common for members of congress to share housing. but senator co burn was a counsel to an extent to mr. hampton and senator ensign and was a bit of a go between in trying to help resolve this situation. as the -- as we had all reported earlier, senator ensign had sort of intervened to help try to mend the relationship between mr. hampton and senator ansign, trying to -- he told senator ensign to, that he should end this affair and come forward and apologize. early on, when this was going on back in 2008.

what the times told us, which was a little bit new, was that we had known that mr. hampton had -- we had known from senator ensign, senator ensign had claimed that mr. ensign had made tonight nt demands for money as a way to make amendments for what had happened after having this affair and the family losing their jobs at senator ensign's office. and what the times told us is that senator co burn had been a go between as mr. hampton took threeze claims to senator co burn and senator co bunch then took -- co burn took the financial requests to senator ensign and then subsequently senator co burn did have some professional meetings with mr. hampton that potentially were also questionable because of

the ban on lobbying. senator co burn told the "new york times" he realized after being confronted about this question having met with mr. hampton yes that was wrong and he didn't quite realize it until it had been approached about it. so there are questions around senator co burn now as well. host: north carolina, independents line. we hear from clyde. go ahead. caller: good morning. since your guest there is focusing on nevada, she can tell us -- i'm sure she can tell us since she's written about the senator who was building the roads there and convinced the people of nevada that they need harry reid, the president of the senate, by the way, convinced the people of nevada that they needed new roads, and the only problem was they had to buy the property from him and his son.

you might want to expand on that a little bit. also, -- guest: yes. there was a story out several years ago about senator reed's problems dealings. as far as i know, i don't know that the senate ethics committee or anybody is investigating that. there were questions raised about that land deal. and senate majority leader harry reid has talked about that. and again, i think that's another issue that has somewhat gone by the wayside as far as i know there are no investigations into that at this point. host: as far as folks who live in nevada, what's the impact? >> it's really interesting. senator ensign was such a popular politician in nevada. he was always polled as the most popular of nevada's elected officials. he was elected, reelected in 2006,

just strong majority. and had really done well in nevada. since this has happened, i think there's been a lot of disappointment among nevada republicans who thought he would really rise to be a leader of nevada's political party there. and senator ensign had been in a leadership position here in washington this year and also during the last congressional cycle and was really moving up the ranks. he had had even been talked about as a potential presidential or vice presidential candidate. so i think for the republican party back in nevada, there is a disappointment this has happened. senator ensign's poll numbers have dropped since all this happened as well. at the same time, nevadaance have a bit of tolerance. they in one poll asked if he should resign and it was fairly strong majority saying no, he

should not resign his senate seat. senator ensign said he would seek reelection when he's up again in 2012. and voters were a little split on that. but still saying, yes, they did support his reelection. so he has had a hard time back home but he seems to be weathering it. now, when we talk to people yesterday, folks in nevada about this, there was really kind of a wait and see about where this goes. i think a lot of folks in nevada have been concerned that there might be another shoe to drop in this situation, and they're not quite sure if this new information in the times is it or if this too will sort of pass. host: granger, indiana. good morning. caller: good morning. this is just another leftist

reporter. she was on the goof ball with hard ball the other day talking about this. and another thing i wonder how great the people in chicago feel about all the money that was wasted and was mayor daily going to have to go out and confiscate all the 2 x 4s in that city? >> host: the next call, atlanta, georgia. caller: good morning. i was just sitting here listening to all the male callers and they don't seem to get the issue. it's not about the affair or anything. it's about the way he tried to cover it up. if he is going to cover up something that personal, he's a representative for the people. a lot of them need to start realizing that. i mean, not only senator ensign but a lot of them that get caught in these schemes and scams and then they try to

cover it up. and they forget that they're here for the people. guest: well, i think that's a point that a lot of people probably feel. they get tired of hearing about folks in washington getting caught in some of the situations we've talked about here and that your callers have brought up about other members of congress. and i think that is a frustration among folks out there and they want their members of congress to come to washington and do their job. host: michigan on our republican line. caller: good morning. i understand there's a book that has been written about this affair called the family. the rest dents that the senator -- residence that the senator lived in, senators live in and they all sort of vow to look the other way when girls were brought in and things of that

nature. now, i understand that his family, senator ensign's family gave those people about $100,000 as a gift and as a republican i'm very disgusted this these kinds of things. we have people senator vitter who has confessed to indiscretions and he seems to get up on a box and tell other people what to do. i think we should clean all those people out that act in an inappropriate manner and then try to tell us what to do. host: senator ensign offered any explanation since the affair broke and now with this new information as far as a direct interview to you or another organization? guest: he has not commented to my paper, to the las vegas sun. he did issue a statement to the "new york times." i'm not sure other outlets. when this -- before the story

saying he fully complied with all laws regarding the employment and the relationship with his, with mr. hampton. host: one more call, florida on our independent line. caller: good morning. i would like to say i think the biggest problem is a lot of the senators running into problem, but there is in florida as politicians in most parties first look out for their on welfare and then their constituents and the people who pay for their reelection. there's a very simple answer. we're talking about there's a ban from one year to becoming a lobbyist. it's in the constitution you can have lobbyists but the secret to the whole thing is ban them from going to washington with any money in their pockets. host: any final thoughts?

guest: no. i just think obviously it's a difficult situation for the senator and i think we'll just have to see which way his colleagues and others go on this. and see what happens. senator ensign was back on the panel that he has been very involved in the health care negotiations, health reform bill and even after this story broke he was back at work thursday night working hard on the senate finance committee panel. so i think there's two sides and we'll see two sides to er story and we'll see where this goes. guest: lisa, with the las vegas sun. if you want to read this and other stories regarding senator ensign. thanks for your time. we are going to come back. well -- we'll look at the senator's trip to copenhagen

but we'll talk about political fallout from the trip especially after the decision on the olympics. we'll take that up as soon as we take a look at this week's knews seen seen through the ice of editorial cartoonists.

host: the pages of the financial times has this on page two looking at the decision by the olympic committee to choose reowe deja anywhereo. this is by edward who writes this morning who writes that more immediately the rejection is likely to intensify questions about mr. obama's allegedly vaunting self-ably. although he spent only a few hours and although other leaders, they couched their pitches in buy graphic cal

terms, mr. obama put his own reputation on the line. next, down in the second column. it says the fallout from the trip will overshadow more white house initiatives including his attempt to push through universal health care, afghanistan, and attempts to revive the committee. i had did not help that it coin sided with the announcement of 263,000 increase in u.s. joblessness. so the next half hour taking a look at yesterday's decision, your thoughts on if that decision about the olympics and president obama's involvement in it mean political fallout for him. if you think it does, doesn't, or it doesn't matter, you can call in on these lines.

later on in the program we're going to take a look at health care issues as far as health, two bills in the senate that deal with health care specifics about those bills, how they'll have to be merged and speerblely be merged with the house version. and then we will talk about that issue. that will be later on in this program. but for now we'll take this. we'll take those calls in just a moment. you have probably heard about the supreme court's theory that kicks off this sunday. a whole week's program looking at the supreme court. home to america's highest court. that will begin at 9:00 eastern standard and you can see it at 6:00 pacific time right here on c-span. if you want to go to our website, there's a whole lot of information about this documenty, some other information as well, and take advantage of that. first up on this call, dallas,

on our republican line. we hear from john concerning the president's trip on the olympics. what do you think? caller: thanks for taking my call. i think that it's a fact that no other president has ever exposed the presidency to such an incredible disgrace. and him risking the prestige of america by going over to a bunch of two-pot, european committee members to beg for their votes. i think it was an incredible disgrace. i think he risked the prestige of america for no good reason. and i think that it shows that he has no judgment and his ego is without bounds. host: raleigh, north carolina. caller: i think it was very good that the president went over.

i think all of the other top leaders who were interested in having the olympics in their country were there. and i think it would have been a very bad thing for the president if he had not gone. so i really am very happy that he did go. and also, but i think what is most disturbing was the response of the republicans when he did not win when the americans did not get the olympics. there's a response from republicans where they actually clapped when they got the news. and so that's saying they really were not for america. it was really disturbing to see that. and that is on the internet. host: as far as the president himself, do you see any fallout from this action? caller: no. yoss any fallout at all. i think it was great that he went over there and tried. you know, a lot of times people

don't try. but he went over and tried to get it. and i think it's very good that he did that. and i think most people appreciate that. host: randy from north carolina. caller: i was just happy to see the ioc give obama a little spanking and teach him of reality instead of running home like a little scolded dog with his tail between his legs. and i know that's what's going to happen in afghanistan. he will do the same thing. except he ezz putting our troops on the line there. host: little rock, arkansas. caller: yes. i think he did the right thing. i think he did the right thing. if he hasn't have gone, they wouldn't have -- they still would have found something to talk about. they would have criticized him.

so he is dammed if he do and dammed if he don't. and bush went to the olympics in china last year, stayed for four days. nobody said anything about that. so he did the right thing. host: we'll continue on. there is a story in the paper this morning taking a look at the former british prime minister tony blair. she a favorite to be considered to be the first president of the european union. it is looking good for tony. he believes the signals from the rest of europe are that mr. blare may become the first president of eu. the votes have to be counted. but they could start considering who will be its new president in a summit in brussels at the end of the month.

louisiana, go ahead. caller: yes. just saying on the president had to try. i mean, there's no guarantees when you go on to these things and he wanted to get the olympics over here. it would have been good for our economy. but you can't fault the man for trying. and there was no guarantee of success. now he's got the health care agenda. he's an energetic person. he can hit a lot of issues and hand al lot of things at once. he is smart and all that. a lot of people are jealous of obama. i think they really just can't the fact that a man who is african american has that much talent, energy, and can do so many things at once.

and i think there's just a ting -- president carter is right. there is a ting of hatred for this man that can't be explained any other way. host: maine. caller: good morning. i just called to say that what a shame. no matter what barack obama does he will be brought down by the republicans. to see that group of conservatives actually applauding because america lost the olympics, these are the people that wrap themselves in the american flag and say how patriotic they are. they are rooting against this country because there is not a republican in the white house. i am so so ashamed of all these people. give this man a chance to try and bring us out of the mess that george bush brought to us for eight years. thank you. host: a photo today of president obama and general stanley mccrystal to talk about

u.s. strategy in afghanistan. this is on board air force one, they met for 25 minutes discussing various avenues of strategy. the president weighing a decision on what will happen in afghanistan as far as troop deployment. also, there's another story in the paper from the "new york times." this is a news analysis piece. this is a challenge for obama holding iran to its word. writing that the clearest risk is that the iranians may play for time as they have often been accused of doing in the past. making promises and encouraging more meetings waiting to close ranks. on twitter there is a response

from leslie miller who writes obama was pitching for all the folks but worked hard in chicago hoping to get the game. our next call is georgia. caller: thank you for taking my call. i can't understand why obama even went to copenhagen. he has been going around the country or around the world talking about how bad the united states is. there's no wonder that the people at the olympics voted not to bring it to the united states. like i said, i can't understand why he even went considering the way he's been talking negative about the united states. host: dayton, ohio on our independent line. caller: what i would like to see is the people on the committee from the olympics. i think it was a political game to me. when you read these newspapers that you go through, they don't

like the president because they never put anything in there about the president in the newspapers. and i think that every stumbling block they put in from of him, comts from him. i don't understand the republicans. >> host: you see the olympic committee? caller: i would like to know whether or not is on the committee and how it was done and see the people who was on the committee host: can i ask why that's important to you? caller: because there's a story behind it. host: chicago, you are next. caller: good morning. first, you allowed that i had yot from north carolina to call the president a dog. so but here's my thing. the president did the right thing by going over there to try and bring the olympics back to the united states. and by doing that, he exposed to true unpatriotic people in america and that is those ignorant nastty, right wing

republicans that cloak themselves in the flag and holer u.s.a. they exposed themselves as the true unpatriotic people. they celebrated because america did not get the olympics. and what that is, that's a deep seated racism. they claim like limbaugh, he claimed that he wants the president, he wants the policies of the president to fail. the olympics has nothing to do with any policies. that tells you there are deep seated racists behavior. host: we'll take a break for a few minutes on this topic as we want to talk to you about an aspect of our work here at c-span that deals directly with issues that we're going to bring you next week regarding the supreme court. joining us, med yirtsdz wrap, we've been talking a lot here about our programming regarding the supreme court and yet you are with our education wing. could you merge the two together about what you're

doing as far as the supreme court is concerned? >> i would be happy to. i work in c-span's education department, and in c-span's classroom and we're a free membership service for teachers. weekly we do video clips for teachers and discussion questions. but every moment when c-span has an original production coming out, like on sunday on the supreme court, we put together resources for our members. and membership is free. what we've done for the supreme court documentary is pieced together six lesson plans that focus on some of the teachable moments, although the whole documentary, i would encourage teachers toe show the whole documentary. but we put together six lesson plans centered on teaching topics such as mar bri versus madison, the review of the judicial system in the united states. and in those lesson plans we have video clips and handouts.

and it follows what teachers have to do in the classrooms such as objectives and time frames and materials and the procedures, and so what we're going to do now is show you one of those clips. you're looking at the page we created and we'll go to that. >> i think it's the prettiest building in washington and it's distinctive. it's a different type of marble. much brighter, much lighter than the typical government building, which i think is wonderful because immediately as soon as you appreciate that this is something different. the court is a different branch of government. and it really is more monumental. it looks more like the jefferson memorial or lincoln memorial in terms of its visual impact than it does look like another government building. and if you view it as something of a temple of justice, i think that it's entirely appropriate. >> this is the highest court in

the land. and the framers created it after studying the great law givers in history and taking a look at what they thought worldwide was important for the judicial branch to do. i think it is time that americans wake up to what it is the framers had in mind when they tried to create an independent federal judicial branch. they had a clear vision in mind. and that was that the federal courts would be deciding issues of federal law, constitutional and statutory. and that those judgments would be binding on all courts, state and federal. >> so that's one example of a clip that we have in our lesson plans. we have about 20 clips that we pulled. and that one alone gets into a

lot of teaching topics. teachers could use that as a bridge into what the framers intended. and this is what we've done. in the lesson plans are handouts, like a pre-test that students can take before the lessons so they can see how much they know about the supreme court and the judicial system in the united states, and then at the end of the lessons we have the students take the pre-test again to see how much they learned by these lessons and the video clips that we inserted from c-span's documentary. >> and so if someone, a teacher or otherwise is interested, walk them how to get access. >> what they do is go to our main website, c-span class room .org and teachers would have to sign up. it takes about five minutes and it's free. and from there, there's a box. once you register and you become a member, there's a box in the middle of our home page that leads you to not only the trailer for the supreme court

documentary that's going to air on sunday, but we also, and you're seeing it on the screen. on the right-hand side there's a link to our lesson plans and all the video clips we've also extracted as well as the handouts from the lessons for easy access. if teachers don't want to use the less snspr say. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> also, don't forget that you can watch our seeries, our kickoff tomorrow with the supreme court, home to america's highest courts at 9:00 tomorrow evening. back to twitter. as we talk about the president's trip to make the pitch for chicago to the olympic committee. back to your calls.

oklahoma, republican line. go ahead. caller: good morning. i have been following the politics, i was up until 1:30 last night watching what was going on. i'm so thankful for the supreme court and our leaders that are investigating certain things. and i think when it comes on about acorn that we're going to see a whole lot of big people drop. host: buffalo, new york. independent line. caller: i don't know why there's so much uproar partisanwise over there, because basically obama didn't win but he i don't think he put in the effort to win but we have to look at the country who came in first and second. madrid came in second place and their president basically said, he's 89 years old and he doesn't know how much longer he is going to live. that's a pretty compelling

argument. and then we have seville leader saying that there was never an olympicses held in south america. what more of a compelling argument do you need that? i don't see how chicago would have won in any case. caller: hi. this is jerry from hopestown. i just want to say, yes, we get the idea. obama can walk and chew gum at the same time. but he cannot do all these things he is doing. it's impossible. he only spent maybe 25 minutes with mccrystal. that isn't -- there's a reason for that. i know he wants to go all over and do things. but stay home and take care of business. host: john miller, formerly a republican member from washington, a senior fellow at the discovery institute, a cons cl servetive think tank and he

wrote a piece this morning. nobody likes us. who cares? talks about global opinion of the u.s. approval of mrk has jumped to 57% in france, but the comparable figures were 63% and 75% respectively in the second year of george bush's administration. it merely may be that new american presidents tend to enjoy a honeymoon in foreign opinion. given these mixed signals, which surveys should president obama pay attention to, the ones that suggest approval of his leadership or the more negative appraisals? the answer is neither. his only concern should be whether favorable public opinion abroad will help him achieve america's own goals, and there is little evidence that that is the case. memphis, tennessee, you are

next. caller: hi. i want to say i am definitely proud of our president taking the time out to do what he did for chicago, trying to bring the olympics to chicago. and it's very disappointing that the republican party, how they always constantly are contradicting him, going behind his back, going to other countries telling them negative things about the president. from one congressman going to schinea to, another senator flying off to one of those -- i forgot the country where they kicked him out with his pajamas on. and he was -- and he's going out there just to tell them it's ok to overthrow your government. to me, i hate to say the words

but it's on the border line of treason what they're doing to our country. host: cleveland, ohio, republican line. go ahead. caller: thanks for taking my call. i'm not really quite sure where to begin, but i think a lot of people do not get cable, a lot of people only look at the alphabet tv programs. i've run across people who have never even heard acorn. but with resfoket the president, it cost us $50,000 -- $57,000 an hour to operate air force one. we also get 4 gallons to a mile. and for the president to fly back and forth to such a silly venture, let's talk about the venture. there is so much corruption in chicago that a lot of money for the olympics would have gone down the tube and the u.s. government would have ended wup a stimulus package picking up

the expense for the olympics. i think it's great it did not go through. and also, it shows it's not a good thing for obama to go around blasting his own country, because the people, like the president in france, he didn't blast his predecessors. blare and brown didn't blast their predecessors. i think it's a total lack of class to keep blaming your predecessor for every mistake you're making. thanks a million. host: the "washington post," corruption shortage of mentors hinder afghan forces according to the u.s. a new report from the defense department inspector general.

on twitter this morning. is it better >> good morning. i just wanted to say that, first of all, i hope you give me enough time but kudos to the president for at least attempting like many of the other presidents, prime ministers, and kings of other

nations who went, one thing that struck me was the fact i think it was real -- rio who the president there had mentioned how the whole continent was in support of their president. and how i think that the ioc recognized that, number one, the economy in america is unstable. number two, the fact that we are so divided as a nation until i hope in 2010 and 2012 americans who are truly americans, whether you are wearing a lapel pin or not, recognize that republicans hate the country. they hate it. host: washington, d.c., democrat's line. go ahead. caller: i was going to say my personal view is i didn't really care if we got the olympics or not. and i'm really happy that bra

zpwill got them. but i can't believe the plibs are making an issue that the president tried to get the olympics for chicago. i thought it was great on his part. and the other followup i would like to say is that if the u.s. had gotten the olympics, i guess it's going to cost like $15 million tover next seven years to build it up. if chicago would have gotten the olympics, you can bet that the republicans would have been saying, oh, my god, you're spending all this money on the olympics when we have this fiscal problem. so the president is in a position where he can't win either way. host: the "washington post." acorn fund -- --

west palm beach, florida. go ahead. george on our republican line. caller: yes. i am a republican, but i don't think this is a republican or democrat type of issue here. my big beef is priorities. and when we spend hours before a delegation to get olympics and 25 nounts the talk to the military leader over in afghanistan, and we've had lots of time to speak with him and we have the economic problems that we have in our country, i just think that it shows that there's little priorities to

the issues that are pressing us. there's thousands of americans out of work. and i think it's time we take care of our house. and get it in order. and maybe then we can look to -- and i agree with the woman that said that the coming together of the nation. we've been deeply divided by this president more than any other president i've ever seen. and it's time that we stop letting the congress divide us as americans. thank you. host: philadelphia, pennsylvania. brenda on our democrats line. caller: good morning. it takes forever to get through to this line. but you see, the olympics are good will games. they like to go to a country that exhibits good will. and all this, the world has been seeing the racism that is

has come out of the wood wok because there is for the first time an african american who is representing this country as a president. and he is a magnificent president. you -- out there on the washington square carrying signs that say end obama. nobody knows what that means. you've got congressmen and senators who sit on the television, call the arabs, everybody who has got any sense. these people are talking about bringing the country together. host: and we will leave it there as we don't like that kind of language on the network and being express pressed as such. and the last call, louisiana. richard on our independent line. caller: good morning. i think all these naysayers

need to leave our president alone for a while and give him a break. you know, after eight years of bush and now we've got a new president, i can tell you it takes a heck of a lot longer time to build a house than to tear it down. to tear it down, all it takes is a match. and burn it down. that's what we have the last eight years. we had no standing in the world communities. now obama's left to repair towns of mess. people need to leave hism alone and let him do his job. what do people think, he can't multitask? air force one is like the white house with wings. give the man a break. and he everybody worry about doing their job instead of tearing him down.

>> you've probably seen the book cover associated with sara palin's book, going rogue in american life. there's stories that it is already, even though it's not released for another six weeks or so, it is already number one on amazon as well as barnes and noble.com. there's the cover. coming up, we are going to take a look at health care specifically in the senate. john than allen from the politico will take us through the specifics of the bill and the hurdance as they need to be nerged into one. we'll be right back. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] . .

>> justice o'connor insisted we have lunch every day when we were setting. "now clarence, you should come to launch." she was really sweet but very persistent. i came to lunch and it was one of the best things i did. it is hard to be angry or bitter

at someone and break bread and look them in the office. it is a fun lunch, very little work is done there, it is just nine people, eight people, whoever shows up, having a wonderful lunch together. it is wonderful. >> hear from all the supreme court justices about the history of the court. see inside the historic building to place is only available to the justices and their staff. watched our featured documentary. it all starts sunday at 9:00 p.m. eastern. for a special preview of our conversations with the justices, join us sunday at 8:00 p.m. eastern for "q &a >" host: what is the most important thing to know going ahead as far as the senate versions of health care? what is important for the people at home to know?

guest: really is the similarity and cohesion in these bills and the direction. there has been so much focus on differences, particularly the public option in the senate health education labor and pensions committee bill and the lack of the public option and the inclusion of co-ops in the finance committee version of the bill. you have two very similar pieces of legislation that into much of the same things including an expansion of medicaid up to 133% of the population. you have the creation of a health insurance exchange for people who do not currently have insurance. there's also a mandate that people buy insurance. there is actually quite a bit of similarity. you occasionally hear administration officials or others trying to put a percentage on it and i do not think you can do that. the committees have different jurisdiction.

there is sort of a cohesive push from these two committees when their bills are joined. i don't think it will be terribly surprising or even terribly difficult to thematically stay true to both versions. host: how does that happen? if one has a public option one does not. guest: that is the overriding issue. at the end of the day, both these bills would end up covering are making sure there is health insurance coverage for more than 90% of the population. that is something that has to be resolved. you heard harry reid say we will have some version of public option. you could call anything in public option. it remains to be seen exactly how he will deal with that. host: expand on that?

guest: there are all kinds of institutions, structures, agencies that could be under the aegis of the government or have public participation and the called a public option. there are different models on how to do that. we focus verya much on the language but really, i think the question in most people's minds is whether you will have something that really truly is a government-run health insurance agency. the left really wants that on the right very much doesn't. host: the semantics may be different? guest: semantics' may remain but the spirit will be different. if harry reid says he will have a public option, we don't know what that means. it could be what the left in visions but it probably won't be. it could be something that the right abhors and it probably will bait no matter what it is under the public option

language. host: if you want to start making your calls as far as this topic, the numbers are on your screen. $900 billion as far as the cost is concerned. here are some sketches as to how it is being proposed to be paid for. this is from the senate finance committee. he's on insurance companies, drug manufacturers, medical equipment companies. a fee on employers whose workers receive government subsidies to pay premiums. also find for individuals who failed to purchase affordable coverage that fines aspect was the topic this week. guest: it was. where do you levee that fine? who has to pay that?

there was a movement by senator schumer of new york to lower the threshold or raise the threshold for who ends up having to pay for that. he was trying to make it so that fewer people are subjected to fines because there is an exemption for people who have to pay 8% of more -- or more of their income. it had been 10% so they lowered that number. host: the insurance companies would get a fee? talk about the discussion about the individual health care plans. guest: there is an excise tax that the senate finance committee would apply for people who have plans the cost more than $8,000 for an individual and more than $21,000 for a family. their idea is that if those funds are put in place on

employers you would generally have fewer employers offering those high dollar plans. people believe that ultimately, that might not happen and instead you end up with races in premiums. it is a tax on the insurer. what you would end up with is having premiums make up that difference rather than a change in behavior with the so-called cadillac plans. host: the senate finance committee bill says that everyone must get coverage throç3x employers, on their own, or a government plan and there are exemptions for economic hardship. guest: the exemption for economic hardship is what we were talking about before with the percentages for waivers for people who have a certain percentage of their income they have to pay we will also see credits available, subsidies for

people to buy insurance up uh 400% of the poverty level which means it is about $73,000 for a family of three. host: if you look at the senate health committee's bill, individuals will have to have insurance and that will be in the form of tax penalties or waivers. can you expand on that? guest: basically, you get the subsidies to pay for your insurance. you are required to have it but you get subsidies to pay for up to a certain level and if you do not buy it, there is a penalty. it is a carrot and stick thing. for people who are outside the subsidy range, you have the stick of having to pay a penalty if you do not get insurance. there is that exception, that waiver, that would be about 10% if you pay that or more on your

income for health insurance. we saw senator schumer and the finance committee willing to work that down to 8%. there is something going on in new york where that would capture more people. host: both versions of the bill aims to cover about 95% of americans in the senate finance committee and 97% of americans in the health committee. how do they come up with the percentage? guest: they do a score and try to figure out how will the behavior change and how will employers change. who will wind up buying insurance and will not? it is like actuaries for insurance companies. they have a number of factors they bring in to determine what the paper will be. out of that, they come up with

this estimate. it is lower in the finance committee because they have adjustedj some of the numbers. host: first call is from front royal, virginia, republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. i want to say thank you. you are doing a great job. i am disabled from the federal government. if i did not have medicare, i would not have any insurance. i want to tell you all that i think america needs to start getting people back to work and putting this country forward instead of going backwards like we have been. i would like to see america

prospered but to prosper in jobs and opportunities and less politics to get this country moving again. thank you, gentlemen. guest: he is on medicare and depended upon that, disabled former government employee. this is something that has been an issue within this debate. that is because some of the savings are coming from medicare and medicaid. there is a lot of debate and concern among seniors that their medicare will end up being affected by that. democrats say they want to get rid of fraud, waste, and abuse. republicans are arguing that seniors will lose benefits if you look to cut hundreds of billions of dollars from a program.

this also affects the medicare advantage program. democrats say they will do everything they can to preserve the medicare program like that gentleman who called. host: this question is in regards to medicaid. it would change and become eligible to levels, standardized to 103% of the poverty level -- 133% of the poverty level. ultimately, what to all these changes mean as force medicaid? guest: it means it is expanding. the idea of poverty does not match up with the government definition of the poverty line which does not rise as fast as what we would consider poverty. they are trying to make sure that people you and i would

consider empoverished are eligible for the medicare program. it makes medicaid more expensive because medicaid is a program where there is a state and federal joining in something that will put a significant burden on the states, as well, over the long term. caller: ore., and are democrat line. good morning, cspan. i have to state up front -- i cannot be kind about this. we have to have, in this country, a public option, whatever you want to call it, to combat what is widely understood corporate fascism which is going on in this country withiq has happened with both parties in our government and that is the buying up.

we now a corporate welfare. -- we now have a corporate welfare. 99% in terms of what goes on in this country is taken up by the top 1% of this country. that last 10th of the pie is taken up by the rest of the 99% in this country to fight over. that is ridiculous. 65%-70% of the people want some sort of public option, if you want to call it that. i would like to see something closer to a single payer. i'm a veteran and i am ok. i am happy with the va. guest: the gentleman talked about corporate subsidies. one of the things that i find

fascinating in the debate and i would like to see a chart on this. you mentioned the taxes we will see on the insurers under the senate finance bill. many of these groups are subsidized or various other things. i would love to see a chart at some point of what they net is of the government taxing these groups as opposed to giving them subsidies to run various programs to make sure the seniors have drugsseniorsetc. the gentleman is right in one sense that companies are doing well as a result of the health care system. many of them are banned under this, it would not necessarily changed for insurers are looking to add 30 million people to the rolls as a result of legislation.

there is something in it for them even if there is paying on the front end in the forms of taxes. host: was their consideration on how to control health-care costs? paying for it is one thing but controlling costs is another. guest: there are a lot of issues with controlling costs. as a society and as a people, we put such a high premium on quality health care that we end up being willing to spend a lot more money on it than we actually have. trying to rein that bag is a huge political problem. where do you cut and who wants less health care? that is an ongoing issue in the debate. people talk about bending the cost curve with medicare, which is a huge liability going forward. people love their medicare but it costs a lot of money. they love it because it does not cost them as they are paying

for it but does cause society as a whole. i do not think we have seen anything yet truly -- a truly addresses the long-term cost of medicare. host: next call is from long beach, new york, on our independent line. caller: i have been listening to this debate for a long time for the only people i have not heard from are the people that administer health care. pediatricians, doctors, neurosurgeons, hospital administrators, the people that could tell us how to drive down costs and make it more effective than accessible for it we are hearing from politicians. what do they know about health care except a get it for free? what -- where are the doctors? let's put doctors on c-span and hear from them. let's make it more accessible to the american people. i am tired of listening to politicians. what does nancy pelosi know

about health care? guest: i am not a doctor but i play one on tv. doctors are divided on this. it depends on what type of doctor you are and it depends on how much of the health care bills you're lookingûz at. there are certain specialty doctors that are high and specialty doctors like cardio- breast surgery experts who are not excited about what they are saying. if you polled most doctors, most of them are in favor of a public option. there are many pieces of this. it is hard to measure -- doctors are not monolithic. host: if you have a computer, you can go to the web at c- span.org and go to where an archive section, over the last

several months on this program, we have presented perspectives from doctors, administrators, insurance companies. you can hear a wide variety of perspectives on this subject at c-span.org. "still, tenn., a republican line. caller: one of the better qualities of a manager is the ability to delegate. back in the mid-1970's, in the interest of oil conservation, there is a federal mandate for states to get the speed limit down to 65 miles per hour and governors were told to get it done or lose federal funding. cannot the same principle be applied to health care? instead of dealing with divided legislative members, 50 governors get together and they

can be told to make it happen? that is really all i've got. what is wrong with this idea? guest: there are some issues with that model. it worked in the case of speed limits. health care is a more complicated and complex issue and one that has national implications, even though we have a state-by-state health system. we also have an attempt to have more nationalized standards for what people are offered in terms of benefits and what insurance companies are allowed to charge people. those standards across state lines may make it more difficult. it is an interesting idea. it might be able to apply to parts of the health-care system.

host: there is a story that looks of the political aspects and they're talking about senator re-. they say his path is riddled with pitfalls. party liberals and alice object to portions of the max baucus bill. guest: the public option debate has become poisonous across the country. many democrats are leery of it because they have constituents that do not want and they are upset. when you talk about the left being upset at the finance bill, there are all kinds of things they don't like about the max baucus bill. they do not like that the mandate is less than they do not like that it does not have a public option and they do not believe the co-op system offered by senator conrad, which is privately held co-ops that would

be run by the people. it is a bit of a hybrid. they do not believe that really does the same thing as a public option in terms of bringing accountability to the system. with labor unions, they are not on board with a cadillac plan. there are many unions have negotiated to get health benefits over the course of time. there are many issues at play. that is a small piece. that is just talking within the framework of what is going on in the senate. it also had was going on in the house. nancy pelosi believes that she may not be able to pass anything that does not have a public option. she is not making the same statements about report coming back. she is trying to get a vehicle on the house bill to be approved by the senate. she believes that if it comes down to a final house vote with obama against obama for his

health-care plan, no matter with the details are, it is likely to get past. host: we saw a report from senator snowe. is that enough as far as getting it done on the senate side? guest: it may not be enough. if she ends up supporting whatever bill is crafted, we have not seen the final bill. if she ends up supporting back, that is enough of a fig leaf for bipartisanship. it may not be enough to get a 260 votes. we're not -- it may be enough to get -- it may not be enough to get to 60 votes. host: is this a real option? guest: my personal belief is

that it is very difficult to do both because the political situation of the democrats jamming thought something through is problematic. there are a lot of roles you have to follow strictly. there are a lot of items that do not score. reconciliation is supposed to be a deficit reduction tool and policies that happen are supposed to be incidental to the goal of reducing the deficit. in this case, the goal of reducing -- the goal would be to change the health-care system and the deficit -- deficit reduction would be incidental. i think it is a hard thing to get done. i would not say it is impossible because many things can be done. a parliamentarian i have to bend a little to make that happen. host: jacksonville, fla., on our independent line.

caller: i am a democrat and i support the public option. i am uninsured. i really don't want my money going to the insurance companies. what i see happening in the senate is that they really seem to be fighting and continue pouring money into the coffers of insurance companies. the people are saying they god't want this. doctors that are for the public option realize that the insurance bureaucrats are ripping off their patients now. they are getting richer and richer. i don't want the public option to be free. i have been unemployed for two years. i want to pay for my insurance but i don't want to pay to the insurance companies. host: someone is saying that the

max baucus bill is a mandate. guest: the caller may good point which is that insurance companies are bureaucracies, too. anyone who's ever had to deal with a claim that has been rejected understands it is not exactly like making a quick phone call and get results. the idea that there is a government bureaucrat but not an insurance company bureaucrat is ridiculous. i think that part of this debate and part of what colors this debate is that many americans have become frustrated with insurance companies and they want to see someone they think is a better coordinator of results for claims. i think they believe that the insurance company's profit motive is driving a lot of the health care decisions. what they will find out within the government system is that

they don't always get what they want from them, either. host: when it comes to the benefits package, it says individuals and small businesses would have to cover benefits.tñr levels of coverage and the least generous would pay 65% of health care per year. the most generous is about 90%. when you turn to the health committee bill, it says that health plans must operate package of central benefits recommended by a new medical advisory council and no style of pre-existing conditions will allow you to be turned away. guest: the pre-existing condition stuff is something that everyone agrees on. if you had to vote on each of the senate or house bills, you would not get one of a percent, you might get 400 members to agree to that. you have a situation where the government is trying to

standardize health care in order to create minimum benefits for those were by insurance. for those who are buying government insurance. i think there is a real effort to standardize basic benefits, particularly for those just coming into the system. host: written, wyoming, the independent line. caller: i am self-employed. i can afford insurance. it costs me about $12,000 per year but i can swing that. i don't do it because you're not even sure if your -- you are covered when you have insurance. they're mad things they will i do for that they should. there will spend a lot of money from trying to keep covering you.

i would like to see a single pay and the health plan and if there is in, i don't want to be forced to buy insurance. if it is mandated without single payer public option, i don't want anything to do with it. the biggest problem is that the people elected or appointed who are supposed to protect us from the monopolies and racketeering, actually participate in it and it is frustrating. guest: there are a lot of self- employed people who choose not to be insured. the debate is moving in two separate directions away from the things he wants. it does not appear we are anywhere near a true single payer plan. it also appears there be a mandate to buy health insurance or he will face taxation as a result if this bill becomes law. i am sorry to the caller in

wyoming for that. that is the way it looks like it is going host: bayside, new york. republican line. caller: health-care has been considered a moral right. is taking care of yourself a moral obligation? is smoking and being morbidly obese a pre-existing condition? as for its waste is concerned, i have been trying to get waste out of my life since i have been a dull. how to quantify waste in their projections? thank you. guest: that last question is a great point. you hear waste, fraud, and abuse and people say they want to take care of that. it is as if you could just chop that of some program.

tom davis used to say that waste goes throughout bureaucracy. edberg we talked about obesity and smoking. there was an amendment offered this last week that incentivized healthy lifestyles by allowing discounts for people who quit smoking and for people lose weight. if you look at the reverse of that, i like to think a bit -- think of it as the heavy levee. there are many people who believe that they be pre- existing condition that obesity and even smoking not only could be considered pre-existing conditions but also been a have

genetic roots which brings up a lot of other questions about whether or not you want to be taxing that or creating disincentives. >> east sparta, ohio, democrats line. caller: i want to say something on the health care issue and insurance companies. these insurance companies cannot make money when they insure houses and properties. but yet, they poured in subsidies for insurance companies. they will not insure you but they put in subsidies were they will ensure you and the government pays them a premium. the flood plain areas in the south that don't like the public option but have -- but ensure people's homes and because the insurance money can make money,

they will find with the college public option. they will not insure people and give people the option of a public option. they value property more than they do people. these committees that they have, i have watched the debates on this issue since the beginning. all the republicans are doing is saying no. three of the democrats to the hallock committee should knuckles old democrats. they don't have the philosophy of a progressive democrat. guest: one of the things we are learning from this debate is that there is a lot of anger about insurance companies. there are many reasons for that. i think that people get very

frustrated when it comes to their health insurance. we talked about moral obligations and we heard talk about: prioritizing on issues that are very personal. it gets people's emotions up. one of the reasons this debate has been so difficult in congress is because it matters to people individually what their health care is like. host: we have video from the debate this week. senators grassley and max baucus discuss the schedule as far as what will take place. >> we are done now. next week, some time, we will meet and vote a final product that we can hear. i hope i am expressing what you have already expressed. i assume that with all these

amendments, they will be incorporated and you have a document that we will vote on. the cbo will score that when the document is put together and we have a. time, i hope it is 72 hours for members to be able to read the score and it is available either during that period of time or at the end of that. time. is that fair to say? >> when we finish tonight, no more amendments. we send the completed bill over to cbo. they will then give us a preliminary score. my expectation is that that will take several days, maybe tuesday or so. they will then send it back to us. i remember the conversation i had with senator snowe and she has touched on it would take.

we don't want to get this to them in the dead of night -- would want to get this in the dead of night and after a boat on a. we have to make sure there's a reasonable time for senators and staff and public to review the score by the cbo. host: that will be a big consideration tax guest: that is very much a big consideration. at the end of the process, they have to find out what that score is because they need to be able to -- you both sides adjusting the revenue side and the spending side -- they have to bring those two things together.

the other thing that the cbo score will tell us which of these provisions are likely to be kosher under reconciliation if they choose to go that route. i think they are less likely to that but the cbo score will lead a roadmap for which things are likely to be considered by the parliamentarians to be usable a reconciliation. they have a lot of considerations. it will take awhile to get that back. they're open to sign a by tuesday or wednesday next week. host: how many amendments were added. i know there was 500 or so star with? >> i don't know. the big headline amendments did not get edit and for there were two ever is to create public option in this bill that were

knocked down. that was the high mark. those who wanted the public option got their votes proportionate for them, it did not make it in. senator widen from oregon had his amendment that would of dealt with vouchers. that was blocked. that was of the finance committee level. while a lot was taken on, there were tweaks here and there. the basic character will stay the same period host: the 72- hour process, is that just for legislators or is that for the general public? guest: we will not have the cbo score as soon as senator baucus has but shortly

thereafter. before the bill comes to the senate floor, there will be debate as to what it costs. by caller: i think the bill as an insurance bill not a health care bill. we are not injecting the economy. healthcare is a burden to american industry. until we realize that, the insurance companies are actually obese and they should be taken out of the way. they simply do not provide health care. they are burdened with it. these companies are not going to hire people unless they

absolutely must. that causes jobs not to be created. we have a lot of these international corporations here to take out trillions of dollars, spend billions on labour, but only about 10% in the united states. guest: there are many people on both sides of the aisle, in a perfect world, that would like to see the insurance system and health care system decoupled from the employment system. the transition from what we have is this employer based model. something without that would displace the great majority of americans who do get health care through employers. that becomes a tremendous logistical problems and political problem if you were told tomorrow that you were not going to have the insurance you have. the suggestion that someone's health insurance may change a little bit has really riled up

people on all sides of the debate. if you to tell everybody that your health insurance will be changed, not just a little bit but drastically, i think there would not be the political will to get it done. host: thank you for waiting. caller: thank you to cspan. i was watching the hearings last week and -- on the amendments. senator bentsen reminded us that the health care mandate -- senatorensign got a wordless response from senator baucus. is there any actual belief out there that ill[cñ aliens will

not ever be availed to the benefits of the public option desk -- public option? guest: there are efforts on both sides of the house and the senate to prevent illegal immigrants from getting access to the health insurance market. however, there has been controversy over whether there is adequate enforcement. the senate has moved it to be stronger in that regard requiring identification. many people do not believe the penalties are there. if you are an illegal immigrant and you get caught in this country, you are supposed to be sent out of the country. that is not enforced so well.

the odds of an illegal immigrant getting health care through this new law, some people getting it is fairly high. all of them getting it is fairly low. they don't use the figure of 47 million people uninsured because that encompasses illegal americans. -- illegal immigrants. host: in the on our independent line. caller: i am definitely an independent in the middle of the fence but my feeder hanging on the left side. the democrats want to help the majority of people in the country but they also want open borders and illegal people included in everything. it seems like the republicans want the rich and believe in the

trickle-down theory which has been the trickle out theory in reality. jobs are leaving our borders and breaking unions. that is happening since the 1970's. unions are as greedy as corporations but represents the blue-collar middle class. strong union to have been guilty of demanding too much. small businesses are good but they usually don't give a livable wage. some of them provide medical insurance but without a livable wage, household bills are impossible. that is not even include life needs. i believe unions are the ones who started the employer-paid medical insurance. guest: unions have been

instrumental in improving benefits for workers as part of negotiations with management for decades. the caller makes some interesting points about where the two party stand on the particular issues. host: we go to colts neck, new jersey on our democrats line. caller: good morning. on the illegal aliens, i am not in favor of them getting health care either but nobody wants to look at the other side of the situation. how we get around 20 million of them and put them in jail or some across the border? -- send them across the border?

i would like to see the people work on this bill take the insurance for themselves. what keeps the insurance companies -- i have pre-existing conditions -- what will keep them from raising my insurance rates 25%? guest: the caller is right, we're not going to round up 20 million illegal immigrants and tell them or send them out. it will not happen. in terms of the insurance company and pre-existing conditions, they will not be able to deny you coverage as a result of that. for those who are in high risk pools, the senate bill would immediately provide assistance to get insurance rather than waiting to 2013. down the road, i believe there were things to keep the cost

from being astronomical. there are certain percentages and variables for the insurance companies to be able to charge accordingly for certain lifestyles and whether you smoke. there are some controls on that. host: under the senate finance bill, companies that have 50 or more employees, the government would subsidize some of that insurance. businesses with 25 or fewer workers are exempt. how does this proposal -- what kind of reaction do you get from the chamber of commerce or that sort of thing? guest: they will not be happy about paying a penalty if they are not offering health insurance. it may be cheaper for them to pay that penalty and raise money

for the government rather than to actually offer insurance for their employees. host: cape coral, fla., republican line. caller: since the insurance companies will not have to cover people from cradle to grave with this proposal, i guess the t beggars and others who get money from the insurance companies are pretty happy since insurance companies cannot kick the can down the road with health care. once it is on the taxpayers' dime, the taxpayer has to pay the high cost of health insurance for the people who did not get the service they should have had. can you cannot on that? guest: sometimes you have to take a broader perspective. the basic question with the health-care system and bill is do you believe that those who

have health care, those who have money should be subsidizing to make sure that those who don't have money or health care have it. at the end of the day, that is a divisive question. that is what we are looking in here. is it such a moral imperative that everybody should be insured? is a better risk wise, long term for the, treat to have health insurance? is it worth the cost? it is a big cost, $750,000,000,000.-1918718098 dollars in the house. -- $750 billion in the senate and $900 billion in the house. host: schenectady, n.y., independent line. caller: he is raising it wrong.

there are many tests paid for by people like me. i will be subsidizing his health insurance and a $20,000 per year, the subsidies will not help me. ralph nader suggested we slowly increase the roles of medicare which costs less. i can afford 1% or 2% of my income if i knew i had health insurance. this bill does not do that. it does not help women because we are the poorest segment of society. i do not have enough money to make it right now. this means i could become homeless to pay insurance executives or to pay the health insurance of the men on television. the subsidies will not cover my insurance. they do not guarantee anything. people remic are getting expensive testing done that i can only dream of. i will not be benefiting. guest: i am sorry to the call

that you are not benefiting. the question about expanding existing government services, you mentioned medicare, the senate bill has an expansion of medicaid by the finance version and help version for the finance version also has an expansion of the s chip. there's an effort to expand those programs. it is much easier on the minister of of side to expand these programs rather than restructure everything. there's probably a limited stomach politically to expand medicaid much beyond what they are looking at. host: one more call from huntington, west virginia, democrats line. caller: i believe cspan is our

chance to come before the nation and talk. having said that, i would like to say that in 1981, people were hopeful that we did not want to put more pot -- we did not want to put money in the pockets of people who did not deserve it. the democrats are in now we're getting the same kind of bill by this outfit. my question to the american public and the international public, republican or democrat, isn't it obvious that the politicians prostitute themselves for the 1% that control the will and use issues like race and ethnicity and nationalistic pride to obfuscate the issue, ramming their obscene

profits down our throats. host: we are running out of time. what happens next week for reconciling these bills? guest: in the senate, you'll get an idea what the finance bill will cost and whether it will be fully paid for. they make some day may make some adjustments. we have heard the possibility of seeing something on the senate floor this month that may be wishful thinking. but you have to have something to pass before you go down that road. the house is probably waiting to see what the senate does breadboard i don't that is yet clear when

we will see bills on the floor. i would guess that you won't see anything on the house floor until november, at least. we probably won't see below until much later. host: it is jonathan allen's fifth day on "the politico." we have a little business before we leave you today. senator barbara boxer will be our guest. you can see this tomorrow after "the washington journal." the topic about greenhouse gases and setting limits on them. >> i think the epa is doing what they have to do under the law. there's a danger to global warming. guess who said that? the bush administration. all the scientists and the american academy of scientists.

either step up to the plate and resolve it now. we can resolve it by letting the epa do their work. i support that but i think it is foolish not to do it our way which gives much more flexibility, the ability to buy offsets, the ability to create jobs and do the kinds of things we want to do. host: that is a "newsmakers" tomorrow at 10:00. if you miss a, you can see it at 6:00 in the evening on c-span. tomorrow is our kickoff for our supreme court week. you can see at 9:00 tomorrow, ": the supreme "home to america's highest court." there will be interviews with all the living justices on this issue. that is tomorrow at 9:00.

you can find out how the documentary was made on our q &a" program. the producer discusses in this clip how he went to the supreme court and how he pitched the idea. >> why do you think the court was willing to talk? >> we went over there and pitch it to them in terms of that we had done a documentary on the white house and the capital. part of it was that the building is seen less often than those two buildings. here is an opportunity for you to let the country inside the building, about 500,000 people visit the supreme court each year. that was part of it, to open up the building for people who do not get a chance to come to washington to see it. for those who can see, can you

take is in such places where the process unfolds so we can take people beyond what they would see on a public toward? that was the pitch in to the to achieve dust -- chief justice roberts. he said we could do it and the negotiation began of where inside the building we could go. these things are organic. we originally started out -- we did not know how many justices would participate. we sent letters to all of them and eventually, they all sat down with us. host: learn about the making of that program tomorrow at 8:00. before we leave, a little bit about tomorrow's program. you hear from two reporters from foreign based publications in washington. we will hear from the washington bureau chief of al- jazeera television.

we will talk about parallels that warm author sees between afghanistan and vietnam and if it impacts the kind of policies being made currently. also, at 9:15 tomorrow, the former weapons inspector from iraq from 1991 and 1998 will talk about his take on iran and their nuclear program. that is all tomorrow on our " washington journal"program. thank you for watching today's program. we will see you then. .

exit today on c-span, and look on proposed climate change and energy bill. first, remarks from democratic senators john kerry and barbara boxer followed by remarks from senate republicans. then senator john mccain's remarks on the other bills. >> today, here the latest release of president johnson's telephone conversations from the lyndon b. johnson library. this installment, he talks about the war in vietnam, his problems trying to get a judicial

appointment. also, hear his -- hear his conversations with india's prime minister. throughout the program, a historian provides context and background. the lbj tapes today at 3:30 p.m. eastern here on c-span radio, xm 132. it is also are cspanradio.org. >> and justice o'connor insisted we have lunch every day when we were sitting. "clarence, you should come to launch." she was very persistent. coming to launch was one of the best things i did. -- lunch. it is hard to be angry at someone and break bread and a look them in the eye. it is a fine lunch with very little work being done. it is just nine, eight people,

whoever shows up, having a wonderful lunch. >> hear from all of the supreme court justices about the history and tradition of the court. csi this historic and beautiful building to place is only available to the justices and their staff. -- daut -- see this beautiful building. it starts sunday at 9:00 p.m. eastern. for a special preview, join us sunday at 8:00 p.m. eastern for "q &a." >> democratic senators held a press conference to set stuffer -- to discuss the climate change bill. this is about one hour.

>> are we on? that is wonderful. i am so pleased to be here standing with my colleagues, national security leaders, veterans, business leaders, workers, environmental organizations, religious leaders, while life protectors, energy companies, state and local officials, and so many others as we introduce the clean energy jobs and american power act, a the kerry-boxer bill. this bill addresses the major challenges of our generation, protecting our children and the earth from dangerous pollution, putting america back in control of our energy future, creating

the policies that will lead to millions of new jobs, and through our example inspiring similar actions around the world to avoid an unstable and dangerous future. as chairman of the environment and public works committee, i want to think so many of my colleagues and their staffs on and off the committee. senator kerry's staff and my office have been a team working together for weeks and weeks and often late into the night. colleagues and staff in the e p w committee have been so important and their work is reflected in the bill. in our bill, the basic promise to consumers has been kept. the promise to regions that rely heavily on fossil fuels has

been kept. the first major part of our bill includes authorizations, some of which would be eligible for appropriations and some which would be eligible for both appropriations and allowances. some of these are enhanced from the waxman bill. some are new. here are just a few examples. investments in clean, natural gas, and new transmission infrastructure, nuclear research and development and worker training and, agricultural and forest offset opportunities are included and provisions to speed the transition to clean air transportation including investments in our transfer -- the transportation systems, and efficient hybrid and electrical cars. this includes what partridge was fire prevention, flood of control -- this includes

wildfire prevention and flood control. our bill gives a much stronger role to mayors and local governments. i want to point out today that tomorrow the 1000 the mayor from the u.s. conference of mayors will sign on to the climate change priority. 1000 mayors. [applause] are bill gives them a much from the world. the second part of our bill sets up the pollution reduction and investment incentive mechanism. in this section, we have strong principles laid out for market transparency and oversight and set up an office of offsets integrity. allowances will be detailed in the chairman's mark. senator kerrey is going to continue to work hand in hand with our committee on these allowances. we have put into this section a soft collar to address --

address speculation while maintaining the integrity of the pollution cap. here is something we're very proud of. our bill does not had one penny to the deficit. we are very excited about that. [applause] now, in closing before i introduced the bills author, john kerry, let me say that my state of california is going through a very hard time right now. it weighs heavily on me every single day. there is, in california, one bright spot and that is a clean energy jobs and businesses. the few charitable trusts report that 10,000 new clean energy businesses were lodged in california between 1998 -- 1998, 2007. during that period, jobs were

generated and that is 16% faster than the california economy as a whole. the latest economic study, this week, predicts up to 1.9 million new jobs in america if we pass our bill. we know that energy, clean energy, is the ticket to strong, stable economic growth. it is right here in front of our eyes in the ingenuity of our workers, in the vision of our entrepreneurs, in studies, models. we know is the way forward. the global clean energy market is estimated to reach 2.5 times the size than the personal computer market by the year 2020. we know from venture capitalists who testified that billions and billions of dollars will flow from the private sector right into the marketplace as soon as we passed our bill.

other countries will move ahead if we do not seize this opportunity. if we do, we will be a leader in the world as we protect the earth and of good will here from a future that the world's most respected scientists agree it is threatened if we do not act. look, no one knows what challenges we will face. no one chooses their time, but you know what? this is our time. global warming is our challenge. economic recovery is our challenge. american leadership is our challenge. let us step up right now. let us not quit, and i mean all of us on this stage, behind us, out here, and all over america. let us not quit until we have not fulfilled our responsibility to our children and our grandchildren. think you very much.

-- thank you very much. [applause] thank you. what a great day. this is like giving birth again. [laughter] it is a different kind of pain. it is a great honor to introduce a man who has been a leader in this battle for many, many years. it is a man who was recognized around the world for his leadership in this whole issue of climate change and economic security. could we give the warmest of wellcome's to the author of this bill, john kerry, for massachusetts. [applause] >> barbara, first of all that we profoundly thank you,

personally, your staff, all of the staffs who have worked so hard and all of our colleagues who are up here on the stage and many who are not have contributed to this effort. to all of the various groups of all different walks of life from business, environment, and all across the board are joining together to help to bring this to this beginning moment. this is the beginning of one of the most important battles that we will ever face as legislators and as citizens. i want to particularly thank barbara boxer who has been at this for a long time. in this effort, she has done california and the country proud and i'm grateful to work with you. [applause] we are here and we introduce this legislation because of one word -- security. economic security, energy

security, national security. america knows that that is the battle that we face right now. the fact is that what is in this bill provides the ability for america to get back into the driver's seat and take back control of our own security and take charge of our future. we have a chance to put millions of people back to work leading the world in a new economic era. we can safeguard the air that our children breeze, the water that people drink. we can stabilize a dangerously changing climate that demand our attention because the current course threatens our safety. our health, our economy, our environment, our security are also less the same message. it is time to reinvent the way

that america uses energy. [applause] that is exactly what this legislation does. the clean energy jobs and america's power act as a bold and comprehensive. from coal to natural gas, to nuclear, to renewable energy sources like solar and wind, it strengthens them all making our energy sources cleaner and more efficient. it recognizes that there is no one is silver bullet that is going to solve this problem. we need to turn to all the possibilities. it puts in place a strong, private investment incentive to help companies to meet ambitious targets for reducing pollution. best of all, as senator boxer said, it does not raise the deficit by a single dime.

as -- every dollar that we invest in clean energy creates nearly four times as many jobs as $1 invested in the oilfields. this plan will create good paying jobs in every single region of the country for american workers with every single out educational background and these are jobs that stay here in america. they cannot be shipped overseas [applause] ] -- overseas. above my friends, it is time for us to stop and think and get smart about our energy production. we do not need to be sending billions of dollars overseas, some of which it defines its way back to the support of terrorists in foreign countries. we can invest that money right here at home to put our future back in our own control.

the pollution reduction measures in this bill are, in fact, very tightly focused for maximum impact. only companies emitting 25,000 tons of carbon each year are covered. that is nowhere near a small business which some people are trying to frighten you. it is nowhere near the average american some people will frighten you. these are big polluters, entities with an output equivalent to 203,000 homes, 4600 automobiles, 130 really cars full of cold. even as this legislation exempts office buildings, apartments, homes, malls, stadiums, farmers, small firms, even as it does that in these ads are 90% of america's small businesses, guess what? it still covers 75% of america's

carbon pollution. this is a smart way to start the ball rolling. this will transition america to clean energy. all of us are convinced the based on real experience. we did this in the 1990. we did with the clean air act. everyone said it could not happen, but we went ahead and did it. guess what? we did it four times faster and at 25% of the cost that everyone was screaming about because no one can predict the power of american ingenuity and creativity when we get to work and get the job done. that is what we're going to do here now. [applause] fundamentally, this bill is about keeping america safe. if that is why lieutenant- general claudia kennedy, capt

bailey, and so many who have worn the uniforms of our country are standing with us today. they will tell you that our addiction to foreign oil hurts our economy and helps our enemies and damages our security. they will say that unless we act decisively, climate change to become a threat multiplier, a lit match on the kindling of an already dangerous world. these are americans who know that there is more than one way to serve their country and more than one way to keep america safe. they are here today because we need to act, not in six months, not in five years, 10 years, 20 years. we need to act now and get it dropped down -- and get the job done for the world. [applause] now, i see a lot of veterans standing out here. we are low, and the people low -- know, and the people that

know, washington is used to living been energy standing between us and the goals of everyday citizens. after the last few months, we know what is coming. people say we cannot afford to act. you know the truth. you all know it. we know the truth, those of us standing here and those who observed in the military know the truth. our security and our economy will both be strengthened and we cannot afford not to act. america's top business leaders, some of our best innovators, entrepreneurs, venture-capital lists, and leaders of a fortune 500 companies have all joined together to understand that the century ahead is going to be a clean energy century. it has to become one and it will. the question is, will america

take charge of its own future and will we leave the world in this endeavor? i am convinced that we can meet our challenge because it is in our national character. innovation and invention are really the american dna, and i'm convinced that americans want us to lead the world as we have before. we invented the technologies of wind and solar, and now it is time to take back control of our own future. [applause] my friends? -- my friends, this is a most important fight. with questions of war and peace and they supersede everything. this is one of the most important fights we're going to fight. we need to understand that we can lay the cornerstone for america where we are growing.

20 years from now, 30 years from now, our air is more breathable, our children and again -- grandchildren had power their homes and fuel their cars and energy made in america that works for america. we can solve our energy crisis, fire up our economy, strengthen america's power, but first we have to roll up our sleeves to work and pass clean energy jobs in america power act. [applause] it is my pleasure to introduce a man who defended our country in the united states navy. vice admiral lee g dautun is a former inspector general for the department of the navy in a decorated commander. he presided over several

commands and he had the largest evacuation under the korean war. so, when he speaks about how energy and climate change the fact our readiness and security, he speaks -- he speaks with special authority. ladies and gentlemen, vice admiral lee gun. [applause] >> think you, senator kennedy. a distinguished matters of the senate, and honored guests, ladies and gentlemen, as the senator says, i come to this debate from a different perspective than many americans. there are several other veterans here today and i know i share his perspective with them. as he said, he's -- i spent over 35 years as a sailor in uniform. i listed in the naval reserve and received a commission as an

officer during the vietnam war in return one decade after the berlin wall fell. i commanded forces at sea. as senator kerry said, it was the largest amphibious events since the korean war. i would like to point out that it was something that only the united states could have done. like many other sailors, soldiers, airmen, marines, coastguardsman i have weathered enormous storms at sea, overseen billions of dollars of the defense budget. i have seen of its material rise from crowds that moments before appeared to be innocent civilians. with my brothers and sisters in uniform, i witnessed firsthand the ravages of grinding poverty. we have come to face it around the world. troubles for food and water in mass movements of people

desperate for a better life. of all the threats i have witnessed from my career, i have never seen a threat as complex or one we are as little prepared than climate change. it can worsen every security challenge we face today and present us with a new and dramatic risks. it is the issue of our time, and that is why i am here today. i wanted to lend my voice to the course that saying tackling climate change in research a -- to reshape the way we use energy is important. to keep america secure, we have to stop sending billions of dollars overseas to regimes to do not always wish us well, to energy supplies that choke our air and warmer planet. make no mistake. climate change resulting from kermit -- carbon pollution will

lead to a cascading evolution of security issues. it's changing weather patterns will make precious water even more scarce and disrupt agriculture on a massive scale. it will create multitudes of problems, expanding opportunities for extremists and terrorists to find willing recruits that will make as far less secure. i am one voice today, but i am carrying a message that i hear growing louder every day. for retired generals and admirals, from the intelligence committee, from the department of defense, from the part -- from the president last week, from veterans around the world who know and understand is key. -- attacking climate change is not simply about saving polar bears, it is about preserving our way of life.

america and americans were in iraq -- instrumental in confronting and overcoming the biggest challenges of the 20th- century. two world wars and the cold war threatened our way of life and our very existence as a nation. without the energy, creativity, and courage of america there, our world would be a far different place today. climate changes -- climate change is the national security threat of the 21st century. america and americans must step up again. it is time for courage, resolve, and leadership in america. our nation is indispensable. we must seize the moment. america's men and women in uniform deserve to see us as a people working to confront the national security threat of our time. thank you. [applause]

>> our next guest has served in afghanistan but knows about what he speaks. i am delighted to welcome him today. [applause] >> good morning. it is my pleasure to be here today. as a west point graduate, former army captain who served in afghanistan, i have seen firsthand the challenges we face abroad. i remember refugee camps where mothers and fathers did not know when they would get their next meal for their children. i saw were dire prodi -- where dire poverty created willing

ears for records. that is why we're here today, to bring attention to the double threat of america's reliance on fossil fuels and the the national security consequences of climate change that fossil fuel creates. every day, our nation spends $1 billion buying oil from other countries. this tenants works very well for countries like iran and venezu ela. this set of investing was money in america and using it to develop new technologies and secure domestic jobs, we're putting money in the pockets the taliban. needless to say, this puts us in danger. as an operations officer stationed in bosnia, i saw how transporting burdick rigid dirty fossil fuel strains our resources. hinders our ability to combat

those who seek to disrupt the peace process and our american troops. as if that is not enough to worry about, the threat does not stop there. areas of the same whale is deepening the effects of climate change. storms, rising sea levels have forced millions to flee their homes creating a stable populations where terrorist groups can find sanctuary and recruit new members. as water dries up and famine spreads, conflict over scarce resources will increase. this is the same conflict witness in afghanistan. ultimately, much of the burden of providing security in humanitarian assistance during this time of crisis will fall on the soldiers of the united states military. for these reasons, we're calling on the united states senate to " -- to take bold action to curb the effects of climate change to develop clean, homegrown, american energy.

if we wish to remain strong, we must reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. [applause] we are here today to create an energy future in which american producers its own clean energy and calls its own shots. this is a fight we must when treated this is a fight we will win. thank you. [applause] from >> i think we see now why we're talking about a national security. -- issue in a economic issue of. now, it is my pleasure to introduce the wonderful senators who have taken time out of their busy work to be here with us. many of them, most of them, are on at the e. p. w. committee and our leaders in this committee. we have a couple of senators.

i was for all the committee to show their support. before i should use our first senator, let me read a note. this came in from the joe lieberman who is heading a hearing now. dear john and barbara, i am writing to thank you for proposing this legislation you are today to address the critical challenge of climate change. as you two know well, global warming threatens not only our environment but national security. every day we do not act, the problem of global warming intensify as. that is why early action is imperative. i will do everything i can, he writes, to help achieve the broad bipartisan success necessary to pass a climate change built this congress. it is signed sincerely, joe lieberman. i am happy to have that letter. a great leader our community, senator frank guttenberg --

laudenberg. >> thank you very much to barbara and john kerry and to all of my colleagues. thank all of you. to borrow something from a movie, "i know you are sick and tired of it, and you do not want to take it anymore." [applause] we are here to do what is right before it is too late. in the past months, our committee has held numerous meetings on the the need to fight global warming and pollution. we have heard from business leaders who urged us to act in decidedly, to grow the new energy technologies that we need, to retain our economic leadership. we have heard from military leaders who tell us that climate change is an impending threat to our national security and we have heard from leading scientists who have told us that we only have a small window of opportunity before the change

to our planet is irreversible. earlier this year, the house passed its landmark bill to break our dependence on dirty, polluted fuels while we invest in building a clean energy economy. all eyes are now on the senate to see if we will live up to our obligations. we seriously examine the risks we pose for future generations. we will pass this critical legislation. [applause] we will reduce greenhouse gases by 20% by 2020 in order to meet our critical long-term goals. about their rewards will be available for those who are laying the foundation for a new clean energy economy. i look at the signs, at two million jobs. i would ask that perhaps you can keep a few open for those who

are going to vote against this bill. ultimately, reducing global warming and pollution is not just our economy or our error or our oceans, it is about our loved ones. it is about our neighbors, our country. it is about our country that we live in. it is about whether or not we're going to do what is morally demanded of us. we, in america, what we do to corner -- to honor for our commitments. i believe that the senate can rise to the challenge and we need all of you to continue to relive that message. thank you all very much for this opportunity. [applause]

>> first, on behalf of my two granddaughters whose generation has the most at stake getting this job done, but also on behalf of all people from maryland. i just want to express our appreciation collectively to the extraordinary leadership of senator kerrey and senator boxer who have really brought us to this moment where we are introducing a bill and move to make sure it gets done. join me in expressing our appreciation to our two extraordinary leaders in the united states senate on this effort. [applause] to me, it is simple. this bill is about america becoming energy independent in the right way. that is what this is about. it is about keeping jobs, creating jobs in america. it is about having a clean environment and going after the

polluters. we have -- we need to have a healthy in burma for our children. it is about our national security. it is time that we stop pelting -- helping finance people who disagree with our way of life. there's a lot in this bill to be proud of. i just want to thank the leadership for including grain transportation in this legislation. transportation contribute 30% to the greenhouse gas emissions in america. we save billions of gallons of gasoline transportation. this bill will give us the opportunity to expand public transportation in america to achieve our goals. i am so proud to be identified with the people who are behind me in this effort. it is critically important to america's future. [applause]

>> every single senator who is speaking wrote -- worked so hard on this bill. which introduced now one of our great centers on the committee who focused on the green jobs and also our and the -- and also research and development. >> let me begin by congratulating senator boxer and senator kerry. my friends, for years now countries around the world have been asking themselves where is the united states of america in helping us to lead the fight against some of the major problems facing this planet? we are proud to say that today, we are back and we are going to lead this effort. [applause] what this issue is about is are

we, finally, going to tell our friends at exxonmobil and other big oil companies that their day has come and we're going to move to energy independence so we do not need to go to war in iraq for oil. [applause] we're going to save loud and clear as five lautenberg did for his grandchildren and my own that we're not going to create a situation where global warming creates a viet magic created disaster in terms of the flooding, drought, honker ,hunger, and a national security issues. we're going to cut back substantially on greenhouse gas emissions. last, but not least, in the midst of the worst economic

recession since the 1930's, we are saying today that we have the potential to create millions of good paying jobs as we move to energy efficiency, as we move into such sustainable energies as wind, solar, biomass, geothermal. we can do that in the united states of america. we can lead the world in those technologies. [applause] business bill perfect? now come it is not. does it have to be made stronger? it does. with your support and the support of millions of americans, we're going to make this bill stronger and we're going to pass legislation that not only our people, but people around the world, are going to say, thank you, america, for leading us. thank you. [applause] >> and now senator who focused

her attention on many issues, but the one in particular was consumer protection for our middle-class people and our working poor. i'm very proud to bring her to the podium, -- >> bank you so much, chairman boxer in a chairman kerry for your leadership on this issue. we have worked hard on this bill. it is not perfect. there is more work we're going to be doing. i am a member of the agriculture committee. we're going to be perfecting that section to work throughout the senate. i can tell you this. last year, we got a reality check. people could not afford to drive to work. seniors could not afford to go to the pharmacy to fill their prescriptions. of much of minnesota's could not get up to their problem -- get

up to their cabins which is a problem. we realize that we have to make a serious commitment to wean ourselves from foreign energy and invest in technologies that will allow us to produce our own energy here at home. it is time for america to take control of our own energy. now, i can tell you states like my state of minnesota understand it. we are fourth in the country with the wind. we are aggressive with renewable energy standards. it has brought people together on this issue. they say -- they see this future. it means jobs. it is why we have such an increase in the green jobs. as the senate begins to consider this legislation, we must ensure that the bill protect middle-class families.

we have to continue to work to protect our middle-class families during this difficult economic time to make sure our farmers get a fair deal and to make sure manufacturers are protected by fluctuating costs. we must also insure our country is in a position to develop nuclear energy. there is a title in the bill for nuclear, biomass, solar, wind, and more geothermal energy. we are in the midst of what will be our generation's space race. we just celebrated the 40th anniversary of a man leaning on the moon. the end of this race, this energy race, is not going to be neil armstrong taking the first up on the mound. it is going to be the choice for our country, that new hybrid car plant in japan, or is it going to be built in austin, ohio? is the new biofuel technology

going to be made in the labs of st. paul, minn., or helsinki, finland? our records have a new wind power technology and manufacturing taking place in china, or are they in north dakota? that is what this is about. let's put america first and get this bill done. thank you. [applause] >> i am blessed with quite a committee. bob let me say again, each member on and off the committee hasn't given tremendous guidance. integrity offsets, integrity to the whole system of pollution reduction and investment, we have the wonderful senator from rhode island, senator

whitehouse. >> today, together with -- we launch this vessel. we think it is sturdy and seaworthy with lots of room on its decks for many colleagues. we know it is no capital -- capt buying kerry and boxer. we know it has a loyal and enthusiastic crew. we also know that must be navigated through fog and storm. we have strong hearts and confidence that it can bear us and the country, the world we love and depend on to a safer shore and to a more secure american future. thank you for being in this fight with us.

>> thank you, sheldon. i have poets. i have everything. we're so lucky to have two and i heard that one of their signs was "vote for the udall nearest you." we have both of them here today. he is focused so hard on making sure this bill is well balanced and to make sure we get the support we need. he wants to make sure we do not forget the indian nations that we work with every day. that is senator tom udall from mexico. -- from a new mexico. it cannot be repeated enough that the leadership that

senators drawn carey and barbara boxer have given on this bill. i ask you again to show your appreciation. it has been great to see them. today's event is evidence of a duet of, do it right approach to energy and climate policy. -- don do it all, do it right. renewable energy, natural gas, enhanced domestic oil production, say the nuclear power, we'll clean coal technology, and energy efficiency and conservation -- real clean coal. we are behind the polluter pays legislation. this bill puts us on a pass to energy independence. this bill moves us towards a

clean energy future where we take control and we grow american jobs, american energy jobs. this bill jump starts a clean energy revolution. american innovation can unleash abundant clean energy resources to protect our national security. the west and mark udall and tom udall provides abundant resources, both renewable and a traditional. as westerners, we are eager to help america and take control of their energy future from their own special interests and foreign powers. in the business community, we have seen the business community speak out to organize and say we need action. one executive in particular, the c.e.o. of pnm resources which is

the largest power company in new mexico has stood up to say we need action. he has taken on a the special interests and says the status quo is unacceptable. the american people want clean energy. the status quo has already brought them $4 gasoline. they want expanded biofuels. they want electric vehicles, natural gas vehicles are. the house of representatives has acted. the senate energy committee has acted. now it is time for the rest of the senate to produce a do it all, do it right reggie in a climate bill to send it to the president of the united states. [applause] do you want america to have a clean energy jobs? do you want a clean energy

revolution? are you going to do that with us? do we have you behind us? then we are going to get it done. thank you. [applause] >> we're going to hold you to that promise. as i said, i am so proud of those on my committee. one of the strong leaders is here with us. he is from oregon and he kept us focused on the need to have a strong goals in this bill, the need to keep the clean air act operative, and the need to keep this bill focused on the job we wanted to do. it is a great honor to introduce my next guest. [applause] >> they do so much, chairman boxer and chairman kerry.

you create a map for us to go forward. a lot of people have said that this is just too complicated. let me break it down for you. this is about american jobs, creating american energy for american families for the american economy and american workers. how complicated can that be? there are others who say that this is a difficult choice. let's see with that choice is. it is a choice between dirty air and clean air. today, we stand united for clean air. [applause] this is a choice between creating jobs in america for american workers and sending jobs overseas. let's keep those jobs right here in america. this is a choice between sending $1 billion a day overseas to strengthen foreign economies and spending that $1 billion a day right here

building our economy. this is a choice about a future in which we sell american technology and american products to the world rather and buy foreign products and foreign technologies. let's sell american technology and products. [applause] finally, this is a choice about him -- energy independence and a stronger, safer america versus oil addiction and a weaker america. i suspect that all of you here today join me in saying this is not a difficult decision, that we stand together for clean air, american jobs, and for a stronger, safer nation. let's be a can-do nation and to get it done to show american leadership for american families, american workers, and american children right now. thank you. [applause] >> yes we can.

remember that? a great new senator from new york who focuses so hard on her state and have her nation on the creation of jobs, being fair to everyone. >> i want to commend the chairman for her extraordinary work on this bill. i wish to commend chairman kerry for his authorship. this bill truly is a transformational bill. we have significant crises in our time. not only do we have an economic crisis with rising unemployment, almost at 10%, but we have global climate changes that threatens the world. this is a truly the greatest market opportunity of our generation. when you create green jobs across america, you were doing

two things. you are investing not only in the new technologies of wind, solar, biofuels, and geothermal, but you're also investing in building our and middle-class. you are investing in manufacturing. once we have the new technologies, we will be able to use them to manufacture everything whether it is a hybrid taxi's for new york city, high-speed rail, new devices for the homes that we live and, you are making everything energy efficient. you are spurring manufacturing growth. new york can be a leader in this because we already are in a selling in manufacturing over -- the green technology. when you invest in agriculture, ethanol, an aerobic digesters, you are investing in the whole agriculture sector. you are building a middle-class.

this is also something that is going to attack global warming. it is something that has great urgency for august. not only does it affect the quality of the air but our climate and how many tragedies we have like hurricane katrina all over this world. are represent a state where in the bronx one and four children has asthma. it is unacceptable. this bill will go a long way to changing that. this bill also addresses our national security concerns. if we are investing $1 billion a day in foreign oil, we're going to bring that investment right here to america to make an independent and make us secure so we can fight terrorism and keep our family safe. i truly cannot say this about the progress that this bill has made. it is going to make our economy stronger, our air cleaner, and make this country safer. thank you for your hard work. [applause] >> we have two more senators who

were going to speak. one senator who is not here is senator spector is set a detailed letter. -- he sent a letter. he says, "i support legislation to create clean domestic energy in address climate change that is economically responsible, environmentally effective, and encourages action by other countries to achieve these goals. i believe this bill can be structured with committee in amendments on the floor to meet these goals. he lists a series of concerns, some of which we have addressed, some of which we have not. anyone wanting a copy, please, and we will make it public. i want to thank senator spector and his staff. their participation has been so

positive and important coming from pennsylvania. i recognize his staff here today. we have two more speakers and they're wonderful people. both of the speakers, these two senators, have come to almost every weekly meeting we have had on this bill. again, they are not on the committee. it shows they're raising dedication. both of them to sit on the energy committee, i will introduce them. first will be the great senator from colorado -- colorado, mark you go. -- mark udall. >> i stand here as a member of the energy committee. we are excited to meld our product with you. i also stand here as a udall. there is a saying that tom and i are flattered by, we are

byudall -- by udall's. we are all from the west. we are all americans and we have an enormous opportunity here to do with the title of the bill suggests, clean energy jobs and american power. what couldn't be more sweeter? what could be more important? to those who say that this is a radical idea, i say to them, what is more radical to double the amount of carbon dioxide in the next year's or to take the steps that are implicit and explicit in this bill to create millions of american jobs to protect this wonderful planet? [applause] we talk about national security. we're talking about freedom. what we want to do is enhance and preserve our freedom which

is the most valuable thing we have as americans. that is what motivates me in this very, very important cause. there was another udall who served for many years. he was fond of saying after a long debate or press conference, "it has all been set but not everyone has said it to." god has not all been said. you need to get out there to say it. we need to continue to say this to build our ranks and draw more and more americans to this important cause. my great colleague from rhode island is a sailor. i am a mountain near. we have two expedition leaders. -- i may have now near. with storms we have to hunker down for, climbing through those storms. i think to the time when i was fortunate enough to be in denali. you have seen the ken burns documentary, right?

we took enough equipment, one wrote, a small rack of climbing gear, enough food for seven days. 10 days into that crime, we were thinking the only way home was up and over the mountain. the only way home is up and over the top of the mound. i'm counting on you to be there with us. thank you. [applause] >> we're going to publish these remarks. we have poetry that is starting. our last, but not least speaker who joined the senate after great experience as a governor. she is a great leader who helped us from the beginning as you put this bill together, keep it fair, keep it balanced, keep our eye on the goals to do this the right way, reach out. would you give a warm welcome to a senator from new hampshire? [applause] >> they give very much, senator

boxer and senator kerry for your leadership on this issue. as senator udall said, everything has been said. i am delighted to be here to lend my voice to all of the eloquent reasons we have heard already for why we must pass this legislation. i think it comes down to one question. are we going to take control of our energy future? [applause] this bill gives us the opportunity to do that. let's go out and pass it. [applause] >> i think you everyone for coming. are you going to be with us and it -- until we get this done? i cannot hear you. will you be with us?

i hear you. we will get this done. it thank you very much. . . >> the center is the chairman of the public and repulse the -- republican policy committee. we will try to keep our remarks to a couple of minutes each. then there will be time for

questions. my comments about the bill are these -- these are b.m.c., a complicated words for high-cost energy that will send jobs overseas looking for cheap energy. instead we should take practical steps to create it will carden, clean energy, low-cost future for this country. no. 1 nuclear plants, electrify have our cars and trucks, explore offshore for natural gas, and double energy r&d. those are the practical steps that republican senators have agreed on for a low-cost clean energy future. >> thank you.

i think he made it very clear republicans are for something. it is all of the above. we know we need energy in this country. everytime i see the far left talk about doing something to become less dependent on foreign countries for our ability to fight wars, it is the democrats who have been the ones who keep us from the building our own resources here in this country. if you want to become energy independent, you could do that by doing what every other country in the world does, develop our own resources. there can be no doubt about the fact that this can be a heavy jobs bill. lastly, this is the same in terms of cost.

this has to be more than the bill because the targets are different. and there are 20% targets. i do not think there are too many people who want to go back, particularly some of the newly elected democrats and say, are you proud of me, i voted for the largest tax increase in american history? >> a thank you. -- thank you. right now on the floor there is a lot of discussion about health care and the legislation that the senate finance committee is undertaking, a massive bill, massive reform, massive cost. this is deja vu all over again, different subjects. pass the bill, massive reform, a potentially massive cost to the

american public. and i am one that believes that we need to figure out how we balance our environmental progress with our economic growth. i think we all agree that the nation right now is struggling with our economy. now is not the time for us to be imposing upon added financial burden to the extent to which we do not know. i think there will be an opportunity for all of us to dig into this legislation to figure out what really is in it. before i am able to do that, i am struck by a what is not in it. when we are talking about the ways we introduce waste in our country, where is nuclear in

this proposal? apparently there is a place holder that has been secured that will allow for perhaps some worker training, perhaps some r&d within nuclear, but we have to be honest. if we are going to be reducing emissions in this country in a meaningful way, nuclear house to be part of the solution. we have had eight months to put together this legislation. one thing that is most hiking is the fact that there are things not in it. this is clearly the most controversial part, clearly the most political part that came out of the house bill. there will be plenty of opportunities to discuss the details as they become known for their, but right now i think what is striking is the absence of key factors.

>> i did not think it was possible that when the bill passed in the house, the senate would move this far to the left, but they have. the other thing is, a 25% are born to be sold at auction, as opposed to 15% in the house bill, which will drive the cost up for energy significantly higher. the split of the allocations that would go out to the distributors would be 50/50 between retail sales in the missions. this penalizes the midwest it will be a massive transfer of wealth from the midwest to the eastern west coast. it will create a huge regional disparities in how the costs are distributed under this. it is fair to said that everyone's costs are going up.

the costs are real, the benefits are theoretical. no one can quantify how we're supposed to benefit from all of this. we're told that they are going to be having offsets. all we know is that everything is going to go up. diesel fuel will go up. natural gas will go up. fertilizer will go up. we know that is a fact, it is only a question of how much. we have a pretty good idea on the state basis with some of the analysis done by state regulators and other people who have analyzed this, that is going to be in my state about 50% and increased power costs. if a huge new energy tax on the american economy at a time when we're trying to pull ourselves out of recession -- it is a huge new energy tax on the american economy at a time when we're trying to pull ourselves out of our recession.

we should be incentivizing on that type of energy production, rather than creating new mandates and new taxes on our economy. to g>> i want to make energy as clean as we can as fast as we can without making -- without raising prices for american families. i wanted to get a good look at this bill. in yesterday's hill the headline is climate bill could be short on details. i want to know with the details are. the devil is always in the details. i got a copy of the bill.

the senator has said we do not know what the details are because there are lots of placeholders. this is the 800 pages of the bill. basically it says just trust us. every place to see one of these stickies is the bill in the blank. every place you see one of the stickies is an area that is a bracket. to me that as a whole new meaning to tax bracket. this bill is loaded with brackets, with bill in the blanks, areas we have no idea what the implications are, but we know it will raise prices for american families. this morning and congress daily -- senator of this was saying -- the senator said this is the high water mark for the bill.

thank you very much. >> a thank you. -- thank you. i would accept what he says and say it is a giant new energy tax on families and workers. it is hard to believe that carry boxer is worse. maybe it's all others are too embarrassed or afraid of its contents because keri boxer is missing as to how much people will pay. it is not one to be most americans will not feel as a tax to the federal government, it

will be an increase in the utility bills and tax bills, any kind of fuel that they use will be taxed at a site. -- will be taxed out of sight. waxman march 2 was projected to kill 2.4 million jobs -- waxman markee was projected to kill 2.4 million jobs. we have already lost too many jobs overseas because of existing high prices of energy, because we're not using the energy we have. my misery constituents are saying no to this bill and i

will, too. the administrative epa has already admitted that if we do nothing to slow the emissions from china and india, this will have no appreciable impact on greenhouse cast -- dream house gas emissions -- on greenhouse emissions. >> some call it cap and trade. i call it happened tax. this is not the time and our country when we should be increasing costs to consumers, increasing costs to manufacturers and producers and exporting jobs from america. we know that we are already 55% dependent on foreign sources for our basic energy needs. now, in the name of more green

energy, which we all support, but not at the expense of the bread and butter energy that we have. it is going to raise the cost of every small business and our country and every family in our country. your gasoline per gallon costs are going to go up. this is not the time to be adding costs. we have this massive health care bill that will add costs to consumers and families. then we followed that with cap in tax. another massive increase in costs at the same time it is going to export jobs from our country. this is counter intuitive and it must stop. i want to reiterate what has been said here. we have a positive plan and that is more nuclear. hall we have to do is increase the loan guarantee -- all that we have to do is increase the loan guarantee to companies to

invest in nuclear power. if we just did that, we would increase our capacity for energy and without any emissions into the air that are carbon emissions. it is time for us to look at the real answers to green energy and have something positive that is not going to be a further burden on american families. >> many good points have been made that i do not want to repeat, but let me focus on one area, an area that i happen to know a lot about. dating back from the time when i grew up on the small dairy farmers in northern i'd -- northern iowa, and that is agriculture. i cannot straight -- state strongly enough that this bill

are direct assaults on agriculture. this kind of legislation, beyond a shadow of a doubt, is an assault on farmers and ranchers in an economic way. when they are hurt, our rural and small-town economies are very directly hurt because they depend on the farmer and rancher for the success of main street. what will happen is that all input costs for agriculture will go up and go of it dramatically. the farmer will see higher fertilizer costs. why? because as you sit tight and the supply of natural gas, which will happen with this legislation, you will raise the cost of anhydrous ammonia. you will see decent costs go up. you will see gasoline costs go

up. -- you will see gasoline costs go up. as those costs go up, the one guarantee you will see all across the board high gear and higher and higher for american farmers and ranchers. if you are in the beef industry or pork industry, this is especially bad news. you have not made money for a very long time. in fact, the pork industry is on its knees already. yet this administration wants to punish them for their because of their input costs are going to go up as they have to adjust to the higher cost they will pay for the grain they feed to the animals. ultimately who will pay the ultimate cost?

the consumer. it is an assault on the consumer. there is no way the consumer can get out of this without higher costs at the grocery store, higher costs when they hit the light switch in the morning, everything goes up for them at a time when there one and only focus is to try to keep things together as they have seen a very difficult economic time. i will wrap up with this thought -- i did not believe you could get more radical and extreme than what was passed on the house side. it barely passed that. yet this is more radical by a lot than what came out of the house. i just do not understand the policy. it makes no sense whatsoever. thank you. >> how about questions? >> all of these participants,

these are republicans, moderate and conservative. i believe there is very little connection. nonetheless, it is the economics. it cannot be denied the this will be the largest tax increase in the history of america. questions? >> a how does this bill compare to the house bill in terms of agriculture protection [inaudible] ? >> i do not think the epa will

get too far with that because the senate is not going to abdicate its responsibility to the epa. in terms of the concessions we're -- that were negotiated, god bless collin peterson. i think he tried to do his best to get a better bill for agriculture, but it did not turn out very good. the bottom line for agriculture is quite honestly what we're saying to farmers is we can't guarantee that you will have higher input costs, we just cannot guarantee what is going to happen on the income end of this. this bill, quite honestly, it is no better, in fact it is worse because the numbers are so much higher. that is going to put a tremendous amount of pressure on all aspects of production agriculture. again, the point i would make here today is you punish

agriculture in main street -- and main street will pay a heavy price for that. the farmers and ranchers are not making a living -- when the farmers and ranchers are not making a living, main street dries up. it will have a punishing effect on our farmers and ranchers, and therefore ultimately main street and our consumers. >> one of the things that we did in the senate committee, i ask the food and agricultural research policy institute, which does basic agricultural policy analysis to say what the bill would cost a typical family production farm, grains, soybeans corn farm and they said initially the cost of the $11,000 per year high year in

energy costs going up to over 30,000 per year. we have no idea what the provisions in this bill, how they will be analyzed. that is a huge a blunt -- huge lump of indirect taxes. >> collin peterson did caplet allowances what utilities could get from this. the 50/50 split exaggerates the disproportionate impact of this on the western agriculture there was a prohibition and the house bill against epa regulating under the clean air act. that is back in. all the protections that were put in the house bill were stripped at in this bill. -- stripped out in this bill.

>> there are some farmers to the climate change can impact them. are you concerned about that? >> there are many things that we can do. if you look at the board here of alternatives that we have proposed, that is positive and forward leaning. it does not hammer small towns and agricultural citizens like this bill would. to answer your question, yes. farmers want to be good stewards of the land. they have been for generations but they want a common-sense approach to what we're doing. this is really radical. we can do many positive things with nuclear and really have a positive impact here. this legislation will not do it.

the final thing that i want to mention is that in one of the hearings we had in the agricultural committee, relative to the house bill, we ask the questions if you did everything , would you improve the situation from of an environmental standpoint? alisa jackson said know. this is not going to have an impact unless the rest of the world comes along. -- lisa jackson said no. i just really feel strongly that the administration needs to work aggressively with the rest of the world that is an important starting point in terms of dealing with these issues. >> can i hear from the rest of view whether you think this presents a threat to your home state? >> first of all, we have asked

that question to the obama farm bureau and the answer is no. there is not a strong relationship -- session as a global warming because they do not use that anymore. >> we of the senate western caucus. we have hearings on this. they are much more fearful about what the association will do -- legislation will do. we can get into a whole discussion of all of that. right now i am focused on energy for america. as we had testimony to us, it does not matter what the united states does unless you have a global effort, nothing will make a difference 50 years from now.

what we need to do is make the investment in the technology, and i have introduced a bill. this will come up with ways to take carbon dioxide as of the environment and use it. the handwriting is on the wall in terms of the economy and what we need to do, but realistically of bill like this will kill the economy and really are -- and we really are under water with this. >> isn't a problem? >> i do not believe it is a problem at this point. if the world continues to go at it is, there's nothing we will do to make a difference.

>> i received yesterday and monday over close to 54,000 invitations signed by missouri farmers and rural residents. all of them were opposed to the cap and trade bill. none of the farmers i have talked to in missouri have expressed any concern about human cause global climate change. we have seen in missouri the benefits of the cooling that started in 1998. we have had ample rain and right now we are worrying about making sure their growing season is long enough. i can tell you agricultural is far more worried about the immediate impact on their

operations from this kind of bill. they are happily taking on the responsibility of growing more renewable fuels. we're looking to expand our use of biomass. they want to do those things because they want to reduce emissions. i do not believe they have a real concern that somehow if we make all of these changes in india and china that that will somehow make the climate better. >> let me say in a different way. most of you might recall that i opposed the two bills that were before the senate. one was actually five days, that was the mccain bill. as time has gone forward, a

year-and-a-half ago we had the warner the bourbon bill. the very first statement opening up was i do not believe that man-made gases caused global warming. let's assume for the debate of this bill that does so we can get that off the table, which i think is pretty disarming. even with that assumption we only had 34 votes. >> think you everyone. -- thank you, everyone. >> coming up, senator john mccain's remarks on the defense spending bill. later, while bank president

robert zoellick. >> justice o'connor insisted that we have lunch every day. now clearance -- clarence, and you should come to lunches and the. it is one of the best things i did. it is hard to be angry or bitter at someone and look them in the eye. it is a fun munch, very little work. it is just nine people, whoever shows up, having a wonderful lunch together. >> hear from all of the supreme court justices about the history and tradition of the court. see inside the building to place is only available to justices

and their staff. watch a documentary, the supreme court, inside the home to america's highest court. it all starts sunday at 9:00 eastern. for a special preview, join us sunday at 8:00 eastern for q&a. deegan of senator -- now senator john mccain's remarks on defense spending. this is 30 minutes. >> i rise to address the issue of the department of defense appropriations act for fiscal year 2010, which is pending business before the senate. the funding provided in this legislation is very crucial. we need to support our commanders as they leave operations in afghanistan and elsewhere.

making sure they are provided for as well as our wounded warriors. but i also note with great concern an alarm -- in alarmed dismay and even disgust that billions of dollars in wasteful earmarks, unrequested, unauthorized have again found their way into this legislation. as i've said before, these are serious times, and we as a congress are required to make serious decisions, tough decisions that may go against the national -- the special interests. i need not remind my colleagues that we're at war or that the national debt is growing ever larger. recently there was a reestimate of the deficit for the next ten years from $7 trillion to $9 trillion. we are facing deficits of unprecedented proportions, and

yet the spending goes on here like, as some people have said, a drunken sailor. i don't use that phrase anymore because i never knew a sailor either drunk or sober with the imagination that members of congress have, which is best epitomized in this bill as i'll point out several provisions. we can't afford to waste. we can't afford it. it's our duty to fully support the funding for our national defense and ensure that each dollar we spend is spent wisely in delivery of the stated need and not in special interests. appropriations committees provided $626 billion in total funding for the department of defense, $498 billion for the base budget and $128 billion for ongoing military operations in iraq and afghanistan.

interestingly, it's $3.9 billion less than the president's budget request and the bill further reduces defense programs requested by the pentagon to make room for $2.5 billion in c-17 cargo aircraft slated for termination by the administration and about $2.7 billion -- i repeat -- $2.7 billion in earmarks and special interest items. you know, i've long talked about the broken appropriations process and the corruption that it breeds. i remain deeply concerned over the damage done to our country and the institutions by -- that we are so proud to serve in by their continued abuse. while we've made some progress on the issue in the last couple of years, we certainly have not

gone nearly, nearly, nearly far enough. legislation we passed in 2007 provided for greater disclosure of earmarks, and that was a good step forward. but the bottom line is we simply don't need more disclosure of earmarks. we need to eliminate them. we need to eliminate them. we should adopt the practice, as was the practice here for a long, long time, up until recent years that we didn't appropriate unless it was authorized. in the year that i have been here, i've seen a tremendous shift from authority and responsibility from the authorizing committees to the appropriating committees, any commensurate rise in earmarks and corruption. i know my colleagues don't like to hear me use the word

corruption, but we have former members of congress residing in federal prison. we had a congressman from california who used to list the appropriations that he was able to get on one column and in the other column the amount of money that he received for earmarking those appropriations. that's corruption. it's not responsible for us to continue to load up appropriations bills with wasteful and unnecessary spending. americans all over this country are hurting, people are losing their jobs, their savings, their homes. so what are we doing? we continue the disgraceful earmarking process, he will sraeugt parochialism and patronage politics over the true needs and welfare of this nation. and i will be pointing out during the course of this debate a number of examples of that corruption which i think is really unacceptable to the american people.

and, by the way, is one of the reasons why the american people have risen up in unprecedented manner in demonstrations against the way we do business here in washington. so, i want to be clear. disclosure is good, but it wasn't tphad kwat disclosure -- inadequate disclosure requirements which led duke cunningham to take bribes in exchange for doling out $70 million to $80 million of taxpayer funds to a defense contractor. it was his ability to freely earmark taxpayer funds without question. you know, during the campaign, a lot of things are said during campaigns. a lot of promises are made, and unfortunately some are not ket kept. the president of the united states pledged during his campaign that he would work to eliminate earmarks. the speaker of the house

promised to drain the swamp. just last month the president of the united states spoke in phoenix, arizona, to the veterans of foreign wars. in that speech, the president's words were quite compelling about waste and pork-barrel spending in defense bills. with that speech, the president promised an toned -- quote -- "special interests and their exotic projects." unquote. and reaffirmed that he was leading the charge to kill off programs like the f-22, the second engine for the joint strike fighter and the outrageously expensive presidential helicopter. the president went on to say -- and i quote -- "if a project doesn't support our troops, we will not fund it. if the system doesn't perform well, we will terminate it. and if congress sends me a billowed with that kind of waste, i will veto it."

this legislation, if the president means those words, this legislation should be vetoed in its present fortunately by the president of the united states. he went on to say, he would do right by our troops and taxpayers. he's right, we should do right by our troops and taxpayers. the bill has at least $5.2 billion in programs that the pentagon doesn't need and didn't ask for. $5.2 billion. the president just last month put an all-court press to terminate the f-22 program in the face of congressional determination to continual funding production of the aircraft. so why was the president so adamant about terminating the f-22 while at the same time possibly give a free ride to ten unrequested c-17's in in bill at a cost of $2.5 billion?

how can one differentiate between a fighter aircraft that the pentagon says further production is unnecessary from a cargo aircraft that the pentagon says the current fleet coupled with those on order is sufficient to meet the pentagon's needs even under the most stressing situations? why has the administration, including the secretary of defense, been silent on $2.7 billion in member-requested earmarks? these are questions for which i don't spra good answer. what i do know is that the appropriators did not add $5.2 billion to the bill to pay for the unrequested additions, but rather secured this additional funding by offsetting programs in other parts of the bill. so what did the appropriators decide to cut to make room for most of these unrequested earmark and pork-barrel

projects? they reduced $900 million from the president's request for the afghanistan security forces fund at a time the one thing we are in agreement on, the one thing we're in agreement on is that we need to increase the size and capability of the afghan army and security forces. it's a key component of the united states strategy in afghanistan. so they cut it by $900 million. reducing funding in the account runs counter to our ground commander's plan for the afghan forces to assume a greater share of responsibility for security as quickly as possible. equally as incredible, the bill reduces over $3 billion in operations and maintenance accounts through direct cuts and mandated in other provisions in the bill based on economic assumptions and excess cash

balances. the administration strongly opposes these cuts, and in a statement on administration policy said -- quote -- "these reductions would hurt force readiness and increase stress on the military people and equipment." this is the lifeblood of our military. the operations and maintenance of our men and women in the military and the equipment that they use is absolutely vital. so what did we do? took $3 billion out of operation and maintenance and put it into these pork barrel projects, including the c-17. so, i mean, the account provides for services with funds to carry out day-to-day activities such as recruitment and fielding of a trained and dread did i force, all military training and exercises, food, weapons, spare parts, equipment repairs, depot

maintenance, ship overhauls, transportation services including aviation, fuel, navy and marine corps, steaming days, civilian personnel management and pay and child-care and family centers. you know, the one thing in this debate about afghanistan that almost everyone is in agreement on is that our equipment is wearing out and we're way behind in the repair and replacement of spare parts, equipment, all of the things that are necessary for our activity duty forces and our guard and reserve who are for all practical purposes active duty. and we are looking at -- i have guard confidence that the president will agree to general mcchrystal and petraeus and admiral mullins' recommendation. we will need more money for operations and maintenance because we will be sending more

men and women and equipment to afghanistan. so what is in this bill? a $3 billion reduction. well, and what's in its place? i'll be going over some of the projects that are in its place, mr. president. well, one of the more egregious items in the legislation we're considering today is the addition of $2.5 billion, for 10 c-17 globe master cargo aircraft. first let's have a little background. recognizing that the department's total requirement for 180 c-17 aircraft had well been exceeded for three consecutive years, the bush administration had actively tried to close down the production line for c-17's. nonetheless earlier this earlier this year there were

eight more added for $2.5 billion to the 2009 supplemental spending bill. a bill that is supposed to be used to fund the wars in iraq and afghanistan. the final version of the bill included all eight of these aircraft. when the subcommittee met later to consider the 2010 defense appropriations bill, it went ahead and added three more. so it is hard to see this chart that is an interesting one. this is the seac-17 originally n the budget. these other ones that have been added by congress.

each year the department of defense and the administration has said enough. we have enough c-17's. obviously that has not been the case. it brings us to where we are now. well in excess of requirements, continue to spend billions of dollars for aircraft we do not need, including the eight c-17's in the 2009 supplemental. the original requirement was 180. according to the most recent statement of administration position, the administration strongly objects to the addition of $2.5 billion in funding for 10 unrequested c-17 airlift their quest -- aircraft.

order, together with the existing fleet of c-5 aircraft are more than sufficient to meet the department's future airlift needs even under the most stressing conditions. in no uncertain terms, secretary gates has stated that the military has no need to buy more c-17's. so here we are, my friends, with a $3 billion cut in operations and maintenance which any observer, much less the administration and the secretary of defense and the joint chiefs, say are vital to continuing our operation and well being and protection of the men and women in the military, we're adding $2.5 billion for c-17's. what kind of a tradeoff is that? secretary gates has stated the military has no need to buy more

c-17. while secretary gates called the c-17 -- quote -- "a terrific aircraft," and i agree he stressed that the air force an u.s. transportation command have -- quote -- "more than necessary strategic airlift capacity for airlift in the next 10 years. " nonetheless the c-17 production would cost $3 billion a year from 2010 afterwards. in connection with the 2010 budget request, the president not only requested no funding for additional c-17's, but also recommended this program for termination. particularly in lieft today's financial constraints, continuing to spend billions of dollars for more c-17's that we just don't need is becoming increasingly unsustainable. for these reasons i'll be offering an amendment to strike the additional 10 aircraft.

given how much our airlift capacity currently exceeds operation requirement, i see into reason to buy more of these aircrafts at a minimum before key analysis on the subject such as the defense analysis review and department of defense mobility, capabilities and requirement studies are completed. so, mr. president, i will be proposing an amendment shortly that i hope will correct this really egregious action on the part of the appropriations committee. men and women in the military who are fighting and putting their lives on the line deserve a lot better than that. now i want to talk for a few minutes about earmarks. the practice of earmarking is detrimental to the department and with increasing frequency to mels themselves. the -- members themselves. the guilty pleas of congressional staffers an lobbyists demonstrate how

earmarks have been used to corrupt the legislative progress. check the polls. the trust and confidence on the part of the american people on the congress in the united states is at an all-time low and deservedly so. by my preliminary count, there are almost 070 unrequested -- 700 unrequested earmarks in this bill. over 400 of which are not authorized in the fiscal year 2010 defense national authorization act. that represents more tha than $1.3 billion in funding for unrequested, unauthorized member interest items. it's unacceptable. it's the constitutional duty of congress to provide the department of defense the resources it needs while providing the oversight our constituents demand. we have a fiduciary obligation to the american taxpayer. every time we tuck pork in an

appropriation measure, we shun that responsibility. one of the great untold stories of earmarking is that the money diverted to special interest projects would have otherwise have been used to address the stated needs of our military services. the money does not come from anywhere but the taxpayers' wallets an purses. -- and purses. but the service chiefs, who are in the best position to advise congress of their priorities, are routinely shortchanged so that senators and congressmen can fund their pet projects. a sampling: $9.5 million is in this bill to fund research in montana on hyper sonic wind tunnels called mariah. this self-licking ice cream cone has been with us, earmarked and unrequested since 1998. the air force, leader in hyper

sonic testing and technology, lost interest in 2004. so appropriators moved it to the army. the army has to requirement nor capability and published a report in 2005 stating their disinterest in the program. to date the army has no plans to fund the mariah wind tunnel effort as they have stated in their budget documents. that has not kept the congress from pouring more tha than $70 million into it. more than $70 million with no discernible return. one group has done very well in the deal, however. of course i'm referring to lobbyists including gauge l.l.c., whose c.o.e., coincidentally had been a senior staffer to an appropriator from montana. i intend to offer an amendment to strike this earmark from the bill and i can assure you you

will hear more from me on this. we have spent more tha than $70 million on a project that has had no return that the military has said they have no interest in pursuing. $5 million to the battleship u.s.s. missouri memorial association. it's a private organization which owns and operates this battleship as a museum in pearl harbor. i'm aware that the association plans to put the missouri in dry dock and refurbish it. and i'm also aware that it was not part of the donation agreement with the defense department would pay for required maintenance. i am all for navy ships being placed in place where -- places where americans can see and appreciate the great service and sacrifice of the men and women in military, navy, and marine corps in particular. the deal was that they wouldn't. that they would take care of the maintenance of. it that they would take care of whatever needed expenses are.

so here's $5 million. $25 million for the national world war ii museum in new orleans to help pay for the construction of new facilities as part of a $300 million expansion. it's a privately funded museum, opened in 2000, and through the help of the louisiana delegation has received $13 million in department of defense funds tucked into previous appropriations bills. again, if the members of the appropriations committee would like to go through the authorization process and have this project authorized, i would be more than willing to consider it. $13.8 million for five different earmarks pertaining to nano-2 research of the almost 800 earmarks i mentioned earlier, hundreds are for high-tech research or devices. i asked my colleagues if they're capable of weighing the merits

of specific technologies that they fund in this bill. $20 million for a center at the university of massachusetts dedicated to educating the general public, students, teachers, new senators, and senate staff about the role and importance of the senate. the senate was neither requested in the president's budget nor authorized by congress. and, certainly, a legitimate question should be whether $20 million should be appropriated for a project that has nothing to do with the defense of this nation. it may be a worthwhile project. why couldn't we get it authorized? $10 million, as usual, to the university of hawaii for a program called the panna rammic survey telescope and raid response system, panstars. on the service it seems like a reasonable need for the air force as a part of the space

situational air awareness. the air force wouldn't be getting much of a return for this program, since it will only be allowed to use the telescope 5% of the time. the air force is paying $5 million to develop and maintain the telescope and they get to use it 5% of the time. the air force pace $10 million to the university and receive receives $500,000 in return. once more, the air force is not in the nine-year life of this earmark requested a single dollar for the program. so since 2001, the air force has been forced to spend more tha than $75 million of its budget allocation on a program it doesn't want but might be able to use only to be denied use 95% of the time. i don't dispute some of the earmarks listed in this bill

have value. i'm sure they do. i protest the progress where congress -- so that members can deliver tax dollars to their constituents for programs which may have nothing to do with the defense of our nation. at a time we can least afford to misuse resources. we know that the economy is taking a beating over the last year. unemployment is just under 10%. the national debt i is $11.8 trillion. we will provide $20 million to a center whose purpose is to extol the use of the center. we are all required to make sacrifices. it's about time we start to set an example. today's "washington post", an article by geoffrey smith, "defense bill lauded by white house contains billions in

earmarks." mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that this morning's "washington post" story entitled "defense bill lauded by white house continues -- contains billions in earmarks." the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: as part of this president obama has repeatedly -repeatedly -- -- quote -- "the special interests and entrenched lobbyists that he says has distorted military priorities and bloated appropriationings in the past -- appropriations in the past." in august i told you that he told a convention of the veterans of foreign war, if there is a bunch of pork, i will veto. mr. president, this bill fits that description. it goes on -- the bill would add $1.7 billion for an extra destroyer, the defense department did not why it talks about the c-17's and the senate proposed shift of more tha

than $3 billion from operations an maintenance accounts to projects that the pentagon did not request. no veto was threatened over i want to say again, mr. president, i am sure that the managers at this bill will somehow try to justify this transfer out of operations and maintenance into the c-17. it is not a credible argument. the absence of such a threat provoked windsor wheeler, director of the military reform project hope to describe the long-time set. cedar obama aides responded that they never sought to fix a problem in one year. -- senior obama at age responded that they never sought to fix a problem in one year.