chairman, and ranking member grassley. i would like to introduce today my husband, kurt campbell, two of my three daughters. my baby girl, coco is at home. this is katie, kyra campbell, my mother and my father, al brainard. >> thank you. why don't you proceed with your statement. then we will go to mr. miller and dr. collins. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman and ranking member gressly and members of the committee. i am honored and appreciate the opportunity to appear here before you today as you consider my nomination for secretary for international affairs. i am glad i got a chance to introduce my family. as you know well, these are tough jobs, and it really requires the entire family to support people in them. and so i am very grateful to my family, to my entire family, for their support throughout this process. i agree very much with the chairman that we are facing perhaps the greatest economic test of our generation, and it is one that i would be very honoreded to have a chance to make a small contribution to in te

thank you senator grassley and distinguished members. >> thank you. >> thank you. next is mary john miller. she has family members with her. we would ask them to stand and be recognized by the committee. welcome. if you could introduce your family members. >> thank you very much, chairman. i realize our time is short, i would like to briefly mention my father, a professor of history at cornell university for over 40 years. a husband of nearly 30 years, and my oldest son, thomas marshall miller, who is now a graduate student in classics at princeton. my younger son could not be here today, as he is performing in the production of "romeo and juliet" this evening at cornell. i would also like to mention my brother, james dunn, who has worked at the treasury and not the imf. my nephew, paul, who also works in washington, and last, michael, harry john, research in world war ii and for many years worked at the national archives in washington. i thank all of them for the support they have provided me. >> welcome to the finance committee. why don't you proceed with your st

and senator grassley. >> i have an observation and a couple questions. my observation, i don't want you to respond to, i don't know how you can make a statement that failure to convict is not a option when you've got juries in this country -- i think a lot of americans thought o.j. simpson outh to be convicted of murder rather than being in jail for what he's in jail now. it seems to me ludicrous -- i'm a farmer, not a lawyer, but i just want to make that observation. a question. you previously pledged -- >> i think only fair he ought to be able to respond to that. >> as long as it doesn't come out of my time. >> that's fine, and maybe i should have been more -- maybe i should have been more expansive in my response to the request that senator kohl put to me. i have thought about that possibility. and one of the thing that's this administration has consistently said, in fact, let congresses pass legislation that would not allow for the release into this country of anybody who was deemed dangerous. and so that if -- if there were the possibility that a tr

grassley: i'll just use one more, and then i'll be done. these issues can be addressed without upending the entire health care system with the result of higher taxes, higher insurance premiums and deficits and debts that will get in the way of opportunity that results from the ingenuity and industry of the american people. and if we were sitting around a coffee shop in springfield, illinois, or little rock, arkansas, and we were discussing health care reform and i told them we're talking about a bill that is going to raise taxes, cut medicare, raise premiums and not do anything about costs, they would say that's not health care reform. so i encourage my colleagues to listen to the american people and to send this bill back to the drawing board. i yield the floor. mr. enzi: mr. president? the presiding officer: p-t distinguished senator from wyoming. mr. enzi: as morning broke over our nation today millions of americans woke to a typical crisp fall day. it seemed ordinary as children filled soccer fields and families made preparations for th

grassley: i'll just use one more, and then i'll be done. these issues can be addressed without upending the entire health care system with the result of higher taxes, higher insurance premiums and deficits and debts that will get in the way of opportunity that results from the ingenuity and industry of the american people. and if we were sitting around a coffee shop in springfield, illinois, or little rock, arkansas, and we were discussing health care reform and i told them we're talking about a bill that is going to raise taxes, cut medicare, raise premiums and not do anything about costs, they would say that's not health care reform. so i encourage my colleagues to listen to the american people and to send this bill back to the drawing board. i yield the floor. mr. enzi: mr. president? the presiding officer: p-t distinguished senator from wyoming. mr. enzi: as morning broke over our nation today millions of americans woke to a typical crisp fall day. it seemed ordinary as children filled soccer fields and families made preparations for th

the senate finance committee in the so-called group of six that i commend chairman baucus and senator grassley as well. chairman baucus wanted to convene on a bipartisan basis earlier this year. it was the only bipartisan effort any committee in the house or the senate and we met more than 31 times to debate policy, not politics in attempting to reach a bipartisan consensus on reform legislation. there really reflected the kind of extensive, meticulous process that an issue of this magnitude requires because the american people understand intuitively when you debate future of one-sixth of our economy in a matter of such personal and financial significance to every american, we shouldn't be railroading solutions along partisan lines. and to that point and a cautionary point for all of us a recent gallup poll showed that a majority of americans are bind them. without question people are already apprehensive about congress's ably to reform the system with gallup also finding that 66% of americans believe their member of congress doesn't have a good understanding of the issues involved in the curr

senator charles grassley. he wrote to the language because it makes a lot of sense to give older people more control over the end of their life. what was in the bill was then put into the public option. i do not want to defend brutal partisanship were nobody talks to each other. but to have bipartisanship, both people have to be willing to talk to each other. it was a conspiracy of both sides not talking to each other. >> you have republican governors that did some pretty remarkable things in health care. you gave democrats some credit. likely not agree to the fact that we ought to have free enterprise in health insurance? we ought to force the companies to compete across state lines we have competition. why do we do that? why do we not say we were going to force doctors to have transparency on their pricing? why do we put people in a position of stake in their own health care? why do we deal with these malpractice suits? it eliminate pre-existing conditions. you and i could write a bill out here. we could dro

charles grassley, all of these deportees with senator grassley denouncing death panels, do you know who wrote the language which was later called death penalty? when he was chairman of the health pension committee, senator charles grassley. he wrote the language because it does make sense to give older people more control over the end of their life. what was in that bill was put into the public option in the house bill. i do not want to defend brittle partisanship or nobody talks to each other, but if we're to have bipartisanship, people have to be willing to talk to each other. without getting into started this, it was a conspiracy of both sides not talking to each other. >> you have republican governors who did some pretty remarkable things in health care. you give democrats some credit. why can we just not agree with the fact we ought to have free enterprise in health insurance? we ought to force companies to compete across state lines so that we have competition. [applause] why didn't we do that? why did we not say we're going to force doctors to have transparency on pricing? why do

. >> although chuck grassley was negotiating all summer with max baucus. while he was doing that, they were publicly suggesting there would be a challenge. at the same time, tom harkin took that occasion to tell one of the newspapers that maybe we should start voting every two years on whether chairman keep their cavils. -- on whether chairman keep their gavels. is it a question of individual leaders or is there now a structural force represents the kind of things that baucus and crassly seems to know what to do -- grassley seem to know what to do? >> with the democratic majority in the house and senate, he does not have to reach across the aisle. he does that have to present legislation that is acceptable to mainstream republicans been. i think the main thing we can do is take away the majority. >> when you alluded to something earlier, any time a republican tries to be bipartisan, he gets crushed the next day by sean, rush, o'reilly, they automatically start rallying a candidate to run against them. it is a structural impediment to buy partisanship. >> h

in response to senator kyl asking the question on behalf of senator grassley before, i didn't mean to be flip when i said i would consider the request about turning over the names of people who had previous representations that might conflict with their duties as department of justice attorneys. when i said i would consider it, i only meant to say i don't know if there are ethical concerns with regard to attorney/clinent privilege and things of that nature. i didn't mean to say that i was not -- trying not to be responsible or not taking seriously a question posed by senator grassley and by you, senator kyl. i wanted to have -- talk to the experts back at the department about whether there was an ethical concern in responding to the question. >> i suspect you and senator grassley have more conversations about that. >> okay. >> thank you, senator. senator cornin. >> thank you very much, madam chairman. i don't know if we're going to get through this or not, but let's try. i want to follow-up on a question that senator specter asked about admissibility of evidence in decides which form

committee, to his credit -- they were nearly obsessed with trying to gain republicans, people like chuck grassley. you basically have to do your best to find a way to meet in the middle. you have to find a way to find a meeting of the mines. at the end of the day, you have to have two to tango. if this is simply an exercise in how to make political points -- it was more important to cover people and bring them health care. >> let me ask you about some structural questions beyond the individual motivations of obama. the reality is that when a president has an approval rating of 15% among the partisans, it is not easy to ask someone to cross the party lines on a major issue. we saw this on george w. bush, when they thought they would bring the red-state democrats. bush was so unpopular among the democrats, you had to think twice. obama is at 14% among republicans. if you work with him, there will be a lot of grief. what is the chicken or the egg? the approval rating among the other party is declining faster. does it make it impossible to get support from members of the other political party, or vis

co-sponsored by chuck grassley, debbie stabenow. the list goes on, republicans and democrats. both philosophies, and it's about prescription drug prices. and i want to describe what this amendment is. it says, let's give the american people the freedom to access the identical f.d.a. approved drug, identical drug that is f.d.a. approved when it is sold for a fraction of the price everywhere else in the world. the american consumer is charged the highest prices in the world for brand named drugs. here's what's happening to price increases for prescription drugs. you see the rate of inflation, that's the yellow line. take a look at drug price, the red line. and, by the way, this past year 9.3% increase in prescription drug pricing. now, mr. president, this issue is not some irrelevant issue. there are a whole lot of folks who use prescription drugs to manage disease an keep them out of a hospital. and i understand many of these drugs are miracle drugs. and i don't want to retard the ability to create drugs or explore and do research and so on. a substantial amount of the research

tuesday on "washington journal," a look at the ongoing health care debate in the senate, with charles grassley of iowa. then gerry connolly reduce the half and war strategy. thomas ricks of the center for a new american security is also our guests. washington journal take your calls and e-mails live every morning, starting at 7:00 a.m. eastern, hear on c-span. >> topics at today's white house briefing include the president's upcoming announcement on u.s. troop levels in afghanistan. and the people who manage to sneak into last week's state dinner. press secretary robert gibbs spoke with reporters for about 50 minutes. >> good afternoon. let's quickly go into a couple of the week ahead and then a couple of quick announcements before questions. as you know, on tuesday the president will address the nation and 8:00 p.m. eastern, from the military academy at west point, on afghanistan and pakistan port on wednesday the president will attend meetings here at the white house. on thursday, the president will hold a forum on jobs and economic growth here at the white house. it will be an opportunity f

grassley: i'm not in favor of doing nothing. the previous democratic speaker, senator casey, said if we do nothing, costs will go up. i think that the fact is that if you look at c.b.o.'s analysis that says costs will go up even more, if this bill, this 2,054-page bill passes. so i want to spend some time because there has been some obfuscation on what this congressional budget office letter to senator bayh really means. this morning, the nonpartisan congressional budget office sent a letter to senator bayh providing a very detailed analysis of what health insurance premiums will look like as a result of this 2,054-page bill, and i have the letter from the congressional budget office right here if anybody wants to read it in detail. like many of us, senator bayh wants to know if the reid bill is addressing our constituents' number one priority -- costs. and i think if you were to have a saturday morning coffee club meeting in almost any of the small towns of america, and they were discussing health care reform -- and emphasis up

together in the senate finance committee and so-called grove 6i commend chairman bachus and senator grassley as well and chairman bachus wanted to convene on a bipartisan basis early this year. it was the only bipartisan effort in the committee of the house and senate we met debating policy, not politics and attempting to reach a bipartisan consensus and reform legislation they reflected the extensive process that an issue of this magnitude requires because the american people understand intuitively we need to debate the future of one-sixth of our economy in a matter of personal and financial significance to every american we should be real routing solutions along partisan lines. and to that point in the cautionary note for all of us, a recent gallup poll concluded neither party can boast that a majority of americans are currently behind them on this issue. without question people are already apprehensive about, chris's ability to reform the system and the dow also finding 66% of americans believe their member of congress doesn't have a good understanding of the issues involved in the curren

the senate finance committee in the so-called group of six that i commend chairman baucus and senator grassley as well. chairman baucus wanted to convene on a bipartisan basis earlier this year. it was the only bipartisan effort any committee in the house or the senate and we met more than 31 times to debate policy, not politics in attempting to reach a bipartisan consensus on reform legislation. there really reflected the kind of extensive, meticulous process that an issue of this magnitude requires because the american people understand intuitively when you debate future of one-sixth of our economy in a matter of such personal and financial significance to every american, we shouldn't be railroading solutions along partisan lines. and to that point and a cautionary point for all of us a recent gallup poll showed that a majority of americans are bind them. without question people are already apprehensive about congress's ably to reform the system with gallup also finding that 66% of americans believe their member of congress doesn't have a good understanding of the issues involved in the curr