Ron Wyden

I know you haven't been in your current position but a couple weeks. I will tell you, I'm still troubled about the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission having the final say here.

I know of no member of this Committee--neither a Democrat or a Republican--who would ever want to get in the way of one of those ongoing investigations and prosecutions.

I believe you're going to be confirmed. You're certainly going to have my support.

I think the American people have a right to this, as long as steps are taken to protect our national security and our nation's wellbeing.

You can't turn it all over to the government. You can't just have a government-run operation.

Both political parties have been right. Democrats have been right about the idea that you cannot fix this system unless you expand coverage.

The model that is included or embodied in the CLASS Act that Senator Kennedy has introduced.

What has been so troubling about the discussions in the past is you see volumes and volumes written on everything except long-term care.

You won't get much disagreement on that.

I think it is fair to say that I wouldn't have any Republican sponsors on the Healthy Americans Act if I had tilted this effort to the public side.

The first bipartisan universal coverage bill we've had in the history of the Senate, we take two baby steps.

I want you three and the advocates who have come here today to know that we're going to have some advocates at the White House tomorrow prosecuting your case.

Could I ask one other question, Mr. Chairman? How would you three propose paying for it?

What Claude Pepper suggested on a number of occasions is starting a model so that people on a voluntary basis could start putting aside money for private, long-term care coverage.

Finding this right niche on the public and private side is going to be key.

There is a group of people who don't complain at all about their health coverage in this country and that's Members of Congress.

I think Senator Graham has put his finger on part of the problem.

I think we ought to be disclosing at a minimum who these counterparties are.

There have always been opportunities for innovators, and that is what the American dream has been all about.

The more that what we are doing focuses on these big institutions, the more it looks as if the masters of the universe who made this mess are not truly being held accountable

The time of the gentlelady has expired.

I think if you look at this debate, both sides are essentially proposing adding a whole truck-load of additional loopholes.

Mr. Chairman, essentially taxpayers have been kept in the dark on this AIG issue.

The reason that AIG has gotten this money is because they are 'systemically important.'

I want to make my last question one that I think is a basis for optimism.