going to be bureaucrats, we're going to be senators. my amendment allows a commission where we as senators can amend the commission's recommendation and the regular order has worked in this body. to those new members that don't know that, in 1990, 1993, in 1997. the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. all -- is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. there is. e vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber who wish to vote or to change a vote? if not, on this vote, the yeas are 53, the nays are 46. under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is withdrawn. the senator from montana is recognized. mr. baucus: mr. president, i have three unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders, and i ask consent that these

requests be agreed to and printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. baucus: mr. president, i ask now that a senator be recognized to speak for ten minutes and immediately following his remarks the senate stand recessed. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. the senator from florida is recognized. mr. lemieux: thank you, mr. president. i rise to talk about the unsustainable spending of this country and the debt that we cannot afford. just a moment ago in a proposal by senator conrad and senator gregg to put together a commission to tackle the spending of this country was defeated in this chamber. i supported the proposal. it was not a perfect proposal. it was a proposal that some republicans didn't like because of the opportunity it might promote to have a tax increase. it was a proposal that some

democrats did not like, because they thought the spending may be too tough on entitlement programs like social security and medicare. but it was a proposal that both republicans and democrats, i hoped, would like enough to move forward. the spending problem we have, mr. president, is like a cancer, and this chamber refuses to seek any treatment. and while i did not like the proposal completely, i at least supported it because i knew we needed to do something. our spending is out of control. we have a $12 trillion debt. the deficit of last year was was $1.4 trillion, more than the past four years in the bush administration combined. now, i am new to this chamber, so the bizarre still seems bizarre to me, and perhaps the longer you're here, bizarre starts to seem normal. but we cannot spend more than we

take in. we cannot continue to amass a debt that our children are going to have to pay for. right now, we have to go borrow money from countries like china because we can no longer raid social security and medicare because those programs now need those dollars to be paid out. but at some point, this country is going to have to pay the piper. at some point, we're going to have to dramatically cut spending or dramatically increase taxes. at some point, investors from around the world won't invest in this country anymore because we will not be a good investment, and that's already starting to happen. you are already seeing folks from around the world investing in countries like brazil because they see that as a superior opportunity to this country. at some point, we will not be a first-rate economic power unless the people in this chamber and the chamber down the hall have the courage to do something about it.

what we should be doing is balancing the budget. we should be proposing a balanced budget amendment and a line-item veto for the president. i have put forward this measure, a majority of the states do it. a majority of the governors have that line-item veto, but it's tilting at windmills. i know it's unrealistic because this chamber won't even do what senators conrad and gregg tried to do just a few moments ago. i will try to stand up, mr. president, and speak about this. because if we do not sound the alarm, the future of this country is in peril. and now we are about to embark upon raising the debt limit. this time $1.9 trillion. now, mr. president, i've talked about this before. and for those who have heard it, it's going to seem like old news. but i feel like i have to continue to stress how much money this is. if you take a million dollars and lay it edge to edge, it will

cover two football fields. $1 billion will cover the city of key west, florida, 3.4 square miles. and $1 trillion will cover the state of rhode island twice. if you stack the trillion dollars from the ground up to the sky, it will go more than 600 miesms this is an -- miles. this is an enormous amount of money. we throw these numbers around, millions and trillions. but now our interest payment has become the third biggest payment we make every year. more than $200 billion a loan on interest. we can't put band-aids over this. we can't say we're going to just freeze spending. we have to cut spending. the president, apparently -- the president of the united states, mr. president, apparently is going to offer in the state of the union address on wednesday the idea that we're going to the cut spending in some discretion -- and some discretionary items is about 17%

of the budget. leader boehner in the house said it is like going to a pie-eating contest and now deciding you're going to go on a diet. i think it's like that family sitting around the table and trying to decide how they're going to cut their spending. instead of making meaningful cuts, it's like saying, okay, we'll cut our spending on beer and pizza. it's not enough. it's not enough. we are spending much more than we can afford to. and my three kids, and soon to be four, are not going to want to live in this country because they're not going have the same opportunity as they could in other places in the world. and shame on us if we fail our children in that way. so i stand with my colleagues, senator coburn, senator mccain, and senator enzi, in support of amendment 3303, which is an alternative to increasing this debt ceiling. instead of increasing the debt

ceiling, borrowing more money when we can't afford it, we're going to cut spending b by $120 billion, which is a good start. how do we do it? we go across all of the agencies and say they have to cut 5%. now, american families are cutting more than 5% right now from their household budgets. small businesses in places like florida and around the country, they have to cut more than 5% in these difficult times. when's the last time a government agency cut anything? i bet you could cut 20% or 30% out of these agencies and not have a meaningful impact on the services that they rented e. and this just asks for 5%. a 5% cut across the board. it also directs that agencies consolidate more than 640 duplicative programs that have been found. we know there's more than that. that's just the 640 that have been found. requires the government accounting office to identify

other duplicative programs that could be kuvment and rescind unobligated funds. there's money sitting in the budgets of these agencies that they haven't spent. let's take money back and put it against the deficit. we're borrowing money right now. we shouldn't have money sitting around when we're borrowing money and paying interest on it. so it's a good proposal. an i hope it passes. but the truth is is it probably won't. because there are folks in this chamber, democrats and republicans alike, who won't stand up and face the hard truth that we have to cut spending. and if we don't make the hard choices and stand up as leaders of this country, our future in peril. and when we look back 10, 20 years from now and it's too far gone, the only folks that we're going to have to blame is ourselves. it's not a democratic problem. it's not a republican problem. it's a problem of this congress. go back to march of 2006, the

president of the united states, then the senator, said -- quote -- "the fact that we are here today to debate raising america's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. it is a sign that the u.s. government can't pay its own bills." don't take it from me. take it from the president of the united states. we've got to do more. i'm disappointed that gregg-conrad faismed it wasn't -- failed. it wasn't perfect. but it was something. i hope that senator coburn's amend -- i'm skeptical. the american people get it. the american people understand that this is a problem. that's why we have these big swings in these elections. the same passion that propelled president obama into office is the same that propelled the senator from massachusetts into office from two opposite parties. because the american people are

frustrated that this body doesn't work. and if we don't change the rules an start to get serious and we get muddling along the path of disaster, we're going to fail our country. now, we may not get it done while i'm here in the senate. i only have this year. but i'm going to keep coming to the floorks mr. president. and i'm going to keep -- floor, mr. president. and i'm going to keep speaking out about it because somebody has to sound the alarm. mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: will the senator withdraw his request? mr. lemieux withdrawn. mr. brown: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio is recognized. mr. brown: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for up to 10 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. i thank you for your patience especially. tomorrow night the president will address a joint session of congress for the state of the union, the -- to address the --

the president has been giving for decades in this country. he'll speak directly to the american people. to the people who work so hard, play by the rules. but still simply can't get ahead. they feel they can't get ahead in so many cases they can't get ahead no matter how hard they work. he'll take to ohioans who understand that it takes more than a year to turn around eight years of failed economic policy. i listened with some amusement to some of the speakers before me. and incredulous of the hypocrisy, not of the former speaker from florida, who was not here during the last part of the decade. when so many of my colleagues voted for a war that probably will cost $1 trillion before it's over, but didn't want to pay for it, so didn't find a way to cut spending or raise taxes to pay for it. voted for a giveaway to the drug companies, insurance companies, all in the name of privatizing

medicare, billed hundreds of billions of dollars that we're paying for. that our children and grandchildren are paying for. again, though, they didn't cut spending or raise taxes. they just add it had to the bill, to the debt for our children and grandchildren and voted for in 2001, 2003, 2005, voted for tax cuts for the wealthy who pay much less in taxes than they have historically in this country. again, no spending cuts, no comparable tax increases to make up for that. no wonder we went from a budget surplus a decade ago when president bush took office to huge deficits today. president obama made a decision, a year ago we lost 700,000 jobs, the year -- the month that barack obama became president, and you have to spend -- you have to spend to stimulate the economy. all reputable economists literally all reputable economists say if we had not given the tax cuts, given the

help to the states that kept the states from laying off literally hundreds of thousands of police officers, firefighters, mental health counselors, librarians, people -- teachers, people that serve us as a country, that they would have lost their jobs. it would have been much worse. and the stimulus spending that's going to help countries like bisf in oleary, ohio, that helps create jobs with battery technology. the president, as i said, was in my home county in oleary county, the first presidential visit since 1948 when harry truman came to lorain county, ohio, and spoke about how congress wasn't doing any of the things that mattered to fight -- to fight the problems of that day. and the president was not partisan, but the president made it clear that -- that republicans' reluctance to help

get this economy back on track, help with job creation is what set us back. that's why the president was in lorain county, to talk about job creation, talk about helping small businesses, talk about helping with exports, talk about helping unfreeze credit because so many companies can't get credit. the president has also thrown his support behind what many of us in ohio are seeing as our states becoming the silicon valley of alternative energy. toledo, ohio, has more manufacturing jobs than any city in america. i was in cincinnati this week, yesterday, in fact, and cincinnati -- in cincinnati there's a steel company that was making steel drums for oil fields is now making steel components for wind turbines. i could take you around my state and show you what they're doing in cleveland, mansfield, youngstown, dayton, columbus, all kinds of job creation with alternative energy. we need a better national

economy. that's why yesterday in cincinnati, the president and the chairman of the export-import bank came to that city at my request. did a roundtable with community bankers on how can we help them help their customers to export more and met with a group of entrepreneurs, a group of business people in cincinnati that -- that were there in order to learn how to get help so they can export. the big companies like procter & gamble and g.e., both major important citizens in cincinnati, those major companies don't need that much help to figure out how they're going to export products. smaller companies of five, 10, 50, 100, 200 employees need some assistance. when they try to export, when they work with another country trying to sell their products in another country, so often other countries whom they are competing with, other companies in other countries with whom they're competing, those

countries -- those companies usually have their government standing right side by side with them in partnership. that's what we need to do for our small businesses, our -- especially our small manufacturers who are trying to sell more products abroad creating jobs in this country. we know for every billion dollars that we export, we create about -- create in our country whether it's in albuquerque or whether it's in ashland, ohio, santa fe or whether it's in sidney, ohio, we know $1 billion in exports creates 15,000 jobs. right now we have a huge deficits. hundreds of billions of dollars trade deficit. we know that costs us jobs. that's why it's so important what happened in cincinnati yesterday so the export-import bank with can help these smaller companies that want to export, help them to find financing, help them to figure out how you license prod fucts you want to sell them in hugary or bangladesh or nigeria or france

how to help them get through the rules an deal with all kinds of companies that larger companies have a staff to do, smaller companies need a partnership with their government. that's what that meeting was about. that's what the president understands, we need to unfreeze credit. we need to do direct spending for infrastructure to prepare for future and we need to export more. those are some of the keys to job creation. the president, when he speaks down the hall in the joint session of congress tomorrow night for the state of the union will address a lot of those issues. it's time that the obstruction in this chamber stopped and we can move forward and begin to do those things we need to do. mr. president, i thank you again. i yield the floor and i suggest the -- i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order the senate stands in recess until the hour of

>> host: columbia, south carolina, you're up first. independent caller named jack. what do you think of this proposal, jack? >> caller: tell you, seems like now that the health care bill is gone and they want to freeze spending but they weren't going to freeze any spending when bailing out big banks, wall street people. and, seems like, i don't know, i thought mr. obama was going to try to help some of the poor people and middle class people in this country. now, what are they doing?

they dump a lot of money on people that didn't really need it. people getting million dollar bonuses and bailing out all these big corporations and so forth. poor folks in small towns, they're hurting. and, tell you what, i need to go to doctor right now and i can't afford it. they freeze spending. freeze it for the big guys. don't be freezing it for poor people. >> host: appreciate your call, jack. mary, another independent caller from new york city. the president is proposing a three-year spending freeze, a portion of the budget. what is your take, mary? >> caller: my take is, the president is the doing what he feels is good for the and itr him to do, when he has to fight black people, who are earth jell either jealous about, white people who are

racist, republicans who will not allow him to do anything, all of the odds that this man has to fight, and i mean, i, i think the black caucus, such as, waters out there in california, the black man, glover, instead of fighting the insurance company, they said, i don't understand it. in one breath they say he has got too much on his plate. then everybody crawls out of the woodwork and says, well i want him to do this for me now. i want you to do this for me now. >> host: mary, thanks a lot for your thoughts. third independent in a row coming up here. mike looking for republican and democrat calls as well. mike, you're from york,

pennsylvania. a three-year in portion of the budget. does not affect, defense, homeland security and some other areas. what do you think of what you heard so far? >> caller: i think we should our end foreign aid to israel. 30% of our foreign aid goes to israel, mostly in the form of military hardware. i think that's why america is coming under attack from osama bin laden. if you saw his statement over the weekend, he is saying again, that he is attacking america because it is america that created israel. >> host: caller, would you caught anything else besides that? >> caller:. no that is the biggest from we have right now. >> host: look at "new york times" write-up on all this here is headline. obama to seek spending freeze to trim deficits. three-year proposal. domestic budgets are focused. pentagon is among those exempt. they go on to talk about politics of all this in "the times" today. they say the initiative

holds political risk as well, as well as potential benefits because mr. obama plans to exempt military spending while leaving many unpopular or many popular domestic programs vulnerable. it his move will further aingewer liberals in his congress and who are already upset about the possible collapse of health care and troop build-up in afghanistan. fiscally conservative democrats in the house and senate have urged mr. obama to support a freeze and it would suggest to voters wall street and other nation that is the president is willing to make tough tough decisions at a time when deficit and national debt in view of many economists have reached levels that undermine long term prosperity. naples, florida. republican line. what do you make of this proposed freeze? >> caller: he should start at home. the his wife has more people working for her than any other president's wife. her spending is horrible.

she doesn't give troops support. we need those troops. >> host: "the times" goes on to write the perception that government spend something out of control also contributed to mr. obama's loss of support among independent voters and concern about the government's fiscal health could put upward pressure on interest rates in the u.s. that they have to pay to borrow money from investors and nations especially china which have been financing district heights, maryland. john, democratic line. what do you say, john? >> caller: good morning to you. >> host: good morning. >> caller: listen, i mean, i don't understand. the people who need the most from the government are the ones who cry the loudest against it. and, for some reason, they just can not seem to understand, if the government didn't step in and do the things that it is doing, you have a lot of people in appalachia, a lot of people in the south, who are really hurting from previous administrations policies and then, when the man steps in and want to

help, the first thing they want to do is cry that you got big government. you're spending too much money. but if he just let the people starve, or the ones who cry the most, didn't get anything, then they would still have something to say. so the man is like damned if he do and damned if don't but i hope he forge ahead and do what he can do for people of this nation. >> host: let's hear from bernard on the republican line from brooklyn, new york. your reaction to this announcement? >> caller: i think it is a good idea. journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step. the first step and i hope it is, leaves the, leaves him and rest of the government bad taste in their mouth. thanks very much. >> host: lots of economic news and events this week coming out. white house. here is a photo in "the washington post" today. president obama meeting with his middle class task force. they unveiled several proposals designed to help middle class families. as far as the budget freeze goes, on a portion of the

budget they write in the post, that the freeze is likely to be met with mixed reaction on capitol hill. conservative democrats including senator evan bye of indiana and members of the house blue dog coalition have been calling for a spending freeze backed by the threat of a presidential veto. but liberals resisted freezing spending particularly on social programs and likely to call on obama to extend any freeze to military programs. here's a quote. i think it is entirely possible to do, said budget chairman, kent conrad, a strong proponent of balanced budgets. relatively modest in terms of overall deficit reduction but sends an important signal that everything is on the table said the senator. st. louis, michigan, democratic caller. hi,ler:re hey,. i believe this deal for a spending freeze is good but you have to extend it more to pork-barrel spending, and >> host: like what? >> caller: pardon me?

>> host: which pork-barrel spending, caller? >> caller: don't matter which one. any state. the government can't afford it. we can't be, i don't think we can really afford anymore taxes on us, put on the middle and lower class people right now. i understand he is probably doing the best he can. he has got a tough job. i sure wouldn't want it. but, that and, no more pay raises for government because, the senators and all that, because, they're just, i don't think they're listening to the people that are really, really hurting. and, that is all i have to say. thank you. >> host: the post goes on to write write, republicans mocked this idea of a proposed spending freeze which comes after a year in which obama sought and won a $787 billion fiscal stimulus package and has pursued a far-reaching overhaul of the health care system expected to cost about $900 billion over the next decade. here's a quote. given washington democrats

unprecedented spending binge, this is like announcing you're going on a diet after winning a pie eating contest. from a spokesman to minority leader john boehner. the white house, quickly fired back, noting non-security discretionary funding nearly doubled between 1995 and 2006 when the house and periodically the senate was in republican control. belle glade, florida, jay. thank you for waiting. you're an independent. the spending fe, what do you think? >> caller: i think it is a little bit too late. caller earlier mentioned how we should have a spending freeze when they were time to bailout big banks deemed too big to fail which is hypocritical in its own right. i think very areas left untouched by this proposed spending freeze are very areas we need to start trimming fat and start cutting back. for example, prior to september 11th, it was made known that over 2.3 million

or trillion dollars was announced missing from the pent. and -- pentagon, and that had something to do with the -- corporation. we need to look at stuff like that. mismanagement of funds in this very area left untouched by proposed spending freeze we'll if we're going to talk about the economy. >> host: jay, memphis, tennessee on the line now, republican caller. go ahead, please. >> caller: see, that ties what independents caller was talking about. that ties into a lot of mismanagement that has happened in this country for the last 15 to 20 years. mismanagement has been we're not been good stewards of the resources that we have. and now we have a big change by this -- president, who is trying to do something to involve the citizens, who are already here in this country.

then you have immigrants who are coming in, and, that, are being brought into the process for citizenship where you have the african-americans who are here, who have never been a part of the natural process. so i think, we all can come together, and find ways of doing this collaboratively. and homeland security agenda, i was listening to the assistant secretary, there is a lot of job creation that could happen there. >> host: thanks for calling. here's another shot of the president from yesterday. it is in the "wall street journal" he, you can see him here after meeting of one of several initiatives he hopes will appeal to the middle class. to the right of this photo is a chart. it says temporary lid. they point out that discretionary funding excluding military, veterans, homeland security and international affairs. they, show the level back in

fy08 well over $600 billion. you see projected levels for next couple fiscal years. quite a bit lower under this new plan. again, we just started hearing about it last night. i'm sure we'll hear more today and more at the state of the union speech tomorrow. caller from washington, d.c. cindy, democrat. hi, there. >> caller: yes, good morning. >> host: good morning. >> caller: i do think he needs to put a freeze on spending. but, even with that, with the republicans calling for campaign of failure, that is all they have been talking about is his failures since he came into office. so, if the republicans do not want to hire, if republicans do not want to spend stimulus money to generate the economy, then we're never going to get out of this mess until the republicans realize that they have to work for the country, and not for themselves. >> host: tallahassee, florida, martha, on the

independent line. the president's proposing a spending freeze on at least part of the budget. what's your reaction? >> caller: i think it would be wonderful if it was actually true. i really think it is smoke and mirrors because the midterm elections are coming up. but if it were true, i would like to suggest they can start with corporate welfare, and then they can definitely, the pork-barrel spending cut a lot out. we don't need a middle class task force. they can fire all of them, between corporate welfare and welfare for the poor, the only people paying for anything is the middle class. so pretty simple for us out here. and welfare, welfare fraud and abuse. i know they say that, you know, legally, nobody pays for illegal immigrants but that is not true. those of us out here, we see them getting food stamps and electric assistance, track phones. cell phones. they get their rent paid. so all their medical and

dental. legally not supposed to happen but that is not true. we can probably save half a trillion dollars right there in just aer year. that is my opinion. >> host: all right. more of your calls on the proposed spending freeze. here is a twitter message while we get some more calls lined up. obama's freeze, in quotes is an insult after 20 trillion dollars, that is this person's figures, because of tarp, stimulus, which he puts in quotes, omnibus, 9,000 plus earmarks and health reform. if you missed news yesterday what came out of the white house for middle class folks in this country, "the washington post" lays it all out. five major points. they want to expand the child care tax credit. they want to limit student loan payments. they want to expand assistance for elder care. white house would like to make retirement accounts enrollment automatic. number five is to simplify the savers tax credit. >> we're leaving this

recorded program now to take you live to today's white house news briefing. >> sir, take us away. >> great. white house web site, the homeland security secretary said there will be a push for comprehensive immigration reform this year. what's this going to look like? >> well, the one of the things that the president will, has talked about and one of the things you will hear him mention tomorrow and in coming days, similar to what i've said on cap-and-trade. that is, that, if, we've started a process on this. if congress can put together the way forward, a coalition to get the way forward, then, it's something we'll work through. >> is that coalition include senator mccain? >> well that's a good question for senator mccain. he has obviously been a,

enormously strong supporter of immigration reform over the course of many years. and, i think has been a valuable spokesperson nor reform efforts in, in insuring that it is done in a way that is comprehensive. and, i think the white house and many in congress would, would want him to be involved in that, yes. . . that the

president includes tomorrow i would have as a a throw-away line. i think if something meritszwmñ attention of the president in front of an address to millions of americans, it's important to the president as it has been for a long time. >> is he don with it yet? -- done with it yet? >> not that i'm aware of. >> the senate has rejected a measure on a bipartisan task force to bring u.s. deficits down. will the president consider a presidential -- >> i think that's one of the things being talked about. i would say first and foremost, jeff, we talked last night and you reported today that the president is hoping continuing

bipartisan support in getting his fiscal house in order and by freezing nonsecurity discretionary spending over the next three years. and i think that taken together is what some of what you'll hear the president discuss. >> following up on that particular announcement from last night, to what extent will this spending freeze affect the president's programs? education, energy, other domestic presidential priorities that one would think would have to suffer under a $250 billion spending -- >> look, jeff, the president and the economic budget team put together a budget, obviously, that reflects the priorities that the president sees for the future of our country, including building the new foundation of which education and clean energy jobs is a tremendous part look today at what the american wind power association has to say about our important investments

in clean energy and its impact on -- the impact on the increase in clean energy. wind power was according to them -- they believed vis-a-vis 2008 levels likely to decline by 50%. when, in fact, because of the recovery act and the filling of the space for credit that was receding instead this tax credit came from the recovery act and we saw an 39% increase in the number of wind plants -- wind power generated over the course of last year. the way the president did the budget is the way millions of american families do their budgets. understand what we have to invest in. that's why security spending is

untouched in nominal terms in this budget. and instead of wielding an across-the-board acts, the president will cut programs that are duplicative or serve what he believes is no important purpose. and instead invest in, as families do, investments for the future. e important thing that you mentioned is that three-year freeze over the course of 10 years will save on the order of $250 billion. >> and i understand the family analogy and the wind statistics are interesting. but what's hard to get one's head around is how to plan to freeze spending and save that much money and not have some of his domestic priorities -- >> well, look -- >> which a family would have to do -- >> are there duplicative programs -- are there programs

that the president believes are duplicative and don't serve their intended purpose? [inaudible] >> and he is. except for the fact, jeff, they haven't been, right? understand this space of spending for 1995 to 2006 increased by 90%. $190 billion. so, yes, our duplicative programs should be cut, are programs that outlive their intended use, should those be cut? absolutely. and the president is here to do it. that's why the proposal was outlined that way. >> otherwise, his agenda specific promises from his campaign and his first year as governing will not be hit very hard by this -- >> again, we're investing if what we believe is important to invest in. we're cutting in programs that we think have outlived their

usefulness and need to be cut. again, that's what a family does. that's what the government should begin to do. and under this proposal that's what we will be. >> you keep saying this is what a family will do. this cut is less than 1% of the budget. >> yes. yesterday at the briefing i think you heard peter discussing that this is not the totality of our budgets as we did yesterday, we don't think this is intended to solve all of our problems. but unless we continue to take those steps, again, this is a portion of our budget, $447 billion portion of our budget that's increased 90%, nearly double, since 1995. if we can't -- if we can't make

these steps, how are you going to go after stuff that you know is politically hard? how will you create a coalition to do. >> let's talk about the stuff that's politically hard, the pentagon, medicare, medicaid, does the president support any long-term effort to make cuts in those programs? >> well, i would say this, jake, one of the things that we did last year was take on a defense program that many thought we were crazy to try to go after and try to cut. and it doesn't live anymore. it outlived its usefulness to the program. it has far exceeded its budget. and, look, i think the president has spent a considerable amount of time this year trying to address, as you've heard him talk about many times, healthcare spending by our government. that's one of the reasons that the president wanted to undertake healthcare reform.

>> isn't the reason that we're talking about -- they couldn't even get a deficit task force passed in the senate -- but isn't the reason that we're even talking about that or a presidential commission because there's nobody, including the president, to actually say what needs to be done? >> i don't think there's a ton of bipartisan agreement. i think one of the reasons for a bipartisan commission is to try to do just that. i have certainly seen -- senator mccain said this morning he supported the notion for what the president called for. i haven't seen all the republicans statements but i certainly heard the republicans the last time they met with the president in the cabinet room suggest to the president -- >> the members of congress were elected to make these tough decisions. >> and the president is making them, yes. jake, you just asked me about a larger portfolio of things.

[inaudible] >> i'm not asking you to applaud anything. $250 billion over 10 years is not going to solve our budget deficit. that's why i started this answer. but, jake, if we can't cut that, how do you suggest we get at the other money? >> if it's not even remotely what i'm asking. i'm saying why do we need a bipartisan commission? why doesn't the president actually say, this is what we actually need to do in order to get this deficit under control. >> the president spent a lot of time doing that this year. [inaudible] >> well, you mentioned a few of our healthcare programs. that is something that you denoted that have to be addressed -- >> you talked about cutting medicare in order to pay for those things. that money was not going to reduce the deficit. >> the congressional budget office said that the life span of medicare was increased. and the cost curve, the spending that we did was adjusted in the

right direction. that's what the cbo said healthcare reform did. >> can you give us a timeline as to when the president signed off on this spending freeze? >> likely before -- i don't know the exact day. but many of these discussions were had before he left for christmas. >> and we've heard -- we've heard a lot about what won't be touched. but give us some examples of what will be touched? >> when we are at the budget next week they'll have each one of those. [inaudible] >> when we roll out the budget next week. >> and what about -- there's been at least one democrat i know that came out and said that in times like these, this is not when you should be freezing. this is when the government needs to be doing more -- more spending because the businesses aren't hiding and the jobs aren't being created. is there a point to that? >> well, we do not believe the president. -- the president does not

believe, the economic team does not believe that the overall macro economic effect would impact the recovery efforts. yes, ma'am. >> why is the military industrial complex off limits in cutting down. there are thousands and thousands of contractors who are highly paid? >> one of the answers i gave to jake, helen, was the notion that the president for the first time in a long time took on one of these fights last year. as i said, not many people thought we were going to win. and many people thought simply mounting the fight was crazy. even as the pentagon and the secretary of defense said we continue to be given planes that have outlived their usefulness. we continue to buy them. and the amount of money that we spend for them is greatly exceeded we were told we were going to have to pay for them. that has not always been taken

on in washington. and certainly the fruit of those labors have often not been seen by presidents that have taken them on. the president took that one on last year. and won that cut. i think that was important for our way forward on deficits. again, we're -- we're not going to be able to get to the top of that mountain unless we can start and continue to climb up it from the base. if we can't do that -- >> 200 military bases around the world. why can't we cut down there? >> well, obviously, a great number of those were slimmed down as the course of the base realignment and closure commission that took place over the past many years. >> following up on her question, why only apply this to discretionary domestic spending? why not include the entire

budget here including programs like medicare and medicaid? i mean, there have got to be ways to get at that? >> one of the things the president has done is seek to tackle our healthcare spending costs. that's what we've been working on for the past eight or nine months here. >> that's very much in doubt. why not go at it in another way? >> well, i'm not sure just because it's in doubt the president has labored to give up on it? >> so would he possibly include medicare and medicaid and other programs. i mean, why not just do it across-the-board? why go to that old conventional way of just going after discretionary domestic spending? >> well, understand it's not the conventional way to go after it, chip. because if it's the conventional way to go after it, i'm not entirely sure since 1995 why it's almost doubled. if that's conventional -- if doubling -- >> if the proposals -- and this is only a proposal right now, without any details, there have been many proposals over the years to go after -- >> and understand last year -- >> right.

and we made a similar promise last year and got more cuts than the previous administration was able to get in those proposals. >> is there a spirited debate back there over whether to go ahead with this because politically it seems like a loser. liberals are infuriated. >> you're now asking a different set of questions than the why not go farther than you went. >> my job is to play devil's advocate. >> both of them. >> and on the republican side, id say some nice ublican side, things but one republican office said it's going on a diet after a pie-eating contest. it highlights how much the president has already spent. >> i watched john boehner tell the president why freeze spending. he did it in the cabinet room. >> do you think he was talking about discretionary spending. do you think it's something bigger than that. >> if you can't get him to agree on that, how can you get them to

agree on something bigger. we want them to agree on something to start with. right? i mean, again from 1995 to 2006 -- >> if you can get people to agree on something small, oh, wow, we're not going to try that again. >> we're not here to make the town to work like it always has. from 1995 to 2006 why nonsecurity discretionary spending conventionally speaking has nearly doubled. that's not the way the president campaigned. if we came here to do that, chip, you wouldn't be asking me why so many people don't like the proposal. >> in these discussions, is the president worried that his legacy could be debt, soaring it up more than anything else in these discussions? >> no. no. >> would you characterize this as the low hanging fruit of budge-cutting? you seem to suggest this is the easy part?

>> well, given reaction, i don't know how easy it will be. the president made some cuts last year. we've proposed more cuts this year. [inaudible] >> i think again -- i think if you look at some of the reaction, there are certainly people that believe that -- are advocates for not doing. but again, savannah, we find ourselves in a situation where we have to get our fiscal house in order. we have to take and continue to take the steps necessary to do that. >> what programs or initiatives is the president sacrificing and putting on the table by offering these budget cuts? >> there's a separate -- there will be a separate volume next week on program eliminations and cuts just as there was last year when we roll out the entire budget. >> on state of the union, are we going to hear -- you don't have to give it away because i know

you don't want to go ahead. if you can answer this as formulated. rç are we going to hear job creation ideas in specifics that we have not heard before? >> i don't know the answer to that except to say, savannah, that the president outlined a series of proposals that he thought were important to add jobs to our economy. some of them have not been acted on. and simply because having had them in a speech in december that they haven't been acted on in january doesn't mean that the president has decided that we need a whole new set of proposals. >> i was just wondering if there were any new ideas or anything -- >> i don't want to get ahead of where he'll be. >> okay. and this is yesterday's question. do you think it says anything about the political climate that beau biden refuses to run for u.s. senate in delaware? >> i think having worked with candidates that have to make decisions about running and not running, obviously, a whole

series of decisions go into making that ultimate decision, personal decisions, special circumstances. i don't think it's reflective other than -- it's not the decision that he decided to make at this time. >> biden can't win if delaware? >> i don't think that's what he said and i don't think that's the case. again, you make a series of decisions personal, private -- there may be circumstances in requirements on this side or that side that go into that decision-making. >> would you tell us a little bit about the lunch the president is having with business leaders today. how these particular leaders were chosen? what the topics are? and talking on the state of the union to them? >> he read them the speech. he probably did. i think we sent out the names of those.

let me get a better idea of how the names themselves were selected. this is a part of the continuing effort. the president has done this on a number of occasions to be able to discuss a wide range of topics primarily on the economy. with leaders of business and industry throughout the country. >> another subject, the congressional budget office today in their report projected that unemployment rates would be hovering just below 10%. at the end of 2011. under those circumstances, can the president go ahead with tax increases and now the spending cuts that he's planning -- >> well, i think the -- i think the president discussed tax increases yesterday in his interview with abc. and said that obviously the time to do that -- the pledge that he made in the time to do that is certainly not now.

we have -- we believe that -- we believe that we have to address the medium and long-term fiscal health of our country. i don't believe that as i said earlier that this has a significantly negative impact, macroeconomically on our economy. as you point out statistics, jonathan, the story today of 50 economists surveyed that said were it not for the recovery act, employment would be far worse to the tune of 1.2 million jobs lost. the president has taken steps and will renew his call to take further steps in the state of the union to continue to create an environment where the private sector is hiring again. >> robert, if the president wants to be seen reducing spending, why would he go along

with increasing the debt limit by $1.9 trillion? >> well, mark, we have to pay the bills for what we've spent already. >> that's a lot more than you're going to need in one year? >> but i think to send certainty to the market that the government isn't about to default on the money that it spent is part of what that's about. >> it doesn't undermine the credibility of a approach of fiscal restraint? >> i think what the president has outlined and will outline -- what we talked about last night, what he'll talk about in the state of the union in the budget will demonstrate that we're taking steps to put our fiscal house in order. yes, ma'am? >> is it still realistic to expect that the president will be able to cut the deficit in half by 2013? >> yes. and i'll get peter to send you something on that.

he has slide rulers and charts and widgets. >> can you explain it without -- >> there's a reason that i'm not the budget director. >> and tomorrow when you look at jobs, initiatives for the middle class, what role will healthcare be playing in the speech tomorrow night? will the president lay out a path forward? >> as i said yesterday, the president will speak about healthcare in tomorrow night's speech. >> the president has said in recent interviews that the process hasn't worked the way that he'd like this past year. but what about the message and the narrative of the past year? will the president attempt to recast that narrative at all? will he say that the path that he pursued the last year was the right path? and the message was muddled? >> again, i don't want to go through the entire speech.

look, i think that what the president discussed yesterday about this and i think what you heard people say over the weekend from administration officials on the sunday shows was if you look -- there's clearly a caricature of a health reform bill that's viewed differently by the public than when you break out its component parts, right? the kaiser foundation did a poll that showed, for instance, the number of people that are more likely to support healthcare reform if they knew tax credits were in there for small businesses 73%. 62% of those polled that opposed healthcare reform would be more likely to support it if they knew that was in there. this has become -- the example i use a lot is we spent a lot of time talking about so-called death panels, right? that time after time after time

have been disproven that are in the bill. so, obviously, the legislation became a caricature of its component parts. communications failing, i think people here at the white house and others would certainly take responsibility for that. >> also in terms of the assault on wall street and the banks when we've seen sort of a more fighting tone from the president over the past week, but what sort of message does it send that on friday the president -- last week the president says, you know, he's fighting against wall street but today he has jamie diamond here for lunch as part of the group of six ceos? >> again, the president laid out last week and the week before that two commonsense proposals, right? one that united in ensuring that the role of -- the role that banks can play that have united the editorial boards of the "new york times" and the "wall street journal."

something that hasn't happened a lot over the course of the past year. it's supported by democrats and republicans as a commonsense proposal. the fee levied on big banks to pay back in whole what was lent to stabilize the financial system is another commonsense proposal. that is made on behalf of the taxpayers. that having been said, there are a lot of people in that lunch that have said things that are in disagreement with what the president has talked about. simply because they may disagree on some issues doesn't mean they're not going to talk on a whole range of issues relating to the soundness of our economy. >> a couple on the freeze and a couple of security questions. during the campaign, specifically on october 7th when john mccain in the debates suggested to then-candidate

obama, why don't we hold harmless nonsecurity spending and entitlements and have a domestic discretionary freeze? candidate obama said that would be punting responsibility. it would be using a hatchet instead of a scalpel. has he changed his position on that? >> cld jus c r-ort mehiqueson a y w a yego. i'm t desra mpoorpt aems appeanceutlong bi on-cera oxim hong is ebi b t thi ??isidanththis who has a stopwatch? who's got the watch -- will you time this for me please? okay, great. what the president has proposed to what i've said to others is a process by which every family in america has to make budgetary

decisions. what they have to spend money on versus what they'd like to spend money on but they can't afford in tough times. how did i do? 12, perfect. >> so why didn't he use the scalpel last year when he raised the budget by 12%? >> well, obviously the recovery act put money in the economy in order to get -- [inaudible] >> no, i understand. again, we proposed a ss of not dla ts. ndri 6. >>ld t presie sad utth a 6 >> o ausewkward >> on the jobs bills is that in any way covered by this? >> that's exempt also. >> no. again, i think a question you may have asked yesterday. i hate to do this.

[inaudible] >> i didn't ask that yesterday. >> is that belied by my facial expressions. the budget goes into effect for fiscal year 2011, obviously, the budget tends to be ahead of the calendar. on october 1st, 2010. and governs spending for fiscal years '11, '12 and '13. the accumulated savings of $250 billion over a 10-year period of time. efforts to get our economy moving again would be done -- the president would want to see that money go into the economy before the beginning of the fiscal year budget. >> there's a bipartisan commission report on weapons of mass destruction and the administration's ability to cope with that, and deal in particular with biological weapons. the administration gets an f. f oal anhow p dl i want to get ahead of the president but i believe there

will be some discussion tomorrow. >> again, the administration rolled out a strategy for countering biothreats in december. i'm sorry, in december. to take significant steps to enhance that. the president signed an executive order to establish a more rapid federal capability to dispense -- to provide medical counter-measures in the event of a bioattack. and part of what the president will announce tomorrow of that review that led to the executive order is -- to launch an initiative aimed a rndfee st aor administration is proud of the efforts that we've undertaken to put our nation on a far firmer footing if dealing with these. and understand this, when it

comes to dealing with weapons of mass destruction at large, particularly nuclear capabilities, going back to the president's time in the senate, quite frankly, going back to a relationship that started with senator lugar from indiana prior to being sworn in, an effort to expand off of the successful nunn-lugar plan to deal with weapons in the former soviet union and similarly destroy weapons on the conventional side. and as you know the president has outlined a plan to get all loose nuclear material contained over a four-year period of time. and in april we'll host 43 nationskf ñ in a nuclear securi summit in order to make sure that those promises are made real. >> senators lieberman, collins, webb, lincoln, mccain asked to reverse -- not reconsider, but

reverse the decision to have the 9/11 suspects tried in new york. is there any thought given in revisiting that decision. >> i would point you to matt at justice. >> what politically speaking does he hope to achieve from the state of the union? >> well, look, i think what the president talked about yesterday -- i think he looks at the state of the union as a time in which to update the american people on what's been done and where we go from here going forward. this is not about, as he said in ohio -- this is not about him. this is about what we have to do going forward for the american people. >> what do you make of the idea this is a chance to hit the reset button? >> i addressed that yesterday. i reset that question. yes, sir. >> robert, can you tell us about

how the white house viewed the cables we've now seen publicly from general eikenberry during that afghanistan review and why the concerns he raised there didn't in the end change the president's mind about that? >> i may be the only person but informioied thev bn our prac i will simply say this, that ambassador eikenberry i think would tell you that obviously throughout a process raised concerns on a number of different subjects that the president takes seriously. and the process is addressing particularly around corruption in governance. >> is there a sense that his concerns about president karzai are any different today? that anything has changed since -- >> again, i don't want to get into discussing those cables.

i would simply say that at the conclusion of the election, the president had -- president obama had a conversation with president karzai. i think you heard the president speak clearly at west point and since then about the need to take governance seriously. that there was not an open-ended blank check for waste and abuse going forward in afghanistan. and the president and his team, and particularly ambassador eikenberry would be paying close attention. >> understanding your refusal to increase operations -- or to move to north waziristan to the north for a year and that was pretty clear on that strategy that there be something on that side of the border going on. >> let me see what i can get from d.o.d. for you. >> back to the state of the union. ask about the tone, are we going to see the president chastened by massachusetts or of the any developments of the past year? are we seeing a feisty defiant

president kind of like what we saw in ohio last friday? >> look, i think there are a series of common concerns that the president will outline and discuss. i don't doubt that at times he'll be feisty. i don't have doubt that at times he's going to believe that while washington may not want to make progress in certain ways, that washington has to be pushed to make that progress. whether that's healthcare reform or cutting our budget. again, i think the key in this speech -- what he'll discuss more than anything is getting our economy moving again. again, there were tough decisions that the president made in the first year with -- based on the economic situation that he faced.z[ and he'll again talk about why those decisions were made despite the fact that they may

or may not have been popular at the time understanding that again, like i said, if you look at the impact that the recovery plan has had on economic growth, again, we'll get updated numbers on friday, but economists discussing how without it, the pain would have been greater. the job loss more significant. it would have threatened -- it would have threatened the ability to build a new foundation for jobs in progress in the future. all of those things, i think, the president -- >> and specifically thinking about the tone, though, pardon me, and you mentioned that he was going to talk specifically about the massachusetts race. is he going to say, here's what i've learned from that? >> let me let him bring the news. >> and the supporters hear in the state of the union about how the president is moving forward against them? >> well, obviously it will take some time to discuss the important efforts that we've

made in counterterrorism. continue to discuss what we've done in our efforts not simply to confront in southeast asia the threats of terrorism but but in africa, in the middle east. the continued steps that we have to take in order to see those through. and to continue to keep our country safe, which is his primary job. >> stay the course? >> i'm sorry? >> stay the course? >> i think what the president -- i think the president believes and the national security team believes that we have made progress on dealing with renewed threats. and dealing with new threats.

again, john brennan and others visited -- visited with the yemeni government to discuss our efforts in yemen. to discuss our efforts in somalia. to discuss our efforts throughout that region in the country long before they burst out into the newspapers. [inaudible] >> if the president is thinking in the u.s. off a new tape from osama bin laden but it's not video tapes but now only audiotapes. >> no, i'm sorry. >> there was at the carnegie a special event with president obama and terrorism around the globe including in the u.s. and what the president of carnegie want to and others including the special bbc radio program -- what they were saying, one, the president make

about 85 to 90% marks but as what terrorism is concerned, maybe much to do -- more much to do. >> look, i don't doubt there will always more to do. and the president is focused on ensuring that that's done. but to address your specific question on the threat level by particularly the british, what you heard the secretary of homeland security, janet napolitano say, that the steps great britain took in raising their awareness and some of their screening procedures is commensurate with what had happened over the course of many days after the events of christmas day. >> but are we still thinking that osama bin laden is alive. no more videotapes but audio? >>ga have nottey moren that tape. yes, ma'am.

>> obvusly various groups are hoping the president will talk about their issue in a speech tomorrow. i know there was a petition driving urging him to talk about d.c. voting righ what has that effort been for their cause and how intense has that been? >> i have to say i don't have the slightest idea. i don't know whether -- i don't know whether anybody has seen the petitions or -- or anything about what that is. bill? >> robert, in his interview with diane sawyer, she asked him specifically about not using healthcare negotiations on c-span. and the president said that was a mistake. on his part. does that mean that the next negotiations on healthcare, when we get back to healthcare, will be broadcast on c-span? >> stay tuned. >> senator levin -- it was senator levin who said yesterday that the president might make mention of don't ask, don't tell on the state of the union. >> he's literally going to have nothing to say.

>> i know you don't want to preview. >> a major cliff -- >> is it at least a point of discussion, don't ask, don't tell? >> yes. >> and in terms of the white house reaching out to senator levin to ask him to delay the hearings on don't ask, don't tell, do you have any knowledge of that? >> i'd have to check on it. >> robert, in your answers to jake and chip, does the president support the idea of entitlement reform? i mean, he does -- he's not proposing it this year but cutting entitlements. i'm not worried about the past or bending the curve or marginal things but i'm talking about really going after entitlements -- i shouldn't have said marginal. but forgetting what he did in the past, did he believe that's substantial entitlement reform -- >> can you just email me? >> i'm trying to get why he's not proposing this year.

there must be reasons.gzju >> marginally, i don't think that the president could be accused of not tackling reforms that deal with our healthcare spending. i mean, i appreciate -- hold on. hold on. i want to caveat something. i mean, how many times -- how much time have we spent in here talking about healthcare reform? the notion that somehow what the president had previously been doing to bend the cost curve, to extend the life of medicare is somehow missing from today's debate on the budget, you know, it's hard for me to process, keith. i just don't get how -- how -- what the president has been doing over the course of the past nine months, again -- >> people agree that it's going to take cuts in benefits. it's going to take potentially

increasing the retirement age, take potentially more taxes -- those tough type of things. why isn't he doing any of it this year. is it because it's a political year. he could never get it through congress? we're trying to figure out why he's not doing that and the other thing with the discretionary spending which is a drop in the bucket as everyone knows. >> right. which is why i'm sure in roll call tomorrow i'm sure it will be unanimously approved by voice vote after only one day of marginal debate. again, keith, the president has spent the better part of his entire first year talking about how we change the way and the fact that government is crushed by healthcare spending. it's something that he's mentioned in virtually every interview he's done with healthcare. maybe this demonstrates in and of itself alone our communications problems that -- [inaudible] >> no. i would say -- maybe we do have that cool hand luke failure problem. enjoy the rest of your day.

>> will we get a brief tomorrow? >> nope. [inaudible conversations] >> a live look here at the capitol where both the house and the senate are in session today. although both are in a break at the moment. earlier today the u.s. senate rejected an amendment to the debt limit bill. that would have created a commission to work on the federal debt and deficit. and a programming note, the sponsor of that amendment, budget committee chairman kent conrad will speak with reporters later today. watch that live on c-span3 at 2:30 pm eastern time. back here on c-span2, the u.s.

>> a discussion now on the future of the u.s. auto industry and the effects of policy-making decisions in washiton. from "washington journal" earlier today, this is about a half hour. >> jim campbell who is chevrolet general manager for general motors company. mr. campbell, we awoke this morning to this headline from the gm chief. i like the people so much so i'm staying. it's from ed whiteacre. >> ed khiteacre and we're thrilled that he accepted that role. he has a proven track record with sbc and at&t. he knows how to win. and he's decisive and that's exactly what we need right now at general motors so we're thrilled to have him. >> as you stand there or sit there at the auto show today,

what's your sense of what the white house and congress can do to help companies hire employees because jobs is such a focus at the white house these days. >> guest: i think anything that can be done to, you know, improve the stability of the economy, continue to see improvement in the economic landscape is exactly what we need for the auto industry right now. and at chevrolet, today we're going to be reviewing kind of our small car entry and compact car entry with some guests that we'll have here in a little bit. and the key is we need the economy to move forward. we do see the auto industry being about a 11.5 million interest level. that will be up from last year. so we need an improved economy and anything that can be done here in washington to help that is positive for the industry. >> host: some of the details on gm -- they have 63,000 people employed here in the u.s. the our guest is jim

our guest at the d.c. auto show is jim campbell who's the chevrolet general manager for the general motors company. let's be more specific, mr. campbell, if we could before we go to the calls about the white house and congress. so far general motors has received $50 billion from the government. what's the status of that money and the payback and move that whole part of the story forward. >> guest: right. it's really two parts of the story. first of all, we're very grateful that we had the opportunity to emerge as a new company. we owe a lot to the american taxpayer for that opportunity. and we're going to work hard to pay those loans back and re-earn the trust of the u.s. consumer. we got some great products to do that with. what ed whitacre announced yesterday by june we will pay back the initial set of loans. we made a payment in december and we'll make the payment of the initial set of loans by june. and then we are going to be working very hard this year to

continue to gain momentum with the company so that we can prepare for an initial public offering, and that will be the next key step in this process in order to basically, you know, enable the -- the taxpayer and the treasury to basically equityize the investment in the new gm company that was established on july 10th. so two parts. we're going to pay back the initial loan by june. and then we're going to work towards an ipo so that we can -- >> the phone numbers are on the bottom of the screens. democrats and republicans and independents for jim campbell. we have a democrat first. >> caller: how many plants are you going to open this coming year? and the ohio plant is going to rehire and they're going to open. and how many of those people are going to be brought back?

and the wages for new-hires if you hire new people will be above $15 an hour because people can't live on that. my husband is a gm retiree. his check is down to $700 a month. could you live on that? i don't think you could. >> host: a couple of main points there, mr. campbell, one is about the re-opening of plants. any plans for you? >> guest: jamie, thanks for the question. you're talking about michigan. we just announced here about a month ago that we'll be building our new small car, in lake oregon and we'll be building orb compact car called the chevrolet cruise in lordstown, ohio, and so that's an important step and so we're preparing for the introduction of that vehicle right now at the plant. so those are a couple of examples of where we are creating jobs in the united states. the other piece that i think is

also relevant is when it comes to our investment in the electric vehicle category in brownstown township michigan we have a battery manufacturing facility that we opened up here in the past year. and just about three weeks ago we basically had the first battery pack come off the line. and we have investments, you know, in that category that continue to be made here in the u.s. so those are a few examples. >> host: mr. campbell, the caller also asked about ir lower wages. is that something that is o is that something on the table that's for you folks, too? >> guest: the one thing that is happening right now is obviously, you know, the economy is getting slightly better, although, it's certainly not as robust as it was several years ago. and our inventories right now at chevrolet and across general motors are kind of the leanest level we've seen in recent history. so the good news is the market continues to improve.

we'll be looking for opportunities add overtime and in some cases add a third shift and look at options even beyond that as the economy improves. so the real key is, the economy showing some strength, which, you know, it's starting to show some signs but obviously ways to go. and then it's all about for us delivering great products to the market that really meet the needs of the customer so we can put the two together and create additional jobs. . >> host: gary on the independent line on tampa for jim campbell of general motors. good morning, gary. >> caller: good morning. and thank all of us cable viewers for c-span. it seems kind of strange listening to you do this. i've seen some different things. i heard the volt was going to have -- they were contemplating a hydrogen cell. it's just more deadweight. you'll never actually use it. i'm wondering why general motors owned amazing nickel middle high

drive battery plant in michigan. a lovely couple owned it. general motors sold 60% of the share of that company. the batteries that were going to go in the ev1 that you all finally destroyed in 2005. you sold 60% stake of that battery company to texaco so that they could then keep those batteries off the market and keep the electric car dead. i'll take your answers off the air. >> host: mr. came believe? -- campbell? >> guest: we have a approach that's gas friendly to gas-free. it's five propulsion technologies that we are investing in and pursuing. the first is just improvement in the internal combustion engine efficiency in the entire power train. we have vehicles that we're introducing here at the show like the chevrolet cruise that have that a turbo charge four cylinder that will get up to 40 miles a gallon. basically investment in technologies around the biofuels.

we'll have a diesel engine in our silverado this summer that will run on biodiesel which is terrific. the third area is hybrids. chevys has it in the hybrids. we have a fleet of over one hundred equinox. and the she have labor volt is an example of a vehicle that's not a hybrid or a plug-in hybrid with an electric vehicle with extended range capability. so you can drive up to 40 miles gasoline-free, emissions free with basically the chevrolet vote. and 50% of americans commute less than 40 miles per day. i commute less than 40 miles a day and people probably commute less than 40 miles a day. you can actually commute gas-free in the chevrolet volt. gas friendly to gas-free is what our focus is.

in terms of the example of the plant that you talked about. across the company we have many partnerships where we actually bring partners in to help us invest in technologies. and so that is a common practice in the industry to bring in key partners along wait. but the chevrolet volt will run on a lithe i don't mean ion battery pack and we'll be producing that in brownstown michigan. >> host: remind us on that current price on the automobile and what will happen with the price in the future. >> guest: we have not priced the chevrolet volt. that will be one of my jobs as the new general manager of the chevrolet to actually establish the final pricing. we haven't announced the pricing but the attributes of the vehicle are absolutely terrific. so we'll take a look at kind of where the competitive landscape sits and we'll make sure that we have a competitive price on the vehicle but, you know, the volt is an electric vehicle with extended range capability. it's a unique combination.

and one of the things that i wanted to mention is when the battery is depleted, you don't have time to recharge the battery, there's a small generator on board that kicks in and allows you to go another 300 miles. so really for people that drive further than 40 miles a day, the chevrolet volt is an absolutely terrific option for them. >> host: gold beach oregon. john, you're on the line for democrats. hi, john? >> caller: yeah, hello hello, jim. i'm glad you guys are looking forward and all. but with the bailout money and the part of the deal was that the gm retirees were losing their benefits, i wonder if there's any chance in the future that gm would be trying to, you know, help those people back out and do something to commit to those obligations that they made in the past? >> host: thanks, john. >> guest: bottom line, this past year has been an unbelievable challenge in the industry. what happened with the global economic crisis that really impacted a lot of companies including gm. so the step to basically

reorganize the company was a very difficult one. and many, many stakeholders, you know, felt the pain along the way. employees, dealers, suppliers, key partners, and we're very fortunate to have a second chance. and so as a new general manager of chevrolet, it's going to be my job to work very hard to basically deliver great products to the market that customers really want to own and love to own. and get momentum back in the business. and have a chance to get to this ipo, initial public offering, so we can get the american taxpayers the ability to equityize the investment in the company. i have a lot of, you know, friends in the industry that -- retirees that felt the impact. you know, a lot of key stakeholders who felt the impact for the reorganization. it has not been easy. so we're going to work hard to the american taxpayer. . >> host: jim campbell began as a college intern. he is now chevrolet general manager for gm. he's responsible for the brand

in north america and brand coordination on a global basis. derek is on the line from jackson, alabama. a republican. good morning. >> caller: good morning. thank you for having me. >> host: uh-huh. >> caller: my question is, you had several employees in the u.s. and 200,000 overseas. why not bring back some of those jobs since the american people bailed you out? >> host: mr. campbell? >> guest: one thing i would say is chevrolet is a global brand. we actually sell about 60% of our volume in markets around the world outside of the u.s. we sell about 40% of our volume in the u.s. it's not unlike other companies that have a global footprint print, the market opportunities are very large in the u.s., in north america. but there's also a lot of growth potential in markets around the globe, asian pacific, latin america, western europe as

examples. so chevrolet actually sells 40% of our volume in the u.s. and 60% outside. and, you know, as i mentioned earlier, we're going to be building the chevrolet in the the husband and build the chevrolet cruise which is a compact car in lordstown, ohio, and we're going to look as many opportunities as possible to build vehicles here in the u.s. i mentioned the battery production in browntowns township michigan and we'll be making some announcements today as it relates to the electric motor -- the electric motors. we're going to be designing and building inside the company. and there will be announcements later on in that front. >> host: back to policymaking, how do the decisions here in washington impact your competitiveness worldwide? >> guest: well, i mean, i would say, you know, the bottom line in terms of, you know, our responsibility to build vehicles that, you know, meet the forward fuel economy standards --

significant investments at chevrolet and gm and small cars, compact cars and crossovers and so that's actually something that we're working very hard at. you know, you think about chevrolet, you think about terrific products like silver -- silverados and the chevrolet equinox that goes 60 miles in range and better than the toyota. and we'll be making investments to meet those fuel economy standards that are coming at us. and we'll leverage our global footprint to bring the best technologies to make our vehicles more fuel-efficient going forward. >> host: what's the government's role do you think in terms of subsidizing the consumer in order to get these customers to buy these newer type cars. and what should be happening? >> guest: i would say we're fortunate in north america to have actually, you know, fairly low fuel prices as compared to

other areas of the world. so we're fortunate there. bottom line as i look at the prices of fuel over the past, you know, two or three years, and they have basically, you know, spiked up and down and what we have to do is be ready so as the economy gets better, we think fuel prices will probably head north along with that. that is why we are making the vehiclesn like the spark, aveo. those are cars that are very gas-friendly. if we encounter higher fuel prices in the future, which we believe we will, we will be ready with our product offering. host: wendy from new jersey. caller: basically, my question was entered. your governor has been so

involved in michigan >> caller: your governor has gotten so involved in michigan in standing up and says we with need help. how much of it has impacted your company and your decision? and the second part of my question is looking in politics in general and raised in massachusetts, did that also impact decision that is you make on a day-to-day basis. >> host: thanks. >> well, the first part of the question, the governor has very vocal and active. he's looking for invest in the state of michigan and the u.s. we have a battery lab that we created in michigan that basically allows us to do a lot of advance technology work and r&d on the battery itself. so i think that the good news is we're making great progress in making investments in the u.s. especially when it comes to the

green technology. around the lithium battery, battery pack will be producing the bolt which is a long-time gm plant. we will be producing a electric vehicle in michigan. those are good examples. in terms of the government's role in our company, i would say that we -- you know, i spent a lot of meetings that range from product meetings to advertisement meetings and dealer meetings. there's never been a government official in the meetings telling us what to do and whatnot to do. we clearly have to deliver great trucks and meet the forward fuel standards. that's what we'll work on every day. >> do you politics out there, that caller mentioned the massachusetts make you think one way or the other on a day-to-day basis? >> well, we need to be astute on

what's happening. my focus every day is to design, build, engineer, and sell the beck with carts and trucks that we can. that's what i wake up every day doing. i have a passion for chevrolet. i think we have a real opportunity at chevrolet to grow. that's my focus. we need to be astute about what's happening politically, that's for sure. >> host: you took the $50 billion in government million. $361 million has returned. as we talked about, jim campbell, before we get back, what do you think government can do for lack of a better term to stay out of the way of your industry moving forward? >> first of all, as i said earlier, i am personally very grateful we have a second chance. i know the counterparts at chevrolet feel the same way. we have an immense responsibility to make our best effort to deliver great results. so our focus is going to be on

getting great momentum and preparing so we can get the advertised reinvestment for the taxpayers made in the company. and so in terms of what else the government can do, i think just things that can help the economy improve. as i said, we forecast the industry to be about 11.5 units this year. clearly if we can move north of that, that would be positive not only chevrolet and our company but also it's a great thing for employment across the country. so i think things they can do around the economy in general is really basically the best thing. the other thing i would mention is the last year credit was very tight because of the global credit crisis. but it's better now. the banking system, the credit environment is better. but stills there's a ways to go. i would say that would be the secondary ya that we would love to see the support of the industry. >> let's here from dorthy now. thanks for waiting. democratic caller, hi. >> caller: yes, hi. thank you to c-span. i have a question.

why is it so hard that the cars with a high gas mileage instead of going into all of the other things. i mean even today we still are producing truck that only get what, 17 miles per gallon. this is so ridiculous. why do we go into hybrid when we can't even produce the car that gets 50 miles per gallon. >> host: jim campbell. >> thank you for the question. our strategy is to develop vehicles that are gas friendly all the way to gas free. today we sell a cobalt version. it's a small car that gets 37 miles per gallon. today i'm here in the washington auto show. i'll be introducing chevrolet cruise that will get up to 40 miles per gallon with a turbo charged four-cylinder engine.

they will getting driving dynamics along with the fuel friendly. those are kind of the two ends. as it relates to the truck, i just -- i ran the free commercial operation. i called on many customers, many men and women that do a lot of hard work. they need the tools of pickup trucks to get the job done. we have vehicle that is get 22 miles per gallon. same thing with the tahoe. those are the examples. we're going to look overall through the proficiency of the engines, engines that run biofuels. we're working on hydrogen fuel cell application. finally, the electricification of the vehicle with the chevrolet volt. that's what we're working on. we need to work on all five of those, because it's going to

require those five solutions to meet the needs. >> host: arizona on the line now. linda on the republican line. go ahead, arizona. >> caller: yes, good morning. i'd like mr. campbell to repeat my idea. it came from two areas, one being underground copper mining bringing coal up to the surface and using a hydraulic arm to replace that battery with a charged battery. and also the propane bottle that you don't own, you don't own it, but you trade it in for a filled one. would it ever be feasible to have electronic arms that would just pop out the battery for a fully charged one? >> yeah, as i mentioned earlier, we're really looking at a lot of those advanced proportion technology that arrange from lekification and a lot of steps in between.

i was in a meeting last week when we were looking at applications used cng and lpg to basically power our vans and our pickups for companies that have central depots. they are able to refuse using those fuels. and the workers kind of basically bring their vehicles back to a central depot. we're looking at all of those options around the advance proposed technologies. that's a interesting idea. i'll take that back with me. >> host: here is the front case of the news. whitacre grabs gm reins. as we with look at "washington post" there's this headline. gm to make electric motos in maryland. could create about 200 jobs in the white marsh area. last call for jim campbell, gm,

from east lake. go ahead. independent. >> caller: hi, mr. campbell, you avoided a couple of questions. you didn't answer the question that the man posed about the investment in battery technology. nor did you answer the question on wages. general motos have what two-tear wage system now? it would be nice to know what the two-tear wages are. that should be public knowledge, but apparently they are not. when youlier people's wages and -- i'd like to know what kind of wages you pay in western europe and in south americaning countries as opposed to what you pay in the united states also in canada and mexico. i understand that the canadian wages are much higher than they are here in the united states. >> host: what can you tell us about wages? >> i would really need to bring our manufacturing chiefs in to

talk about the details of the wage structure. they are probably the right experts on that topics. i would just tell you in general, we're focused on building great cars, trucks, and crossovers. we have a number of examples where we are going to be building small cars like the aveo in the michigan and u.s. and in ohio. and it's clearly a very competitive environment out there. so we do work on the wage structure, we're comparing to what, you know, ford and the imports are paying for wages. but i would say our manufacturing side would be the best to answer that question. >> host: jim campbell is a chevrolet general manager for the general motors company. >> thank you. great to be with you. >> a live look at house and senate in session today. although both are on a break. they rejected the debt limit.

that would have created to work on the federal debt and deficit. the sponsor of that conrad will speak with reporters later. you can watch that live on c-span 3 on 2:30 p.m. eastern. back here onpa 2, the senate returns in just a few minutes for more work at 2:15 eastern. until then, here's a look at the latest video coming out on haiti focuses on relief, food, and clean-up efforts.

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> i think the troops there are to arrive to enhance our capacity of foods, enhance our capacity of providing logistic support along with with our partners, the americans and the canadians, and all of the troops that are arriving. >> what you need is tremendous

-- obviously as you well know, we have millions of people that are in need. we are pushing it out every day. there's a better day than yesterday. tomorrow will be the better day than the day before. [inaudible conversations] [speaking in native tongue] [inaudible conversations]

>> people are working at the mayor's office. we are starting at the mechanical days of cleaning roads. we are cleaning the access roads and prioritizing to tell us exactly what roads are prior to them, and we do it. >> a look at some of the latest video on relief efforts in haiti. we take you live now to the u.s. capitol as the senate returns. today work continues on increasing the federal debt limit. earlier the senate rejected a plan creating the bipartisan task force to recommend legislation for reducing long-term debt and deficit problems. the senate also exempted measures accepting social security from expedited legislation. now live senate coverage here on

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. franken: for eight minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. franken: thank you, mr. president. today i want to talk about jobs. lately, it seems that everyone says they want to talk about jobs, and that we'll get around to tackling jobs next week or the week after, but i'd like to kick off the discussion today, right now, and follow it up with what i plan to do about jobs. now, i wouldn't be the first to observe that times are tough right now. our nation is still reeling from the most disastrous economic collapse in a generation. failed regulatory policies or really just deregulation, bad lending practices, and wall street recklessness all contributed to the current crisis. double-digit employment for the

first time in 25 years. millions of american families are relying on their unemployment benefits to put food on the table and to pay their rent. some are looking down at their final unemployment check, wondering what they're going to do next. for every single job opening, there are six unemployed workers. too many people are left without options or hope in this dismal job market. in the fall of 2008 when wall street's financial institutions started falling like dominoes, our regulators told us congress has to pass tarp now or we face total economic ruin. this really seemed to get congress moving. they passed the legislation in a matter of days. my feeling is that the american people, especially those folks out of work, need their

advocates to say we have to do this now. every senator who has heard from their constituents about the depressing job market, about the day to day struggles of being unemployed, every senator should be on the floor insisting that we act now. that if we don't act now and act boldly and broadly, main street will continue to suffer, and that this unemployment crisis that we're in will just drag on and on. the house has already acted. they have passed a robust jobs package last december that provided needed funds to states and localities to keep teachers, firefighters, and police officers on the job. they provided funds for public infrastructure projects. these are all vital elements to a successful jobs creation package. in addition to these

fundamentals, the senate has the opportunity to put forward new ideas for job creation. today i am introducing my proposing, the seed act, strengthening our economy through employment and development, seed. we've seen cash for clunkers, we have talked about cash for talkers, and now i'm proposing cash for jobs. the seed act is modeled after a program that we used for several years in minnesota during the recession of the 1980's, and by all accounts, it was extremely successful. minnesota's program got over 7,400 people back to work in its first six months and created nearly 15,000 permanent, permanent long-term jobs, and it did that at a much, much lower cost per job than the stimulus package this body passed last year. the seed act will incentivize

rapid job creation by offering small and medium-sized companies and nonprofits a direct wage subsidy to hire new workers and expand their operations. small businesses are the driving force behind our economy. we all know that. and they want to grow, but many of them just need an added infusion of capital since tarp hasn't trickled down to them. administered on a first-come, first-served basis, these subsidies will provide 50% of wages of newly hired workers and will be disbursed through the already existing work force investment act system. using this existing system will minimize the bureaucracies that plagues so many new initiatives. dishly, employers who hire recently returned iraq and

afghanistan vets would be eligible for a 60% subsidy. the subsidy would be available for a 12-month period, and the employer would commit to keeping the worker on for an additional three months after the subsidized year. this model proved highly effective and efficient in minnesota. jim lahawkey is one of my constituents. he used minnesota's program in the 1980's. after he lost his job, he decided to start his own -- his own business. he had few resources and little ability to borrow money. he -- he used minnesota's program, which was called mead, to hire his first two employees, and now his company, the j.p.g. group, employs 17 full-time

workers and has an annual payroll of over $800,000. his story epitomizes the incredible potential for this approach to spur job creation. the second component of the seed act is to direct grants to states, localities, and tribes to fund green jobs. providing funds to retrofit public buildings. in addition to creating green jobs, these retrofits will increase energy efficiency, decreasing our dependence on foreign oil, and saving taxpayers money because these are public buildings. too many of our public buildings, public housing, libraries and schools are becoming outdated and don't utilize the green technologies available today. there are many skilled workers currently on the bench who already have the training they need to immediately get to work

on these projects. these new projects will increase demand for energy-efficient windows and doors and heating systems and insulation, providing a boost to our nation's stalled manufacturing sector. some of you may not know this, but minnesota is the silicon valley of windows. we are home to the nation's leaders in energy-efficient windows, which makes some sense given our winters. retrofitting public buildings is a win for everyone, for workers, localities, taxpayers, manufacturing, and the environment. this is win, win, win, win, win, win, i think. windows, too. if we re-allocate $10 billion from the tarp program and pass this proposal into law, we have the potential of creating up to

500,000 jobs, and quickly. getting people back to work will ease the burden on public benefit programs like unemployment and cobra subsidies. many employers will convert their participating workers into permanent employees, setting them up for a long-term career. minnesotans have stressed to me how efficiently this program worked in our state and that it provides an excellent return on investment. they have worked tirelessly to demonstrate the benefits of this type of bold proposal, and i want to thank them for collaborating with me on this important piece of legislation. more than 50 -- more than 50 minnesota organizations, companies, and chambers of commerce have come out in support, and i ask unanimous consent that a list of these organizations be placed on the record, mr. president. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. franken: thank you. i urge my colleagues to join me in quickly moving forward on a bill to put americans back to work, and i urge them to join me in support of the seed act, strengthening our economy through employment and development. i ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be included in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. franken: thank you. and i yield the floor, and would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions i a dispensed with.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: mr. president, i would offer an amendment and send it to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. mr. sessions: an amendment proposed by myself and senators mccaskill and kyl. the clerk: the senator from alabama, mr. sessions, proposes an amendment number 3308. mr. sessions: i would ask that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: mr. president, our fathers and forefathers made heroic sacrifices so that we might enjoy the blessings of liberty and prosperity. and, indeed, we've had prosperity through much of our country's history. their courage during world war ii changed the world and making possible the greatest run of economic growth in -- growth in economic history. their character and growth they displayed remained an inspiration to us.

and there are important lessons to be learned from the way this greatest generation faced adversity. we've recently been put to the test ourselves. we were in many ways and continue to be faced with a national crisis in the form of a historic and severe recession. so what do we do? we could have learned from president reagan, who, along with treasury secretary volcker, a democrat, now working with president obama, who was then federal reserve chairman, they took the political heat in the short run so that free markets could correct itself and emerge stronger on the other side. instead, i think, that we have flinched today. we've tried to limit the immediate pain too much by mortgaging too much our children's future. we borrowed hundreds of billions of dollars from that future to

finance our standard of living today. we took money from future so we can spend today. we tried to mitigate desperately the downturn of a huge economy even when we know economiys are -- economies are cyclical and do have boons an busts. -- and busts. every penny that we spent on the stimulus package, $800 billion, and other special spending was borrowed and must be paid back. in truth, though, there is no plan to pay the debt back. only to pay the soaring interest for as long in the future as we can see. so this is not an academic problem, nor is it just a question of public financing and governmental roles. as former federal reserve chairman, alan greenspan, said about our debt in december -- he said this -- quote - quote, thig

statement, the challenge to contain this threat is more urgent than at any time in our history. our nation has never before had to confront so formidable a fiscal crisis as is now visible just over the horizon. the policies adopted by congress and the president has set the nation on a dangerous course on spending now and borrowing. the budget crisis we face is so severe, the mountain of debt so high, that it threatens to undermine the foundation, as mr. greenspan said of our economic strength and our prosperity. this is reality. for the first time in our nation's history, our generation stands to bequeath to our children a nation that is less economically sound, less fundamentally strong, and less

secure than that which we inherited. and it's not necessary. we can do better if we act today. that would be an unthinkable tragedy for us to pass on a less strong country. and, really, a moral failure. because we have responsibilities not just to our own people today, but to those that will follow us years to come. and we would have no one to blame. the blame would fall on us. so the numbers tell a grim story. in fiscal year 2009, our government spend $1.4 trillion more than it took in through revenues. that is the largest deficit in our nation's history, dwarfing those of previous years. scaled to the budget of a typical family, the government operated like a household -- this is typical. this is what it would amount to if it were a family.

a household who makes $50,000 but spends $83,000. that's how much more spending we've carried out than we have income. common sense tells us this is not sustainable. and almost every expert you ask would say -- use that very word, unsustainable. yet, we expect to run deficits over the next decade that average nearly a trillion dollars annually. averaging that. and not going down according to the congressional budget office in the eighth, ninth, tenth year, but actually increasing. by 2019, we will owe our creditors, nations like china and japan, nearly $15 trillion, three times of the total debt of america that existed just last year. in that year, 2019, the interest payment that we will make on the debt we owe outside the

government, public debt to foreign countries and individuals, will to top $800 billion in that one year according to -- o or $799 billion, almos almost $800 billion -- that year. that will be up from $170 billion in interest last year. so we're going to $800 billion. so this is about $200 billion more than we spend on defense and 20 times more than we spend on roads or education. we spend about $40 billion a year on roads. this debt interest will cost us $800 billion a year in the tenth year. a basis of a tripling of our debt. that growing interest payment will crowd out our ability to fund other important government services and it will crowd out private borrowers who will need to borrow to create jobs.

given that we've embarked on such a spree, is it any surprise that the first item on the senate agenda this year is the necessary bill, they say, to raise the debt limit to allow us to borrow more money. we've hit the limit. the government does have a limit on the amount of debt it can hold by statute, like a maximum amount on a credit card. america's credit card has a $12 trillion limit. and, incredibly, and this is internal and external debt, we've maxed it out again. and it should be a dramatic thing to boost that debt limit. but interestingly it's become routine. so this will be the seventh time we've done so in five years and it's troubling americans. the public is rightly angry with the washington's cavalier attitude toward spending. they know that buy now, pay later catches up with you

eventually. they know nothing comes from nothing. the american people know what stanford university economist michael boskon wrote in "the wall street journal," is true. he wrote -- quote -- "the explosion of spending of deficit and debts projects higher taxes on work, savings, investment and employment. that will not only damage our economic future, but it's harming jobs and growth now. close quote. the american people know that taxes are going to go up. in fact, confirmed by david walker, former comptroller general and g.a.o. head. he testified recently that taxes would need to double by 2040 to keep up with our current commitments. the american people have made it clear they reject the philosophy of ever increasing debt. they reject taking on such a burden. why? because they know it threatens the strength of the economy

american. they know it's a cloud over our efforts to rebound economically and they want us to stop. they want us stop. to my colleagues i ask how much clearer does that message have to be? i don't think anyone doubts it really. the good news is that many senators are worried on both sides of the aisle. they're concerned about what we are doing. they know we need to do better. and they're listening to their constituents. they will have an opportunity this week to do that by supporting this bipartisan legislation that i've offered. i see my colleague, senator claire mccaskill from missouri who is the cosponsor of this legislation. that will limit the growth of spending. just limit it. so it's a simple amendment. there are no strings attached. just a rare opportunity to impose budget discipline on a congress that is notorious for

not having discipline. and that's what makes people angry. politicians talk a good game, but nothing seems to change. but when it comes down to it, the politicians always seem to find way to spend more. and the taxpayers end up holding the bill. so this amendment would help change that. it would impose, first, binding limits on the 40% of federal spending that we control each year, discretionary spending. the amendment would put into law the spending levels approved in the fiscal year 2010 congressional budget, which a majority of the senate supported. it's basically the democrat congress's budget. it had certain limits over five years. what we're saying is that if you extend those limits, then you would be violating this act and would give powers then to control and to avoid that.

those spending levels include only our budget increases that are averaging about 2% a year annually over five years. contrast that with a 12% increase that we saw last year in non-defense discretionary appropriations and 10% the year before. factoring in the stimulus, government spending on non-defense accounts actually soared by 57% while state and local governments were tightening their belts, some cutting expenses. and each year that we increase spending, it gets built into the baseline much our budget. -- laceline of our budget. when we -- baseline of our budget. when we have an increase it has a higher baseline and goes up exponentially. last year on a defense bill there was tacked on a

an $18 billion expenditure for various projects that was not paid for, not within the budget. it was added paid for by debt. money that we had to borrow. if we do that each year, if we just add another $18 billion through that kind of budget activity, it would cost an ext extra $1 trillion over the decade. hard to believe. $18 billion goes into the baseline, you add another $18 billion, it's not 18 billion, it's $36 billion. so i'm convinced we can do better and this amendment is an important step. second, the amendment would require 67 votes, two-thirds of the senate to waive binding caps. we set the caps, we can waive them if there's an emergency, but it takes two-thirds to do so. two-thirds of the senate is a strong threshold that will keep

these caps in place except in times of true emergency. finally, this amendment complements effort to rein in mandatory spending programs who are expected to be insolvent in coming years. social security runs a surplus now. medicare did until just last few years. those surpluses are being spent in our discretionary account. so, really, these programs have little to do with our record deficits. it's discretionary spending up until recently that's driven the entirety of our debt. deficits, for the most part, come from discretionary spending. mr. president, so this statutory idea that i've proposed is tested and proven. the budget enforcement act of 1990, including very similar provisions that kept the growth of the federal spending low for

12 years. its provisions were extended in 1997 because people found that it was working. the congress felt that it was working. all in all these budget rules helped to achieve four balanced budgets for four consecutive years from 1998 to 2001. and the key component of that, i truly believe, was the statutory caps on spending that were passed during that opinion. many current serving senators were in this chamber in the 1990's, and recognized the necessity. in 1997, 28 currently serving democrats, for example, voted for these provisions. including, you know many of the democratic leaders in the senate today. and i submit that those budget rules are even more needed today.

as mr. greenspan said, we have never faced such a fiscal crisis looming just over the horizon. and i'm pleased that a number of organizations known for their knowledge and concern about deficits have recognized the merit of this proposal, including the national taxpayers union, committee for responsible federal budget, the heritage foundation, the concord coalition. budget experts like douglas holtz aiken who served under republican administrations, alice rivlin who served under the obama administration at c.b.o. and allen viyard also back the plan. and president obama. we hear today, i understand, they are now talking about a three-year freeze on discretionary spending, at least some of it. and so this legislation would only help him achieve that goal because he can make a speech and

he can propose it to congress, but it doesn't necessarily have to become law. if we put this in -- if he supports this and works to support that statement that we understand he will make in the state of the union, this legislation would be a firewall to make sure that it's not -- his promise isn't broken. to my colleagues, i would say we have a budget crisis. it is a calamity so profound that it threatens our economic security. americans across the country in red states and blue states get it. they are deeply concerned about the direction we are heading. they know the crushing debt we are incurring will weaken our country, and it will restrict the opportunities that our children will have, and they're making their voices heard. a vote against this amendment would be a suggestion that a senator is not serious about

maintaining our budget caps, but would perhaps look as we have done too often in the past for ways to bust the budget, get around the budget, and spend more. so i urge my colleagues to support the legislation as a strong act of fiscal responsibility, and it will have a good impact. in fact, i'm confident it would send a message to the financial community that we're beginning to get our house in order. and while i'd like to go further and be more frugal in some of our behaviors around here -- and i do believe we're going to have to go further than this -- this amendment will ensure that the limits on spending made last year in the budget passed by this congress will not be exceeded. it will be a firewall that will save some of us at least from -- save us all, really, from our

excesses, and it will begin to restore financial responsibility to the nation, a community of which -- a commodity of which we are in desperately short supply. i see my colleague senator mccaskill. she has cast a number of tough votes since i have observed her in the senate to question reckless spending. i appreciate her leadership and courage in speaking out on this issue because if we do this, it will not solve all our problems, but, mr. president, i think it will make a positive difference for us. it will allow increases as the budget allows for some increases before the firewall kicks in, but it also would make it very difficult to break the budget in any significant way unless we face a true emergency. i thank the chair, would yield

the floor and thank my colleague for her leadership on this legislation. mrs. mccaskill: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. mrs. mccaskill: i join my colleague in this attempt to restore some sanity in congress about spending. i come from a state where there is a required of a balanced budget, and over the last few years i'm not sure how they would have done that without a quit bit of pain without the help that the federal government has sent them, the fact that we have to balance the budget in washington has led to some very, very bad habits. i was thinking about spending over the weekend as this week there were a number of provisions that we're going to be debating that i have sponsored or or am a big supporter of. the fiscal task force which went down this morning by a narrow vote, this amendment and then obviously pay-go which i have been the lead senate sponsor on over the last several months.

these are all things that are trying to fight something that you encounter all the time as a parent -- how much easier it is to say yes than no. now, my kids hate that when i give them that lecture because they are always wanting me to say yes, and i always say to them well, the easiest thing to do is to say yes. yes, you can have that outfit. yes, you can take my car. yes, you can go to your friends even though i'm not sure you finished whatever chores that you had around the house. and it's always easier just to say well, go along with it. it's a good cause. that's what happens around here. the spending -- it's not like we're spending on evil stuff. we're spending on stuff we believe in. we're spending on education. we're spending on highways. we're spending on our parks. we're spending on our military. we're spending on things that make it even harder to say no.

but the time has come that we all have to feel the pain of saying no. we all have to be willing to suffer the political consequences of saying no. and that's why this amendment is such an important step in the right direction. now, i want to be really honest about this because we have a tendency around here to make things bigger than they are. this isn't going to make a dramatic change in the deficit or the debt, and i'm not sure how many americans have really focused object the difference -- on the difference between the two, but they are two different things and it's not going to make a huang difference. people need to remember, if we took out all discretionary spending, if we decided we're not going to spend another time on education or highways or any of the things that we decide on spending every year, we still have a massive deficit problem. we don't fix the deficit by

passing this amendment. we don't fix the deficit by saying we're not going to even do discretionary domestic spending anymore. so this is not a fix all. but you know what it does? it begins to get us well. it's a little like earmarking. is earmarking a huge problem? no. but it's like the fever. it's a symptom. it's a symptom of the disease. and so this will help us get us well. this will be a step towards recovery if we can pass this amendment to freeze our discretionary spending. i'm so pleased the white house has called for a freeze. i think it is -- this is a wonderful bipartisan moment, and i think we're all hangering for a good bipartisan moment right now. i hope we're all hankering for a good bipartisan moment. i got a little worried this morning on the vote on the fiscal task force because it seemed to me there might have been some political games being

played, but i don't know about anybody else, but i'm hankering for a good bipartisan moment, and this ought to be one. this ought to be one where republicans and democrats set aside who looks good and who looks bad. who gets the credit and who get the blame and do something that we need to do. we used to have a freeze, and we used to have pay-go. they were both allowed to expire in 2002. i wasn't here. i'm not sure why they were allowed to expire. did all of a sudden congress think we don't need pay-go anymore? we don't need limits on discretionary spending anymore because we're out of the woods when it comes to the deficit or the debt? i'm not sure why that happened. i do know this. i bet most of the folks who let those things expire wish they could take it back. i bet most of the folks who did some voting for major entitlement programs without paying for them during that time, i bet they wish they could take it back because now we're

in a mess, and the first and most important step, i think, for us getting out of this mess is to vote to control our spending. so i am hopeful that this will be a -- passed by a wide margin. some of my friends on the left have said the last thing in the world we should do now is limit spending. government is the answer in this difficult recession. i -- i voted for the stimulus, and i think the tax cuts in the stimulus which don't get talked about enough, i think the help to the states that doesn't get talked about enough and the jobs that are going to be created this year are very important to the progress we have made in terms of climbing out of the economic hole that we found ourselves in a year ago. but we will not get out of this recession on the back of government spending, and if we decide that it's just about government spending during this

recession, we are dealing a very, very bad hand to our grandchildren. so i hope that this amendment passes, and i hope that it is not even controversial. i am so pleased the president is on board. i'm so pleased that so many members of -- of the republican party are on board, and let's take this important step and then let's live up to it during the appropriations process, and let's realize that that pet project at home that we know we can get because we can get an earmark, that maybe this is the year to say no. this is the year to push back from the table and say all those pet projects, all those earmarks are really not the right signal we need to send to the american people this year. so i thing my colleague from alabama and senator kyl who are cosponsors on this. i look forward to wide

bipartisan support. i look forward to enthusiastic applause tomorrow night in the president's state of the union when he lays out his freeze on spending. we're all on board now. let's make it happen. thank you, mr. president, and ie absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. mr. sessions: mr. president, i would ask the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: i would ask that senator judd gregg, who is former chairman of the budget committee and ranking member, be added as a cosponsor to this legislation. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: i thank my colleague, senator mccaskill, for fine remarks, and would note the be a -- note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. coburn: i understand we're in a quorum call? the presiding officer: that's correct. mr. coburn: i ask it be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. coburn: i ask that amendment numbered 3303 be called up. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from oklahoma, mr. coburn, proposes an amendment numbered 3303 to amendment numbered 3299. mr. coburn: i ask the reading of the amendment be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. coburn: mr. president, at this time i ask the amendment be divided in form which i now send to the desk.

the presiding officer: the

senator from oklahoma. mr. coburn: it's time division one of the amendment be made part of the pending amendment. the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. mrs. mccaskill: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma still has the floor.

the senator from oklahoma. mr. coburn: while the parliamentarian is doing the work that is necessary at this time, i thought i'd go on and spend a few minutes talking about this amendment in the interest of saving some time. we have a significant problem in front of us as a nation. we have before us an underlying bill that raises the debt that nobody in this room, save the pages will ever pay a penny towards reducing. nobody except the pages and

their generation will pay a penny towards reducing. and this request for increasing the debt limit of $1.9 trillion, i would remind my colleagues, is $200 billion more than the entire federal government spent in the year 1999, ten years ago. so in one fell swoop, in one year we're going to increase the debt by $200 billion more than what the entire federal government spent ten years ago. and the whole purpose behind this amendment is to -- a wake-up call to say, wait a minute, the congress in the last two years, under its leadership, has increased spending 11.4% in 2008 -- 2009, and 11.4% this

year, not counting a stimulus bill and not counting omnibus bills that were not paid for because they were declared an emergency. and if you add all that up, excluding the stimulus bill, we had a 28% increase in the size of the federal government in the last two years. just in the last two years. and at that rate the size of the federal government doubles over a five-year period. and what these amendments are designed to do is to get us doing what every american family is doing today, and that's starting to make some of the hard choices about where we have excess, where we have inefficiency, where we have duplication, and elump nate it. because -- and eliminate it. because we shouldn't ask the american people to take on more debt when we know we've got at least $387 billion worth of waste, fraud or duplication

every year in the federal government. and yet that's exactly what we're doing with the underlying bill, is we're taking on more debt and we're not doing anything about the excessive spending or the waste or the fraud or the duplication. so the whole purpose behind coming to the floor is to say can't we, in light of a 28% increase, cut 5% in terms of discretionary spending that we just jacked up five times that amount over the last two years -- can we not find 5% worth of waste? we've identified specifically 640 programs that are duplicative of one another in the federal government. we've identified waste. when we go to find out, when we ask the g.a.o. or the congressional research service, help us with this, you know what they tell us? we can't.

it's too big. we can't tell you where all the duplication is. that's our own research bodies cannot tell us where it's too big. so this amendment puts a stop to that. it mandates that we in the future every year will get a report from the g.a.o. on every program within the federal government that duplicates another program and what their recommendations are to streamline that or change it. the reason it's easy to borrow or easy to raise taxes is because we failed to do the hard work of eliminating the spending waste. we just had the senator from alabama wanting to put some caps on it. that's not going to pass. we know it. and the reason i divided this amendment is because my colleagues will take one segment of it and say i was for cutting 5% out of the federal budget,

but i just didn't agree with this one segment, whether it be education or somewhere else, that we shouldn't cut. and, therefore, i voted against the whole amendment. well, this puts the american people in the driver's seat as far as their senators are concerned. you're going to get to see whether they agree that we ought to continue to waste money, that we ought to steal it from these pages and their generation and not do the hard work of making a choice and putting things in terms of priority like every american family is doing. every american family is doing that right now. they don't have an unlimited credit card. they don't have the privilege of going to the bank when they're tapped out and saying just give me more money, like we're getting ready to do on extending the debt limit. the other thing that's in this is leading by example.

the senators increase their budget by 5.8% this year. we reverse that. most of us can easily live within the budget that we had last year. easily. so we reverse the increase for the senate back down to what it was last year. we shouldn't ask the rest of the, this government to make a sacrifice that, no, we're not willing to demonstrate by leading on the same issue. this bill can be the first step in a reality check of getting the congress back aligned with where the american people are as far as spending. just a year ago, in january of 2009, the national debt was $10.6 trillion.

today the national debt is $12.294 trillion. one year. 43 cents of every dollar we spent last year we borrowed, and we're going to do exactly that or worse this next year unless we wake up, unless we come to our senses. so it is time. you can have all the arguments you want, but nobody in america believes the federal government isn't wasteful. nobody believes it's good enough to just freeze a small portion of discretionary spending. what americans believe is we need to cut spending. we need to cut out the waste, cut out the duplication and cut out the fraud. we need efficiency where we can generate efficiency. we need to eliminate duplication where there's duplication.

my friend, president obama, when he was campaigning, he said "i promise to spend taxpayer money wisely and to eliminate wasteful redundancy." we're going to help him with that. that's what this amendment does. in 640 programs where there's duplication, we're going to allow an incentive to each department to get rid of that. we're not mandating that they have to get rid of it. we're saying, you should do the review. you should take this money, and you should eliminate the duplications. and what you need from us to do that, we will give you. but we are giving you the authority to do that with these amendments. let me quote from president obama: "too often federal departments take on functions or services that are already being done or could be done elsewhere within the federal government more effectively. the result is unnecessary redundancy and the inability of the federal government to benefit from economies of scale

and integrated streamlined operation." he's right. and so now we're going to give the senators a chance to support his statement and his position. nothing's been done in the last year to accomplish that. as a matter of fact, the president sent up here program after program after program that he wanted to get rid of. he said they're not effective. they don't work. they're duplicative and they're not efficient. what did we do? we didn't eliminate one of them. we just kept funding them. so we can't claim that the problems lie with the president. the problems don't lie with the president. the problems lie with the elected body of congress in not making the hard, difficult choices of putting a priority on what's most important and taking the time to do the oversight and explain to the american people why we ought to have the

programs consolidated. we may have a goal we want to accomplish and help the american people with, but we certainly ought to do it in the most effective and efficient manner that we can. the other reason to consider this amendment is to think about what's getting ready to happen to us. what is getting ready to happen to us over the next ten years, we're going to accrue another $9 trillion in debt if we don't start this, with this amendment today. we're going to accrue another $9 trillion. of that $9 trillion, $4.8 trillion of it is going to be interest. it's going to be interest costs on the debt. we're going to be borrowing money to pay the interest on the money that we borrow. it doesn't have to be that way. my colleagues will come down

here and say, well, the big problem is the entitlement program. and there's no question that's two-thirds of our problem. but the easy thing to fix now and saves billions, if not trillions, of dollars is the discretionary portion of the budget that we do have control over. and we always hear the excuse, well, that's not the big problem. the reason it's not the big problem is because politicians enamor themselves with people at home by spending money we don't have on things we don't need that are not truly a legitimate role of the federal government. the family budget's getting smaller and the federal government's getting bigger. and that's just exactly the the opposite of what ought to be happening in this country today. inflation is near zero, but yet we're increasing spending, like i said, 11.7% last year with

inflation. and that does not include the supplemental emergency spending and doesn't have any connection at all with the stimulus bill. that's what we did with the individual budgets across the federal government. so when i come down and make the case for cutting back 5% of that, which ends up being $120 billion, nobody should be opining that, my goodness, we're going to tear things up. we're going to hear that. we're going to hear all the reasons why we can thought do what i'm proposing to do. america isn't going to buy that anymore. they're not buying it anymore. and they shouldn't buy it. the other thing this amendment will do will give us 30 days to come back and assess other areas where we can cut more spending.

now people in this body think that's hard. it's not hard. let me give you an example of where we can save $80 billion a year in one program. $80 billion a year in one program. at a minimum, there is $100 billion of fraud in medicare a year. we don't have an effective strategy like any other organization outside of government to limit the defrauding that goes on in medicare. we pay and then we try to chase people who we shouldn't have paid. and senator lemieux from florida and others have multiple ideas on how we can take that $100 billion and over the next six months save $30 billion or $40 billion of that. that's $3

-- that's $30 billion over the next ten years. that cuts down to $9 trillion in additional debt that we're going to be encumbering upon our children. last year this country's debt grew 4 $4.2 billion a day. we didn't do anything about that except spend more money. and so this year it's going to accrue at $4.3 billion a day. how much we're going to spend that we don't have. isn't it time that we start acting and facing the situation as it is rather than the way we would like it to be? and the cold, hard facts are that we have a short time frame, four to five years at most, to get our house back in order.

now is the time to start. it's not next year. it's not next month. it's right now. right now when the american people may or may not be focused on the fact that we're going to authorize an additional $1.9 trillion of borrowing. those -- you can't even write that many zeros down and have a comprehension of how much it is. at the same time we don't d a ue' ad tdgeha seneyo h e h i n ever telling tt'msp t moneyhe kidsey lki o r twehe onl wayoull o forcascu arihe futnng t on undreblicatch h hwhat hpe the to igneblem andottangheake the r

ura b withere erdctldl ac e mad thi atreat heritasacrifi youno coouanto dl of they'll s,el, tpend d want tsolvehero. llthirst polvi s spdidallst dollown ifut 5 of spending,r $ ionomgf t fe gnmensctiy proamseca tttoerea esheam thind g it t fact ltoe s nyanju se exas: e rhea4 progr re wantunddegnedobroall,roit stunto ghatperso tedn.

che?ntyellthisat 13?y t t 'secauthat nod knew uile discedn j-t- feralybe diffentif easnt suas,buno 4and notghfentfw or g 6lycati whye terate tt?isno the te mehat wetoi trtause it t fe.etbut eyee 105 ewes,bsolely t.e datr there gno ograms?l govnment wheor ts glol amdmenake t

tls u wut erbo it. we meededa 't 1 needun daessien10 tesednc mr fact,ve wn weseams, ea ohehi ahediffer punrsta chesureeyheair share. onney if veeounlyatein it.masrehe and hey sey they t e en uett uedansbet ge i e'reo usng titut toouesshaicnc f manageudtye-e 200 -- tefundseem0 - $io7siing inlet of twa mary.werun oun'ave e the's et d. billiea wionaasil hes.may i iui ohoogra dlive rtos

ing offeres: s thus sndntscidedinfice y. becahee htonanimo agemimitinnieanndshi meare.

mr. baucus: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from mna. mr. baucus: i ask further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. baucus: mr. president, i ask consent that paula hurielesco be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the week. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. baucus: madam president, the senators from alabama and oklahoma have offered their amendment to the debt limit resolution, as these amendments address matters pr matters primr the jurisdiction of the judiciary committee, i'll tweer to the chairman of the appropriations dmeet address those amendments momentarily. in the meantime, on another matter, madam president,

i say i strongly support the nomination of chairman ben bernanke to his second term as chairman of the federal reserve. last august president obama announced his intention to renominate chairman bernanke for a second term. there is little debate our financial system has been through one of the most tumultuous times since the great depression. i strongly support president obama's decision to renominate ben bernanke and believe that he has the expertise to continue to lead this country under one of the worst economic downturns in history. chairman bernanke graduated summa cum laude from harvard university earning a bachelor tofs degree in economics. he continued to study it the massachusetts institute of technology. he then had the good sense to head to stanford, my alma mater, where he taught economics for several years at the graduate school of business. after heading back to princeton

university, he quickly rose through the academic ranks to become chairman of princeton's economic department. his groundbreaking economic work on the great depression helped increase our understanding of that calamity and prepared him well to tackle our recent financial disasters. he has a strong record of public service that included work as a visiting scholar at several federal reserve banks. in 2002, president george w. bush appointed him to serve on the board of governors. in 2005 president bush appointed him chairman of the president's council on economic advisors. in 2006 president bush appointed him chairman of the federal reserve. the senate confirmed his nomination by unanimous consent. after his appointment to three posts by president bush, ben bernanke was renominated as federal reserve chairman in 2009 by president obama. and i at this point, madam president, point out if

any senator has had problems with the reappointment with ben bernanke, when his term expired they should have conveyed those concerns to president obama, and conveyed them strongly if that was their view, so president obama would have an opportunity to appoint somebody else if that was his choice. it's my understanding that virtually no senator complained to president obama about the renomination of chairman bernanke. that is before the nomination was sent to the senate. in his nearly four years as federal reserve chairman ben bernanke has demonstrated he is worthy of enough term. facing the worst financial calamity in nearly 70 years and relying on key insight into origins of financial panics, he successfully worked with the previous and current administration to ensure the economy of the united states and the world survived the crisis of 2008. again, his tkeus certation was on the -- dissertation was on the great depression. this is a man who probably has a

good idea how to prevent that from occurring. a disaster is not -- averting disaster is not usually that wins you accolades, but there is no doubt that without chairman bernanke's leadership our economy would have been much worse off. time will tell how the history of this crisis is written, but economists and experts believe then and still today that the federal government should -- could not stand by and let the financial system collapse. liquidity in the markets evaporated. small businesses could not obtain the-day-to-day cash to buy inventory or make payroll. foreclosures increased to hundreds of thousands. americans across the country witnessed their retirement savings dwindling before their eyes. confidence in the system as a whole vanished. beginning in 2008 chairman bernanke began to take a series of steps to walk us back from the brink the disaster. the federal reserve cut interest rates early and aggressively in

an attempt to inject liquidity into the markets. i might point out, madam president, there are some who counseled the opposite action. that is those most concerned about inflation, that perhaps bernanke is going too far trying to inject liquidity back in the markets, but that's what he felt was necessary to get the economy back on track. the fed established lending facilities to provide access to funding. at the request of the department of treasury, established the term access backed loan facility or talf. at a time when conditions were changing daily and sometimes hourly, chairman bernanke did not hesitate to take bold and necessary steps to avoid total collapse of our economy. 20/20 hindsight would always reveal things could have been done differently. with aggressive and unprecedented action comes criticism and judgment.

without a doubt, the federal reserve system shares -- deserves a share of the blame for fostering the conditions. but as this crisis was systematic so too were its flaws. there are a lot of agencies that probably should be blamed or held accountable for some of their missteps or failure to see the crisis. one that comes to my mind is the securities and exchange commission. the securities and exchange commission either did not have jurisdiction or did not ask for jurisdiction or did not exercise jurisdiction over a lot of the nonbanks that were creating all these fancy derivatives and other instruments. i can name many of them. i think we all know who they are. and that was -- that is a lack of effort by the s.e.c., and the s.e.c., i think, was derelict in not being much more aggressive at that time. there's lots of areas where fingers could be pointed. one could be the congress,

madam president. where were the oversight committees at that time? what were they doing? i think, frankly, mistakes were made -- there were many of them beginning with the subprime mortgage crisis, securitizing loans and all the other instruments developed at that time and the very high leverage. a big mistake made before ben bernanke was head of the fed. anyway, 20/20 hao*eupbt sight will always -- hindsight will reveal things we could have done differently. the federal reserve deserves a share of the blame. other agencies deserve blame too. the main point being ben bernanke is at the helm. it is very important we do our level best to get confidence in our country and keeping chairman bernanke will help keep americans a little more confident. at least we're not changing in the middle of the game. it is more apparent than ever that we must pass strong and

comprehensive regulatory reform to properly regulate the banking system and assure consumers are protected. in his confirmation hearing, chairman bernanke stated such a crisis -- quote -- "must prompt financial institutions and regulators alike to undertake unsparing self-assessments of their past peformance." end quote. chairman bernanke is doing just that. the federal reserve has already undergone significant regulatory changes and he has committed to working with me and my colleagues in congress to put in place proper oversight and transparency to see that we are never again faced with the peril we have witnessed over the past two years. as ralph waldo emerson once said, "blame is safer than praise." i commend chairman bernanke and his team at the federal reserve for acting in a time of such uncertainty much there is still much that must be done to get our economy back on track and america back to work and i

believe that children bernanke and the federal reserve will continue their efforts to create more jobs, help middle-class families, and i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting chairman bernanke's nomination for his second term as he works to restore confidence and prosperity in our economy. madam president, i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: quorum call be:

quorum call:

mr. mccain: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from i a unanimous consent that further reading under the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: and i rise to speak in support of the coburn amendment to eliminate wasteful and duplicative spending. before my colleague from oklahoma leaves the floor, i

know he has to go, but i ask -- i pose a question for the senator from oklahoma. we have a listing in your amendment of the many duplicative programs. have we had a study that would indicate how many employees are -- numbers of employees, government employees are engaged in administering these duplicative programs? mr. coburn: no. to answer the senator's question, we don't know how many duplicative programs are out there. these are just the 640 we found looking over a four-week period. when we asked the g.a.o. or the congressional research service about this, what they say is the task is too big, that they don't even know if they can accomplish the task, which goes to the enormity of the problem that we face. i mentioned on the floor earlier, we have a markup

tomorrow in judiciary for a new program that's duplicative of an existing program, but those offering the amendment, the program don't even know it. it just shows you, we have to stop and reassess. and as you know, part of this amendment is creating the mandate that the g.a.o. has to advise us on them. mr. mccain: i do feel that at least we are to over time make an attempt to ascertain the numbers of employees that are in these duplicative government programs. it's really startling to, if the american people knew of the fact that there are so many duplicative efforts in different agencies of government trying to accomplish the same mission. and before i go much further, i'd like to mention i have the information that tomorrow night the president will propose a

spending freeze for discriminatory spending with the exception of defense, veterans affairs, and homeland security. i applaud that move on the part of the president. i think from the conclusions that i've reached so far, it would save some $15 billion next year and perhaps $200 billion over time. we're trying to ascertain exactly what that is. but i don't see how the president, at the same time that he is recommending a spending freeze that would save some $12 billion or $15 billion or $20 billion next year, at the same time proposing a stimulus package, another one that could be $80 billion or $100 billion.

that's not fiscal discipline. the house -- the other body passed, before we went out of session, a -- quote -- "jobs bill" that was somewhere around $100 billion, as i understand it. i understand the other side of the aisle, they're working on a package of about $80 billion. well, look, let's stop the spending now. let's stop the spending now. so, if wraoely want to be sincere about stopping the spending that is unnecessary and unneeded, then we certainly should discard the idea that we need another massive stimulus, particularly in light of the fact that by any estimation, including the prediction of the president's economic advisors that if we passed the last stimulus package, unemployment would be at 8%. so this proposal of a spending

freeze would have a lot more credibility with me if we said, and we're going to stop additional spending this year that would also just add to the burgeoning national debt. the coburn amendment is an important one. the coburn amendment is best appreciated by the fiscal situation in which we find ourselves. in recent editorial in "the hugh ton chronicle," i noted our spending excess, as most every american knows, increasingly led by foreign sources, led by china. nearly $800 billion of debt is held by the beijing government. so we will increase the debt limit, and who's going to buy that debt? apparently the chinese are buying a lot of it, since they

own, according to the houston chronicle, about $800 billion and foreign countries own about $3.5 trillion. on december 16 the "wall street journal" wrote, our view is there is good and bad public borrowing. in the 1980's federal deficits financed a military build-up that ended the cold war leading to a peace dividend in the 1990's of 3% of g.d.p. as well as tax cuts that ended the stagflation of the 1970's and began 25 years of prosperity. those were high-return investments. today's detect has financed what exactly? the tarp money did undergird the financial system for a time. it's now being repaid. but most of the rest has been spent on a political wish list of public programs ranging from unemployment insurance to wind turbines to tax credits for golf

carts. borrowing for such low-return purposes makes america lo poorer in the long run. so if we're increasing the debt limit and the chinese and other countries are going to buy that debt and we are spending money in the stimulus package that has shown very little return on massive $787 billion investment, then shouldn't we try dr. coburn's method here and support his amendment, which would basically prevent us from having to increase the debt limit? this amendment of dr. coburn's would rescind $120 billion in spending, 5% from each agency of government rather than the department of defense and veterans affairs, directing the agencies to consolidate more

than 650 duplicative government programs, rescind unobligated discretionary funds available for more than two scekive fiscal years. most -- two consecutive fiscal years. most americans would be astonished that still there are tax dollars that are signature out there that are not been appropriated for several years. directing g.a.o. to identify duplicative government programs and report the findings to congress, render the debt limit increase in the underlying bill null and void. that's $1.9 trillion. let's just look at a few of the duplicative federal programs that are out there. a 2004 report by a nonprofit research group listed 21 federal programs across multiple agencies, many at health and human services, that funded childhood obesity programs, either as the main focus or as

one component of the federal program. do we -- child obesity is a serious issue in america. do we need 21 separate programs to address the issue? wouldn't we be more efficient if we had a single program instead of spreading them out amongst different federal agencies? there are 14 programs administered by the u.s. department of education related to foreign exchanges and designed to increase opportunities for study abroad. 14 programs. according to a 2003 g.a.o. report, the federal government funds more than 44 job-training programs administered by nine different federal agencies across the federal bureaucracy, anat the cost of $30 billion. according to data from the catalog of federal domestic assistance, 14 departments within the federal government and 49 independent agencies

operate exchange and study abroad programs. a 2009 g.a.o. report found 69 early education programs administered by nine different agencies. there are over 30 federal programs that provide financial assistance to students to support postsecondary education and the cost to the taxpayers is over $30 billion every year. according to a may 2007 report of the academic competitiveness council, there are 105 federal programs supporting stem education with aggregate funding of $2.3 billion in 2006. you'll note that i'm not even talking about millions or hundreds of millions. we're talking about billions. but higher's one. there are at least 17 offender reentry programs across five different federal agencies,

costing the taxpayers over $250 million annually. a 2005 g.a.o. study found there are a total of 23 federal housing programs target or have special features for the elderly. 23 f 23 federal housing programs that target or have special features for the elderly. there are at least nine programs at the usda, tasked with researching and developing biofuels costing taxpayers nearly $300 million annually and over $800 million was included in the stimulus bill for these initiatives. the federal government oversees 15 different preservation programs costing taxpayers nearly $100 million annually. there are at least 28 federal programs totaling ove over $5 billion that support job training and employment. so here we are with an

outstanding public debt that's well over $12.3 trillion. the estimate for this year is the largest in history. the estimated population of the united states is over 307.6 million people. therefore, each u.s. citizen's share of this debt is approximately $140,000. that's $40,000 for every man, woman and child in this country. that is shameful. it is shameful spending that has laid this debt on future generations of americans. the greatness of america is based on the tradition that one generation has passed off to the next generation, a nations that better off than the one that they inherited. what kind of a nation are we

going to hand off to the next generation of americans with a debt to the chinese o of $800 billion. a debt in over $3.5 trillion held by foreigners and the debt goes on and on and on with no end in sight. why shouldn't we try dr. coburn's method here? why shouldn't we attempt to do something different rather than just raising the debt limit every time we spend so much that we have to raise it again? let's look at what we spent last year alone -- alone just last year. $787 billion on the so-called stimulus bill, which really amounts to $1.1 trillion if you calculate the interest. $700 billion in tarp to bail out the banks and other ailing financial institutions. $410 billion for the omnibus

appropriations bill. a package of nine appropriation bills rolled together which contained over 9,000 unrequested, unnecessary run of the mill pork barrel earmarks. $450 billion for the 2010 omnibus appropriations bill. this one was a package of six bills rolled together and contained 5,000 unrequested earmarks. so let's put them together. in two bills last year, one for 2009, the other for 2010 was at least 14,000 earmarks. 14,000 earmarks. the democratic leadership worked with the president to ram through a $3.5 trillion budget resolution. we have spent $83 billion to bail out the auto companies. and there is still a chance that

a -- $2.5 trillion health reform bill may be passed by the other side. overall domestic spending has increased by 14% over the last fiscal year. now inflation has been practically zero for all intents and purposes. but the spending has increased by 14%. don't we get it? don't we see what we're doing with future generations of americans? don't you see a debt for $40,100 for every man, woman, and child in america is unconscionable? so why don't we try dr. coburn's amendment before we willy-nilly increase the debt limit by another $1.4 trillion? why? why can't we at least make an effort? one thing i know about dr. coburn, he researches his information very carefully.

and he's shown us that we don't need to raise the debt limit and give us the green light to spend even more. we have before us an opportunity. we can turn things around today. we can pass this amendment and begin the hard work and make the tough decisions necessary to put us on the path to fiscal solvency and national prosperity. so here we are with a -- a bill before us to increase the debt limit, which would increase then the debt that every man, woman, and child in america has as we continue this almost unrestrained spending spree. well, i've said to my colleagues for a long time, and i think it was authenticated in massachusetts recently that the american people are mad. they're angry at the spending. they do not want to lay a huge debt on future generations of americans. they do not believe that there's

a shred of fiscal responsibility in the congress in the united states or the administration of the united states. and i will fairly note that this out-of-control spending was not invented with this administration. republicans, when they were in charge, let spending get completely out of control and we betrayed our fiscal base and we paid a heavy price for it. but we deserve to nay price. but now is the time to say stop. stop borrowing against our children and grandchildren's future. stop putting ourselves in a precarious situation where the chinese own so much of our national debt that they have their hand on the throttle of the american economy. and i hasten to add it is not in the chinese interest to hurt the american economy. but it certainly can't be in our interest in any way to be in that kind of fiscal jeopardy.

we cannot do that. not to mention the $3.5 trillion that's held by -- in our -- in our debt that's held by foreigners. so i ask my colleagues, let's look at dr. coburn's amendment. it's very thought out. it's well researched. and let's put the brakes on mortgaging of america's future.o mr. ensign: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from nevada. mr. ensign: mr. president, i ask to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. ensign: i had the benefit last week of attending two different hearings on an attempted terrorist attack that took place on christmas day. the first was in the homeland security committee and the second was in the commerce

committee. one thing became very clear, there's a definite disconnect in this administration about how to handle terrorists once they are captured. over this last weekend osama bin laden claimed responsibility for the foiled christmas day bomber terror attack and he has once again inserted himself into the national security dialogue in the united states. i fear that al qaeda will have another opportunity to attack the united states because of the fumbling of intelligence information that could have been gathered on the christmas day bomber before his attempted attack and subsequently from this terrorist after he was captured. but the administration clearly dropped the ball. we know that the director of national intelligence, dennis blair; f.b.i. director robert mueller; national

counterterrorism director, michael leiter, and the homeland security director, janet napolitano, were not -- were not consulted about the decision to read abdulmutallab his miranda rights. we know as soon as this terrorist was told of his right to remain silent, that's what he did. he stopped talking. it is unfathomable that these individuals were not even consulted before this hugely important decision was made. after the hearings conducted last week and interviews over the weekend, it appears that it was ultimately the attorney general who made the decision to read miranda and place abdulmutallab in the court system. there is ambiguity to show just how this decision came to be maismed were there any deliberations or meetings that occurred prior to this decision?

was the president brought into this discussion? all of these ambiguities need to be cleared up so that we do not make the same mistakes again. as a member of one of the committees charged with oversight of homeland security, i will be asking for a written response from the administration on this issue. additionally, because the heads of government agencies charged with making the decisions do not seem to be talking. i have joined with several of my senate colleagues to cosponsor legislation authored by senator collins and senator lieberman, the distinguished ranking member and chairman of the homeland security committee. this legislation would require the attorney general to consult with the director of national intelligence, the director of national counterterrorism center, the secretary of homeland security, and the secretary of defense prior to the initiation of giving any

terrorists miranda rights or the initiation of criminal civil charges against a foreign person detained by the u.s. government on suspicion of any terrorist activities. the legislation would also require in the event of a disagreement amongst these folks on whether such action should be initiated in a criminal -- civilian criminal court, that the attorney general not initiate such action unless specifically directed by the president of the united states. i ask my other senate colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this vital legislation. a second thing that we learned from last week's hearings was that there is confusion about when the high value interrogation group, or the h.i.g., should be convened to decide on whether to interrogate terrorists such as abdulmutallab, or to interview them with their lawyers present.

director of national intelligence, dennis blair, told the homeland security that and i quote -- "this unit was created exactly for this purpose, to make a decision on whether a certain person who's detained should be treated as a case for federal prosecution or for some other means. the intelligence chief said the interrogation group was created by the white house last year to handle overseas cases, but will not be expanded for domestic cases. he said, again, we did not invoke the h.i.g. in this case we should have, he added. subsequently we heard from the administration that this h.i.g. unit that he was talking about isn't even up and running yet. my question is: how does the individual who is in charge of our intelligence infrastructure not know the policy and procedures for interrogating

terrorists? based on the testimony given last week, it would seem that we do not have a fully integrated and comprehensive method for interrogating terrorists. whether they are captured abroad or here at home. the capture and subsequent handling of terrorists, abdulmutallab was bungled from the get-go. it continues to be bunningled. a week ago i signed a letter to president obama with a number of my colleagues indicating that the decision to prosecute this terrorist in civilian court has resulted in -- in a missed opportunity to collect timely intelligence. in order for the u.s. government to fully understand where we failed on christmas day, it is imperative that we exam the methods and means abdulmutallab used to avoid detection. as many of my colleagues have pointed out, our ability to

gather this information has been severely hampered by the decision to put this terrorist almost immediately into the civilian court system. he now has all the rights, protections, and privileges of american citizens. make no mistake about it, this decision to try abdulmuttalab, as a u.s. citizen, which he is not, of course, as composed to an enemy combatant will have an ability to learn more on this failed attack. taking it a step further, this decision may very well weaken our national security. last week the republican leader mentioned that a year ago the president immediately after taking office decided to revive the nation's interrogation policies an restrict the c.i.a.'s ability to question terrorists. this was done by executive order. while questioning the director of national intelligence, i

specifically -- specifically asked if the director felt that the classified interrogation methods used previously by our own government were more effective than the current methods found in the army field manual that is publicly available for the terrorists to train to? one statement that d.n.i., the director of national intelligence made, during the q&a portion of the hearing particularly caught my attention. in response to a question from senator burris regarding al qaeda's ability to exploit open-source intelligence, admiral blair stated this, and i'm quoting once again -- "the public discussion of the specifics of the defensive measures we take are making it that much easier for people to evade our defenses and to come in. i think they are just making the job of those who are working hard to try to defend us that much harder. it costs the taxpayer that much

more money, and i wish people would just shut the hell up." that's what he said. so if keeping our airport security measures a secret makes it harder for terrorists to evade them, shouldn't that same logic also hold that keeping some of our interrogation measures classified also makes it harder for the terrorists to beat those interrogation techniques? but this administration doesn't seem to be on the same page here. as i'm sure you can imagine, those who wish to do it harm can simply train to the methods that are publicized in this public document. by limiting our intelligence community to only those techniques in the army field manual, we have removed one important tool the intelligence community has to use against al qaeda, and that's the fear of the unknown. terrorists now know exactly what our interrogation methods and

limitations are, and based on the knowledge that they can train and prepare themselves to successfulfully resist -- to successfully resist our interrogation efforts. i'm also concerned that the administration may begin to bargain or propose a plea deal to this terrorist abdul mutallab in order to obtain additional information. i feel this would set a very dangerous precedent for would-be terrorists in order to potentially have their jail time reduced. it is my understanding that the policy of the united states is not to negotiate with terrorists. we should comprehensively and effectively interrogate terrorists to gain the information that we need, not to negotiate with them for it. the only true way to gather this information is through an extensive interrogation of the terrorists by highly trained

intelligence personnel. the definition of an extensive and comprehensive interrogation is not a 50-minute questioning while the terrorist is being prepped for surgery such as abdulmutallab underwent. extensive interrogations are conducted over a sustained amount of time with members of various government agencies included. they incorporate individuals from defense intelligence and have elements of uncertainty and surprise. this means that those conducting the interrogations are not limited to a set of interrogations which the terrorist has trained against. in short, a proper and extensive interrogation should not solely consist of the interrogation methods listed in the army field manual. we have in our custody an individual that has been trained by al qaeda. he has met with some of its most senior leaders and has not been

properly and comprehensively interrogated. how is this possible? he could give us information on the al qaeda command and control structure. it's possible he could give us information on funding mechanisms, ongoing operations, safehouses, personnel and leadership profiles, al qaeda's governmental connects in yemen and maybe other middle east nations, and what the enemy views as weaknesses in our airport security. what happens if, say, new information comes to light? say osama bin laden releases a new tape like he just did or if we intercept some communication coming out of yemen? as it stands now, we have lost the ability to interrogate abdulmutallab on those issues. over the weekend, we heard a preposterous statement from the president's spokesman when he said that the f.b.i. got all the information that they could get out of it.

that's a preposterous statement. i don't believe that would be the case and i don't believe most nevadans or americans believe it either. it is for these reasons why we must transfer umar farouk abdulmutallab to the military and remove the executive order restrictions on our intelligence community which require them to only use the army field manual when interrogating a terrorist. it is in the best interests of the security of the united states to do so. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from hawaii. a senator: i rise to speak in opposition to an amendment submitted by the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. inouye: mr. president, once again we find ourselves debating an amendment that at first blush sounds like a good thing.

but when members take the time to actually read the amendment and understand the programs it impacts, they'll discover that this amendment causes harm to our national and international security and to our economy. let me begin by discussing the last section of the amendment, section 16. section 16 of the coburn amendment is based on assumptions that reflect the lack of understanding about both what constitutes discretionary, unobligated balances, as well as about federal funding and oversight for certain critical procurement programs. the senator from oklahoma claims that $100 billion would be rescinded from an estimated

estimated $657 billion in unobligated balances. first, this amendment assumes a recession amount based on erroneous assumptions. specifically, the majority of the $657 billion in unobligated balances would not be eligible for rescission under the criteria outlined in the amendment because they are either mandatory funds or they are not older than two years. well, second, because of the small amount of unobligated funding eligible for recession, this amendment indiscriminately rescinds prior unobligated funding from certain critical programs, jeopardizing our national defense, our homeland security, our economy, and the

well-being of our citizens. for example, we require the department of defense to budget up front for all the costs required to precure military equipment such as ships or aircraft. mr. president, i think all of us are aware that it takes several years to complete construction. for shipbuilding specifically, funds provided to the department of defense are available for obligation for five years. rescinding unobligated funds would now require the naval -- navy to cancel contracts for ships under construction and lay off thousands of workers across the nation's shipyards. in terms of our veterans that have returned from war or have

fought bravely in past wars, section 16 also severely impacts the construction of new hospitals by the veterans administration. like defense procurement, the v.a. requests full funding for a construction project in the first year. as a result, the veterans administration has 43 active major construction projects at various stages of completion, totaling over $1.6 billion in unobligated balances. over 49,000 production jobs would be terminated with the loss of this funding, further delaying critical services to our brave men and women who have served us. rescinding unobligated balances in the department of homeland security would stop the construction of the coast guard

national security cutter and would rescind funding for the purchase of explosive detection systems. rescinding unobligated balances in the north would create a minimum six months gap in the coverage for the geostationary weather satellite system which focuses directly over the united states and constantly and accurately monitors storm conditions. over 200 employees would lose their jobs. the senator from oklahoma's reasoning for the amendment is a catch-22 for those of us on the appropriations committee with responsibility for overseeing our taxpayers' dollars. we are criticized for having funding that is unobligated for more than one year. well, mr. president, a ship is not built in a year.

a hospital is not built and equipped in a year. the next generation satellite is not built in one year. mr. president, the coburn amendment proposes to rescind an additional $20 billion for a program he perceives to be redundant. we can go around and around about what is redundant and what is not because one's perception of what is or is not a duplicate program is based on subjectivity. it's that simple, and this amendment reflects what the senator from oklahoma alone believes is redundant. but what is clear is that this amendment proposes to cut cut $20 billion in funding that the congress voted on and agreed to provide just months ago.

the impact of these cuts as significant -- has significant consequences for many critical services. for example, the senator's amendment proposes that the intent to consolidate duplicative programs serving the homeless. however, in reality, this language simply calls on the department of housing and urban development to implement a 5% reducks across the department's programs. the bulk of the funding increase recently provided by congress to h.u.d. covers the increasing costs of providing affordable housing to our nation's low-income citizens. according to h.u.d.'s annual homeless assessment report, on any given night, there are over 650,000 people who are homeless.

however, h.u.d. resources fund 183,000 beds. during this difficult economic time, it is not the time to cut housing for the nation's poorest individuals. this amendment also takes aim at nursing education programs, claiming that they are duplicative when, in fact, they are not. while there are several programs that promote nursing education, each of these programs addresses different needs in our nation's effort to address profound nursing shortage. we have a low repayment program to get nurses to rural areas, a program to incentivize nurses to teach, and a program to extanned nurse training and -- in egyptair trick care. the amendment instructs the

secretary of the interior to consolidate programs for dealing with the impacts of climate. in truth, each of the three agencies named by the senator deal with a different aspect of climate change, and each brings a special expertise to the problem. they're not duplicative, mr. president. they are complementary based on specific expertise. for the department of energy, the building technologies program is not a grant program to weatherize existing residential and commercial buildings in the same fashion as the weatherization program does for residential homes. there's a difference between a resident and a building. it is a research and development

program aimed at new technologies. there is simply not overlap or duplication in these programs.to rescind funding for the 2010 census. mr. president, any reduction in the constitutionally mandated 2010 census at this critical time would jeopardize the completion of a timely and accurate count, which is necessary, sir. the amendment proposes to cu cut $2.2 billion from critical department of homeland security programs. the attempted destruction last month of northwest flight 253 near detroit is our most recent reminder that terrorists continue to threaten our homeland and the security of all americans.

this amendment would reduce funding for the purchase of explosive detection equipment at the very time the department of secretary has asked us to address the need for further increases in airport security. in closing, the author of this amendment arbitrarily rescinds funding with no true justification much the resitionz of $100 billion -- rescissions of $100 billion from th the $650 billion in obligated balances, as we know, would wreak havoc. the rescission of $20 billion is based on the claim of redundancy in programs where no redundancy exists. mr. president, this is a bad amendment with bad consequences. it is time for members to act responsibly. we have a well-established

process for funding the federal government. it involves the budget committee that sets our allocations and involves the consideration and approval by the senate of every appropriations bill. it is not passed in the dark of night. and i can assure my colleagues in this chamber that the appropriation committee takes its responsibilities seriously and every agency budget is reviewed and oversight is provided throughout the year. each year the appropriations committee recommends a rescission of funds that are not needed. but those rescissions are based on detail oversight and understanding of the problems, not indiscriminate action. mr. president, this amendment is not based on careful review and

would harm many worthwhile programs and fails to meet the test of proper oversight. and so i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. mr. president, if i may, i'd like to speak on another amendment. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inouye: mr. president, i rise to speak in opposition to the amendment offered by the senator from alabama, senator sessions. mr. president, we are all concerned with the growth of the deficit and the need to control the debt of the united states. i support that goal as i imagine all of us in this chamber support the goal and none of us dispute the ultimate threat to our standard of living of our citizens posed by long-term deficit spending.

however, the amendment offered by the senator from alabama is not the appropriate way to attack the issue. issue -- issue for several reasons. as i understand the amendment, it would have the effect of freezing any increases in non-defense discretionary spending for the next five years. in addition the amendment would impose caps on emergency spending that could potentially cripple our ability to respond to emergencies such as hurricanes, earthquakes, or terrorist attacks. the amendment also contains unrealistic spending caps that would restrict funding need to support our forces in iraq and afganistan. now, let's start with the facts. for fiscal year 2010, the

government spent $2.9 trillion of which about $1.2 trillion was discretionary. and the remaining $1.7 trillion we declare as being mandatory. of the $1.2 trillion that was discretionary, approximatel approximately $526 billion, or less than half, was for non-defense purposes. therefore, this amendment attempts to reduce the deficit of the united states by con strange 18 -- constraining 18% of total government spending. mr. president, the goal is to reduce government spending. i'm unclear how constraining growth and just 18% of that spending will be at all effective. in addition, if we examine the

actual numbers involved here, it becomes even clearer and this amendment will not achieve its stated goal. from fiscal years 2006 to 2009, the federal debt was increased by approximately $4.4 trillion. and during that time the total increase in non-defense discretionary spending was approximately $93 billion as compared to $4.4 trillion. doing the math for the past four years, the increase in non-defense discretionary spending has accounted for 2% of the increase in our national debt. just 2%. and what do we get for this 2% savings? aside from the obvious challenge

of funding vital government programs without even an adjustment for inflation, we also put our country and our citizens at risk. mr. president, arbitrary spending caps would impede the delivery of resources needed to keep americans safe from terrorist attacks and violent crime. such subjective across the board restrictions would hinder our ability to protect our homeland and secure our borders. as more and more of our service men and women are returning from the battlefield, this measure would restrict our ability to provide our military personnel and veterans with medical care and support that they need. these are just a few examples of the damage that would be done to vital programs all for a projected savings of 2%.

and even more troubling, mr. president, this amendment would impose a roughly $10 billion annual cap on emergency spending. emergency spending is, by its very nature an definition, -- and definition, impossible to predict. to deliberately impede the government's ability to respond to natural disaster or major terrorist attack, i say, is deeply irresponsible. recent history clearly demonstrates the attempting to fix a set price to future emergencies. more than four years later the gulf coast is still recovering from destruction brought by katrina, hurricane katrina. over $100 billion in federal

resources have been needed to respond to this one disaster alone. we have all seen the horrible suffering that has resulted from the devastating earthquake in haiti. but if a city in california were to experience a -- what if a city in california were to experience a serious disaster? this reckless amendment could delay or block the timely resources needed for an appropriate federal response. the christmas eve airline bomber recently serves as a stark reminder of the grave threats that continue to face our nation. in the event of a major terrorist attack on our soil, the federal government must not be constrained by an emergency spending cap, mr. president. remarkably this amendment will

also restrict funding needed to support our men and women in uniform fighting overseas. based on earlier budget projections that no longer reflect fiscal reality, this amendment provides $130 billion for the current fiscal year an and $50 billion per year thereafter for overseas deployments and other contingencies. the president's recent decision to increase troop levels in afganistan will almost certainly require additional resources from congress. i find it very difficult to imagine that the senator from alabama genuinely believes tha that $50,000 will suffice to cover the cost of wars in iraq and afganistan. if this amendment were adopted,

the defense and overseas caps and statute, are we expecting congress to cut defense to prepare for these operations? that is what the amendment authorizes. spending restraints that would deny funding needed to support our troops are not fiscally prudent. mr. president, they are deeply irresponsible. and, finally, mr. president, i would remind my colleagues that we already have a 60-vote threshold to overcome points of order through appropriation bills. as we all know, 60 votes is not a minor hurdle to overcome. by increasing the threshold to 67 votes, we turn over decision making to a small portion of the senate.

and we should not let those who represent only one-third of this body exercise control over bona fide emergency spending. this country must face the challenge of reducing our deficit. we all agree to that. but we must do so in a meaningful and effective way. and, mr. president, i do not believe this amendment does either. and i urge my colleagues to join me in voting against the sessions amendment. mr. president, i yield the floor. and, mr. president -- a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. a senator: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to speak for 15 minutes as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: mr. president, there's a lot of times a lot of attention drawn to terrible

things that are going on around the world. we hear a lot about sudan. we hear about the zimbabwe and the president that's taken that country from the breadbasket of the world to one of the most impoverished nations around. but there's one area that nobody talks about, and i've been trying for quite some time to get attention drawn to this area. and we have a bill that is introduced by senator feingold and myself and others that is called the l.r.a. disarmament in northern uganda recovery act. now, essentially what this is, and i think -- it does one thing, it directs the administration to develop a regional strategy to apprehend a guy named joseph cony, he's the top l.r.a., that's the large resistance army commanders, throughout the -- and protect the civilians.

now the reason this is important. i've been dealing with this issue now for 10 years, or perhaps more. i've had occasion to spend time with the president of uganda and with the president from rwanda and the president from -- from the congo and others in that area. 25 years ago joseph cony, he's kind of a spiritual leader in that -- that eastern african area. he's a kerr rained person -- did your ranged person. he decided to start a thing some people have heard of. it's called the child's military or the children's army where he goes out and abducts little kids. for more than 20 years he's led this large resistance army and has done it primarily in the area north of -- enternorthern uganda -- northern uganda. i have been there several times, a place called gulu.

there are many kids who survived him and are up there now in hospitals. his way of doing things is to go into villages and abduct children, young children, teach them -- i'm talking about 11, 12, 13-year-old children -- teach them to be soldiers. ak-47's, the whole thing. then they have to go back to their villages. and murder their parents and all their siblings, their brothers and sisters. if they don't do that, they cut their ears off, cut their noses off, cut their lips off, as we can see right here. here are these young little guys. that little boy there is about 10 years old with an ak-47. the area, the tribes back in that part of africa, the hutus

and tutsis have been fighting forever. we are all familiar with the genocide that took place in rwanda and the millions of people who had lost their lives, the torturing that went on, the the -- the things that have happened that just are mind-boggling, and yet all the time that was happening, nobody really realized what was going on in that area. the millions of displaced people who have fled their homes over a period of time and have been in displacement camps, in the areas that i just described. the vast nation in the heart of africa, the d.r.c. -- the democratic republic of the congress owe -- has strived to recover this from lengthy civil wars. it goes back to many years ago, back when congo got its independence from king leopold, ii. i think anyone with an interest in africa at all should read a book. it's called "king leopold's

ghost." when you read this, you will find out what really happened, what the true story is of not just the congo but all of africa. but this area was in the congo. so the war started back in 1960, and then the most recent started in 1990. joseph kony will go into these areas where they have displaced these kids and all these people and he will capture the young people. we made an effort as we tracked him from one area to another just about six months ago to doma -- that's a fairly large city in east congo, and that's where he was last seen and he left before we got there, and as he went north up so ordered the sudan, there are 900 people he mutilated, most of them young people, on that route. now, you might ask the question, you know, why is it these countries aren't able to eradicate this person, to do something about him?

well, the problem with that is that a very fine president in uganda. the president of uganda used to be a warrior. i think there is a reluctance of the warriors who become kings or presidents of african nations to want to say we can't handle the security ourselves, we're going to have to depend on other countries, the united states or other countries to do it for us. and so they -- he has been somewhat resistant. the president of rwanda, he is one that i think everyone agrees is one of the greatest leaders in the history of africa, he is the one in the genocide of 1994 that wiped out most of his population, was able to go back in now. if you go down from the airport to the capital area of rwanda, you would think that you're in an american city. in fact, it's much cleaner than many american cities. he has done this and has been able to put this back up.

well, he also came from the bush as a warrior. again, he is -- as great a person as he is, and i say the same thing about the president of iew -- of uganda, there is a reluctance to admit they can't handle this probably themselves. and the president of congo. congo used to be called zaire. it's a gigantic area. we remember the stories of the explorers that went there and were able to get all the way across the congo, taking months and months to do so, many of them losing their lives. well, back when -- when the congo was having serious problems, president cabilla senior was there and he was actually killed and his son joe cabilla took the reins of the country. joe also had a military background. so you have three presidents.

they respect each other. they are not at war with each other. they all have one thing in common. they want to eradicate this monster called joseph kony. they have not been able to successfully get that done. so what we are doing with this is to recognize -- because you never hear anyone talking about it, that there is this serious problem that's taking place. we all want to do things to help people who are downtrodden and all that, but that is one that's gone over. finally, this bill would give everyone out there, throughout the world an understanding that this is now a united states priority and that we're going to do something finally to get rid of this joseph kony. you know, it's easy to say well, that's in another part of the world. until you get over there and you see, these -- these are kids. these are kids from 10-12 years old being forced to go and murder people in their own

millage. where they brutally torture these people and maim them for life. this is what this guy has been doing for 25 years. so we have an opportunity now to do something that we have never had the opportunity to do before. we have tried to introduce it. this bill is one that is taken out. it's out of the foreign relations committee now. it's sponsored primarily by senator feingold. i didn't support it at first because it does require about about $30 million to to $35 million. this that he had offset as money taken out of the air force. i didn't like that. i think this president will go down as the most antidefense, antimilitary president in history. we have punished the military enough, and i'm not going to take any more money out of that. so they agreed to pull that out in committee, so the funding now should come from usaid, from existing state department funds. we don't know that yet. we do know this will come to the floor. we want it to come to the floor.

there is a hold on it now. the hold is by my junior senator. i would hope that we're able to get this released. i think when you look and see how many years something like this has been going on, an unspeakable type of behavior that is not -- we don't know of anyplace else in the world, and it's a very small price to pay, a small effort to let us take the lead of other nations, and i can assure you other nations will follow. i have given talks in canada and some of the other problems we have with joseph kony. we need to have somebody come in and say if you can get together the presence of these countries of rwanda and uganda and congo and sudan and the sprawl african republic, those five countries, then we will come in if you will lead the way, and that's what we want to do. you know, there are so many things going on right now, we have people who when we have the

bill to send money to countries, primarily african countries. that bill is down here on the floor of the senate. it had been funded previously at at $15 billion. $15 billion. just six months ago, that bill was down here, and they raised it from $15 billion to to $50 billion. they for $35 billion. now, that's going to go to africa. very few controls on it. we don't know where the money is going to go. this is less than .001 of that amount to be able to defend these kids. there is a group that i ran up to in gulu in northern uganda. i wish i could remember their names. young people, young college kids that recognized this was going on. they went up there with camera crews. they took pictures. they were down here and they had rallied the support of literally thousands of college kids who

now have become familiar with these atrocities that are taking place. and i applaud them for doing it. they wonder why we can't do something. you know, if you can spend -- if you can increase for pet far funding for africa by $35 billion and you don't want to spend .0001 of that amount, $35 million to save these kids -- 30,000 kids over the years have been mutilated like this -- then there is something wrong with this country. so, mr. president, we're going to make every effort. senator feingold is one of the more liberal democrats. i'm one of the most conservative republicans. so this crosses all these concepts. i know my time has expired, but i only want to say, mr. president, that i want to do everything i can to get this legislation here. i'm going to ask our conservative friends to listen, to listen and do something that is right on this. i believe with 51 cosponsors that we have right now, we ought to be able to get it passed if we can get it to the floor. i thank you, and i yield the balance of my time. i note the absence of a quorum.

the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: