europeans and the others. it's easy to make a speech. it's harder to impose the sanctions, impose the assets and handle this and we handled this in a very effective way without any problems with our citizens. >> on the iranian nuclear program i would like to talk about that next here briefly. during the latest rounds of negotiations with the iranian regime in istanbul. the iranians were adamant in emphasizing their right to indigenous enrichment. a recent bipartisan letter from numerous senators reflects the overwhelming view of congress on this question. it's still, however, unclear what the administration's position on this issue is. the letter cited reports suggesting that the administration is open to an indigenous iranian enrichment capability albeit under certain conditions. the so-called einhorn plan, for example, would allow iran to maintain 4,000 centrifuges. you went -- you even went so far

as to suggest during an interview with the bbc that iran has a right to enrichment. article 4 of the nonproliferation treaty, the source of the iranian claim is not clear on this point. what is the administration's position on iran's claim that they have a right to an enrichment program on their soil? and does the administration believe that the current regime should be allowed to enrich or reprocess domestically? >> well, congressman, it has been our position that under very strict conditions, iran would sometime in the future having responded to the international community's concerns and irreversibly shut down its nuclear weapons program have a right under iaea inspection. i think that is the position of the international community along with the united states. >> thank you, madam secretary. thank you. mr. carnahan the ranking member on the subcommittee of oversights and investigation and the reason i interrupt is because we've got limited time

and everyone wants to ask a question. so i apologize, madam secretary. >> that's fine. >> thank you, madam chairman, and welcome secretary clinton. personally, for the work you do and on behalf of the people i represent in missouri, we really appreciate you really being one-person voice of america at a time when we really need it. so thank you. i wanted to submit two questions to you in writing. one, about our continued work. we had an oversight subcommittee last year. we heard from stewart bowen and we would like to get an update on the transition efforts in terms of reconstruction, how that process is going and also would like to get a written question in to you about the ongoing engagement with bosnia for constitutional reforms and the need for u.s. engagement with the e.u. but i'd like to focus my question really about the voices of democracy that are

really rising across the middle east, north africa and elsewhere and the need to reevaluate our public diplomacy tools. certainly, looking beyond our traditional state to state, diplomatic efforts but about citizen to citizen diplomacy, the cost-effectiveness of that. i was especially reminded of that this past week. i had a bipartisan town hall meeting with congresswoman emerson and a student came up to me who studied in cairo the previous year, was continuing to have contact with students there in cairo and how those kind of engagements are so critical in those countries. could you talk about that. >> well, i agree with that completely, congressman. if i could double or triple our student exchanges particularly into this region right now where we have more of our students going to cairo, to tunis, to

amman, to places where young people are voicing their desire for democracy and more people coming from those regions. we have tried to increase our international visitors program and specialized programs. but i'm a big believer in people to people diplomacy and i would like to say us do even more of that. >> and what about the use of new media? >> we are moving very rapidly on the use of new media. i have an extraordinary team of young people as you might expect who are leading the charge on this. and it has totally changed how we are communicating because, you know, twitter, facebook, they're in real time. and you can't overlook broadcasting and, frankly, i wish we were doing a better job in our broadcasting efforts. i've met with walter isaacson, who is the new chair of the broadcasting board of governors.

aljaengineers -- aljaeera. we should do a very effective job in communicating. still most of the people get their news and images from television and radio. we can't forget old mud media while we try to break new ground on new media. >> another hearing we had last year, we had ambassador at large talking about women's empowerment worldwide. i really have serious concerns about the recently passed c.r. the reinstatement of the global gag rule, the reductions in international family planning and global health assistance. as you mentioned, some of the programs that president george w. bush was so supportive of. could you talk about how this will impact women who are so vital to development -- how it

will impact those communities and, in fact, translate to our national and our economic security? >> well, thank you, congressman. this is very close to my heart. as you know, a woman dies from complications in childbirth every minute. about 529,000 each year. and we have made a lot of progress but we have a long way to go. and i'm worried that, you know, the house 2011 budget proposes more than a billion dollars in cuts to global health, what that means is 5 million children and family members will be denied treatment or preventive intervention on malaria. 3500 mothers and more than 40,000 children under 5 under which 16,000 are newborns will not get access to effective child survival interventions, pepfar will have to turn away 400,000 people who require life-saving treatment against hiv/aids. more than 16 million people will be denied treatment for debilitating tropical diseases. and children and family members

will be denied treatment for tuberculosis and we'll have 18.8 million fewer polio vaccinations and 26.3 fewer measles vaccinations. i woke up this morning and was listening on the news with some effort about a woman wandering around washington with measles. this is not what we fail to do for others. it's how it will come back and affect our own health here at home. >> thank you, mr. secretary. mr. fall of texas. >> i thank you, madam chairman, and welcome, madam secretary. i want to comment first about the demonstrations and the change of governments going on in the middle east and the mediterranean. and i think everybody is excited about that and i'm hopeful and not overly optimistic of the long-term history that they don't readily adapt to true liberty. the -- the one thing, though, that might be different is the

use of the internet. and that is a very positive and yet governments are very strong and that was the first thing they closed down there over there because the last thing governments want is information to get out. but a lot of people in this country have come to the conclusion that our policy overhaul has been inconsistent. that sometimes we support the bad guys and the bad guys become our enemies. for instance, you know, we worked with osama bin laden when he was fighting the soviets. we were allies with saddam hussein when he was fighting the iranians. we certainly propped up the shah of iran for 26 years and that bred resentment and hatred that ushered in an age that now you're dealing with because we have radicals, you know, in iran. so it goes on and on. but we now have propped up saudi arabia for a long time. sold them a lot of weapons and yet 15 of the saudis were part of the 9/11 disaster and even the 9/11 commission said that

our presence there had a lot to do with that that. but we keep supporting algeria, morocco, yemen and all these dictators and yet we pretend well, it looks like the dictator we might fall we're for a democracy and freedom and we're against these dictators. i don't think the people there understand. i don't think our people in this country quite understand either. you mention in your comments about libya that nothing should be taken off the table which is a little frighting when the administration talks about first attacks, and that scarce the daylights out of me when nothing is taken off the table and i dread the fact that we might be considered military. activity in libya -- i mean, we're flat out broke. we're in all these countries. the war is expanding. we're bombing in pakistan. we're dealing in yemen.

we really don't have total control of iraq and partial control of afghanistan. it goes on and on. but the question i have is, isn't there a limit to supporting these dictators? and i, of course, take a position which the least involvement the better and deal with people on different terms rather than saying, you know, we'll buy our friends. i think a friend bought is not a friend. i think a friend that is coerced by military power is not a friend and breeds resentment. but what would be wrong with swearing off support for and aid for all dictators? just think of what might happen in the middle east. if you did that -- i mean, here we've supported egypt. >> you can see the rest of the testimony by secretary of state clinton testifying before the house foreign affairs committee. it's available on our website at c-span.org. she's also appearing this morning before the senate foreign relations committee on

the fiscal year 2012 budget for foreign affairs. that's just getting underway this morning on capitol hill. you can see it on c-span3. the u.s. senate about to gavel in to start the day. first up morning business, speeches on any topic and they will speak for 90 minutes or so before getting to legislative work. at 11:00 this morning, lawmakers will vote on the short-term government spending bill approved by the house last night. that measure would fund the federal government for another two weeks and proposes about $4 billion in cuts. after that, more debate on a patent overhaul bill, antiamendments -- amendments are expected throughout the day. we go live on c-span2. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain:

lord god of the nations, your word declares: "righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people." may our lawmakers and the citizens of this great land strive to please you through right living and submission to your will. help us to flee from the dead-end path of transgression that leads to national ruin. enable us to turn from thought, words, and deeds that violate your precepts and commands.

lord, fill our senators with a hunger for holiness and a hatred of evil. enlarge their influence and use them for your glory. reinforce them by the constant assurance of your presence. we pray in your great name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in saying the pledge of allegiance. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication

to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c, march 2, 2011. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable kirsten e. gillibrand, a senator from the state of new york, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: daniel k. inouye, president pro tempore. reid madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: following any leader remarks, the senate will proceed to morning business until 11:00 a.m. today. during that period of time, senators would be permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. the republicans will control the first 30 minutes and the majority will control the next 30 minutes. the remaining time until 11:00 will be equally diswieded and controlled between the leaders or their designees. at 11:00, the senate will proceed to vote on passage of the two-week continuing resolution. following that matter, the senate will resume consideration

of the america invests act. votes are expected to occur throughout the day. madam president, we've worked for weeks now in moving forward on this funding measure for the country. the democrats have said for weeks now that we're committed to working with all sides to find a middle ground that helps us move forward and move forward a fiscally responsible budget for the rest of the year. yesterday the house acted and soon the senate will act as we will. our priorities are really twofold. one, keeping the country running so that essential services don't get interrupted, and certainly they should not be interrupted at a time when we can least afford t we have two more weeks to do this. we've heard today in the news, john mccain's chief economic advisor said the republicans are going to remain on the root that they've talked about doing, to eliminate 700,000 jobs in this struggling economy.

goldman sachs indicated a study that it would hurt the gross domestic product by up to 2%. that's devastating. so, our priorities are twofold. one, keeping the country running so essential services don't get interrupted at a time we can least afford them. and two,, equally important, we need to lay the groundwork with a budget that keeps what works and cut what doesn't. we have to begin to bring down the deficit without forfeiting our future. this hasn't been an easy process. we need to set aside partisan motivations and remember we work for the american people, not our political parties. thwe're going to keep working toward solution. this time around it may not include everything the democrats want or everything the republicans want but we need to have a compromise which will be part of an ongoing conversation,

just like our overarching priority when we budget that we must live within our means. this next step recognizes that we must do the best with what we have. today we'll also finish our -- or work toward finishing the patent reforum bill. it's called america investors, a dicialts a called america invests. a jobs bill. we have to finish this matter appeared this legislation is important in returning america's economy to a position of strength. as we speak, there are 750,000 patent applications that are stuck in the patent office because they don't have enough people to do the work. and it's true to democrats' agenda from day one creating jobs and ensuring america can compete in the 21st global economy. mr. president, i see my friend here on the floor from oklahoma. a couple of things that he's done in recent days have been extremely important. first of all, that the money that is collected in the patent

office should be used in the patent office. i also think that it's important that people recognize that we have an entity around here called the general accounting office, which is really the watchdog of congress. it's an important entity. it's available to both democrats and republicans. my friend from oklahoma wrote a letter, as he has the right to do, in a couple different areas finding where there was dumb indication of services. and they studied this and came back with what i think are some things we need to direct our attention to. duplication in different entities around here have become really untoward and so i commend and applaud my friend from oklahoma in helping us go dop this path that i think is going to be extremely important for us to work our way out of the problems that we have. i know, mr. president, that we have a lot of work to do, and

that's important that we do that work. we're going to ghet spending thing out of the way -- we're going to get this spending thing out of the way today. and then, as i've catted, we have a little over two weeks to work on a long-term basis. the president says he would like a longer period of time. i hope that the republicans -- y don't need a government shut down, i am know not referring to my friends here on the other side in the senate. i'm referring to the senate. we can avoid that shutdown and still recognize that there are costs that need to be cut from the government spending. it can't all come from our domestic discretio discretionarf the ledger. mr. president, i ask consent the senate proceed to calendar

number 15, s. res. 81. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 15, senate resolution 81, authorizing expenditures by committees of the senate and so forth. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: thank you, madam president. the presiding officer: the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. reid: i ask that th motion e laid on the table, any statements be placed in the record at the appropriate place a if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

mr. mcconnell:

madam president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i'd like to start this morning by acknowledging the progress that's been made this week. senator reid's prediction the senate will follow the house in approving a $4 billion cut in the current fiscal year is a small step, but it is indeed a step in the right direction. this is a long awaited acknowledgement by democrats in congress that we have a spending problem around here. it's hard to believe when we're spending $1.6 trillion more than we're taking in in a single year that it would take this long to cut a penny in spending. but it's progress nonetheless. it's also encourage to go hear the white house say yesterday they would be supportive of a four-week c.r. with $8 billion in cuts. it's encouraging that the white house and congressional democrats now agree that the status quo won't work, that the bills we pass must include spending reductions. beyond that, the g.a.o. report,

which senator coburn requested, we all saw yesterday makes it pretty clear to me at least that there are a lot of very obvious targets for additional cuts. i want to thank senator coburn for requesting the report, first of all. i don't think most americans are surprised to hear that washington is wasting so much money. i do think some people might be surprised at how rampant it is and, frankly, the sheer idiocy, the sheer eut kwros is i of -- idiocy of some of the waste we've been to rating. i can't imagine anyone voting against a bill that would return to taxpayers money on the duplicative programs. programs which abc put it are chewing up billions of dollars in funding every year. it would be an embarrassment and double indictment of congress to not act on this. the report is damning but comes

at a good time, right when we're looking to make cuts both parties can agree on, we learn that we've got a road map here. more than 100 programs dealing with surface transportation issues, 82 programs monitoring teacher quality, 80 programs for economic development, 47 programs for job training, 17 different programs for disaster preparedness. and here's my favorite: 56 programs to help people understand finances. how do you like that? 56 programs to help people understand finances. if that isn't the emblem of government waste, i don't know what is. we're going to be $1.6 trillion in the red this year alone. and not only do we think we're in a position to teach other people about financial literacy, we've got 56 overlapping programs to do it.

if we're to create the conditions for private-sector job growth in this country, this is a good place to start. we've got to stop spending money that we don't have on more government and calling that progress. democrats have tried that. they borrowed $3 trillion over the past two years to expand the size and scope of government. and what's it gotten them? three million more lost jobs. so we've made some progress this week, a very small step perhaps but one in the right direction. at the same time the white house took another step backwards this week by failing to fulfill another responsibility. according to the 2003 medicare modernization act, the president is required to submit a reform proposal for medicare if more than 45% of the program's finances are being drawn from

the government's general revenue fund instead of a fund specifically set aside for medicare for two years in a row. as of today, that's the situation. as of today, that's the situation. the president is supposed to have taken care of this, but he hasn't. putting on this responsibility -- he's punting on this responsibility just as he punted on other reforms in the ten-year budget plan he released last month. washington's unsustainable spending on entitlements like medicare, medicaid and social security must be addressed now. now. and we'll never be able to assure the stability and solvency of any them without presidential leadership. in this case that's not my opinion. the law actually requires it.

just one more word on the continuing resolution. once we've passed this stopgap spending measure, we'll be right back at it again two weeks from now unless we can reach an agreement on a long-term measure before then. the house has sent us a bill that will keep the government funded through the end of the year. at the moment that this next continuing resolution expires, we'll be nearly halfway through the fiscal year. the house bill contains a much-needed defense spending bill for the rest of the year, many important programs have been delayed and secretary gates has made clear that further delay will harm combat readiness. so there are many, many compelling reasons for us to reach agreement on a longer-term bill. madam president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will be in a period of morning business until

11:00 a.m. with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each, with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the republicans controlling the first 30 minutes, the majority controlling the next 30 minutes, and the remaining time until 11:00 a.m. equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the majority controlling the final half. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. coburn: i ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business up to 20 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. coburn: i'd also ask the chair to advise me when i've consumed 15 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. coburn: i thank the leader, the majority leader and minority leader both for their comments on this report. it's important for the american people to know. this is the first of three reports we're going to receive. this report just covers what the g.a.o. has looked at in the last four to five years. it truly only covers about a third of the federal government, and i'm talking discretionary programs, not mandatory programs

like social security, medicare and medicaid. and in here is at least 100 -- at least $100 billion in savings if we would do our job. we're going to have a large debate over the next two weeks of funding the government for the next six months of this fiscal year and what the funding's going to be like in the next year. if i was sitting at home, a regular american looking at us and having read this report, the question i'd ask is why is there going to be any debate at all? the g.a.o. has given us a road map. they've said here's where $100 billion -- those are my numbers, not theirs -- of savings that can come on an annualized basis on the first third of the discretionary side of the federal government. the discretionary programs of this government are 24% greater now than they were two years

ago. and the challenge that we face before us as a nation is if our greater -- is a far greater challenge than anything we've ever faced. that sounds like a gigantic overstatement. but when the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, who is head of all our military, reporting to our civilian officials, says the greatest threat to this count is our debt, we ought to wake up and pay attention to it. when the average american, 75% of the americans across this land want the size of the federal government and its spending reduced -- that's democrats, republicans and independents -- what is lacking today is the leadership to define the problem for the american people so that we can

come together as a nation and solve this greatest of all challenges before us. and let me spend a minute talking about what's going to happen if we don't solve it. you heard the minority leader, the senator from kentucky, talk about the $1.65 trillion deficit this year. today the united states is borrowing money on average across everything they borrow for about 2%. the historical average of which we borrow money is around 6%. we're going to add over the next two years, if we don't change things drastically -- and i'm talking drastically -- we're going to add another $3.5 trillion to the debt to bring us to almost $18 trillion worth of

debt. well, if you apply our historical interest rates to the debt, which we will be at in two or three years. there's no question about that. of 6% to $18 trillion, what you get is $1,080,000,000,000. we spent $170 billion this last year on interest, and we're going to take $1 trillion. what happens if that happens? what that means is there's no discretionary budget. that means there's no money for the military. there's no money for education. there's no money for all the programs other than medicare, medicaid and social security. that's the only thing that's left. and if that happens, our ability

to borrow money in the international market will markedly decline, and the likelihood is that interest rates will go even higher than our historical average of 6%. so the time to call us together, the time for shared sacrifice, not for sacrifice's sake, but that we can restore the hope of prosperity for our nation is now. it's not tomorrow. it's now. we're going to have a small bill on the floor that over the next two weeks will eliminate $4 billion by advancing terminations of programs that both president bush and president obama want to terminate and eliminate earmarks that are inappropriate. $4 billion over two weeks.

our interest costs today and what we're borrowing is $3 billion a day was what we're borrowing that we don't have. every day we go into the markets and borrow $3 billion. so over these two weeks -- 14 days, 14 days -- we're going to borrow $42 billion, and we're only going to save $4 billion. you see the magnitude of the problem? it's, we cannot continue to go in the direction we're going. and so the bill that the house sent us is a step in the right direction, but far less than what is needed based on the reality of what is in front of us. every dollar this government spends, we borrow 40 cents of

it. 40 cents. what do you think as a 20-year-old individual out there is going to see 20 years from now as a consequence of us going down the drain in terms of the interest costs and the debt? necessity is the mother of invention. we have a need now, as a nation -- not as republicans, democrats, or independents, as a nation to come together and make the decisions that will put us on a course that guarantees a future for our kids and our grandkids. and the easiest way i know right now to take some of the sting out of the parochialism and the

partisanship is for every member of this body and the house, that we become acutely aware of what this report says. the minority leader list add few of the programs, but let me go through. just, sitting at home or sitting in your office, think about if any of this makes sense. 82 separate teacher training programs run by the federal government. 82? 82 separate sets of bureaucracies, sets of federal employees? none of these teacher programs, by the way -- training programs have a metric on them to evaluate whether or not they're successful. so when we're not successful -- and i would question whether it's even a role for the federal government to be involved in teacher training; i can't find it in the constitution; thomas jefferson couldn't find it in the constitution; roosevelt

couldn't find it in the constitution; johnson couldn't find it in the constitution; all said so; we've quoted that state -- we have quotes that state that. yet we have 82 programs, none of which we know whether or not they're working? we have 47 job-training programs. 44 of which overlap one another, some to the degree of 100%, some to the degree of 60%. we spend $18 billion a year on it, a and not one of them has a measurement on whether or not it is effective. we have a great need in our country today to retrain people to available jobs. yet we don't have any idea whether these are working. and if you go out and try to figure out how to get through these programs, you need another government program to help you figure out how to get through them. we have 20 offices with programs

for homeless people. 20 different programs at the federal level -- again, if you read the constitution and the enumerated porks you find real difficulty -- and the enumerated powers, you find real difficulty determining whether that is a federal responsibility or a state. how about one that works, if in fact it is a responsibility of the federal government? we run 80 separate economic development programs, 80 of them. there's 80 different federal programs in four different cabinet agencies. we spend $6.5 billion a year and what the g.a.o. says, you can't say whether or not there's any economic development that is come out of the $6.5 billion. the department of transportation spends $58 billion on 100

separate programs run by five different agencies with 6,000 employees, with no idea of whether that's the most efficient or effective way to do it. because nobody has ever put a metric on it. we have 30 separate food programs on food safety run by 15 different federal agencies, and we just add a a whole bunch more -- added a whole bunch more with the last food safety bill, none of which had a metric on it, none of which perfected the idea. food safety in terms of interstate transfer -- transport is undoubtedly a federal responsibility. but how about an efficient and effective way to do that? how about one agency in the federal government that's responsible for food safety instead of 15.

we have 18 domestic food and nutrition programs. we spend $62.5 billion, 11 of which we have no idea whether or not they're performing effectively. the first question you might ask is how in the world did we get all these programs? we got all these programs because somebody saw a need and thought they would solve that need. and they did so without the benefit of one of the number-one obligations of congress, and that's to oversight the bureaucracy. we have all these complaints by those who favor the earmarking process that if we don't earmark it, then the federal agencies will spend the money. we will, they forget one little clue in terms of the power of congress. we have absolute power to oversight every branch of the

federal government in terms of their effectiveness and their efficiency. and yet we haven't done it. the congress hasn't done it. when it's run by republicans it wasn't done. when it's run by democrats, it's not done. it is not a partisan issue. it's absolute laziness on our part because it is far easier to write a new bill that solves the same problem that 80-some other programs do. and so consequently we answer the call, the humanitarian, passionate call to fix is but we've done it by treating symptoms rather than the disease. we have a real disease in our country today, and the disease is a cancer that will take away our freedom. and if you look back on history, all republics have fallen. the average age of a republic is

206 years. and how did they fail? what caused them to fail? if you read the history books and look at all of them, what you find is even though they might have been overrun by an enemy, the key factor that caused them to fail was fiscal every time. they lived beyond their means. look at what's happening to us in the world today. the scope of our power militarily is being limited by our economic power because we are extremely far in debt. when you go to the lead economists that look at our economy, car men rhine hart, what tell success that our debt right now, not what's coming this year but right now with the interest costs that we have today, is costing us 1% of g.d.p. we're only going to grow at about 3.5% this year which means

if we didn't have this derkts we'd be growing at 4.5%. that means a million more people would have great-paying jobs this year if we didn't have this debt. so there's a clarion call out there that's coming from america, not inside washington: fix the real problem. fix the real problem. as a physician, what i know is this: if i treat symptoms of a disease and not treat the real disease, what i do is ultimately make the disease much worse. i cover up the signs and symptoms of the disease, and the disease we have is the disease of not recognizing the very critical nature that you cannot never -- you never can live without your -- above and beyond your means without ultimately paying a greater price.

you know, the difference between the federal government and most of the state governments and every family is, when you've masmed out the credit card -- when you've maxed out the credit carksd it's maxed. you're not going to get another credit card to give you more. you're going to have to either start paying or you're going to default on it. the question comes, is will we honor our true commitments? will we make the hard decisions that are required to put us on a path for renewed prosperity? will we take real information which i've offered 70 amendments from this over the past six years which have been voted down, and will we now start paying attention because ultimately if we don't make decisions today that will control and set us on a path to

prosperity, we're going to be in a position where our debt holders will make our decisions for us. nays when liberty decline -- that's when liberty declines. that's when america exceptionalism dies. that's when our destiny is taken from our hand. it should not be that way. and so i would again call on the president to lead this nation, to define the problem, the very real threat to our freedom that is, and to come forward, pull us together, and let's solve this problem, with everybody recognizing -- everyone is going to sacrifice. but the sacrifice will create a future benefit that will be rewarded in the lives of our children and our grandchildren. madam president, i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. kirk: i ask consent to dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kirk: i seek recognition. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. scirk kirk thank you. i rise to support this -- mr. kirk: thank you. rise to support this continuing resolution. the senate is set to pass a short-term if i understanding bill while negotiations continue -- funding bill while negotiations continue on a longer-term funding bill for the rest of the year. the administration has presented with us a request also to fund the government next year, and is expected to ask for an increase in the federal debt ceiling. now, this legislation cuts about $4 billion.

but up against our annual deficit or the total debt, it is but a microdrop in the budget. the federal government is on track to spend about $3.7 trillion this fiscal year, while taking in only $2.2 trillion in revenue. if we compared this to a middle-class example it would be as if someone was spending $37,000 a year with an income of only $22,000. replace thousand for trillion, and you get a good idea of how fiscally irresponsible the federal government has become. we have a $14 trillion debt. and as we all know now, we are borrowing 40 cents of every dollar that we spend. clearly there is a growing danger in the country to tremendous debt and runaway spending. and it's this resolution that will help in a very small way put us on a better track.

i encourage us to use a multipronged approach as we move forward. we need to reverse the current spending trend of the congress. we need to address long-term obligations and put statutory back stops into place to make sure it will be very difficult for future congresses to do what past congresses have done. as a very new member of the senate appropriations committee, i'll be asking federal agencies to identify further programs and ways to reduce federal spending. the administration has been on the right track in several key areas. they have proposed to cut or terminate almost 150 discretionary programs that would save about $21 billion. and defense programs that would save about $25 billion. but that savings should be put to reducing our total need to borrow and not pumped back into additional spending by the

government. additionally, we need to incorporate what we just learned from the general accounting office about inefficient and due politic tip areas of the federal budget, g.a.o.'s consolidation and eliminating programs should be fully reviewed and in many cases implemented for next year's budget. secretary treasury geithner will ask the congress to increase the allowable federal debt a fourth time for the last two years. in my judgment, congress should say no unless such an increase is coupled with new and dramatic antispending reforms that would make any future additions to our debt nearly impossible. while defaulting on -- not an option. congress must tie future debt limit extension to reforms that produce much smaller and smarter government. as indiana's governor daniels has said, you will never know

how much government you won't miss. with that, madam president, i yield back and would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: i ask that the quorum call be vitiated.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sanders: madam president, we face as a nation some of the most difficult circumstances that this country has faced since the great depression. two of the major issues that we're facing is the collapse of the middle class and simultaneously while poverty increases and the middle class in this country disappears, we also find ourselves with a $14 trillion national debt and a $1.6 trillion deficit. and at this momentous moment in american history, the question arises as to how we in fact will deal with the deficit. will we deal with it in a way that is fair and just? or will we, at a time when the gap between the very, very wealthy and everybody else is growing wider, will we in fact try to balance the budget on the back, on the backs of the middle class, on the backs of the poor,

on the backs of the elderly, the sick, the children? that is the question that we have got to address right now. yes, the deficit is a serious problem. yes, we have got to go forward in deficit reduction. but, no, in the midst of a major recession, it is morally wrong and economically bad policy to balance the budget on the backs of those people who are already hurting. and, madam president, i find it interesting that some of the loudest voices who come before us every day talking about the serious problem of the deficit are precisely those people who have voted time after time after time to raise the deficit, raise the national debt, now they come forward and say, we have got to cut programs for the elderly, the poor, the children in order to balance the budget. i suppose it turns out that i and a few others are the real

deficit hawks here in the senate. when it came to the war in iraq, which will end up costing us some $3 trillion, i didn't hear a whole lot of discussion about how that war was going to be paid for. i voted against that war. when it came to giving huge tax breaks to the west yelt people in this -- to the wealthiest people in this curntion i didn't hear my republican friends say, oh, gee we can't do that because it is going to drive up the deficit. i voted against tax breaks for the wealthically. when it came to passing an unfunded $400 billion medicare part-d prescription drug program written by the insurance companies and the drug companies, didn't hear my republican friends say about how our kids and grandchildren are going to have to pay for that. i voted against that. and, madam president, you will recall that after the crooks on wall street drove this nation into a recession and they needed

a bailout from the american people, i didn't hear too many of my friends who voted for that bailout say, oh, we can't do that. it's unpaid for. it's going to drive up the deficit and the national debt. i didn't hear that. but now -- now suddenly we have people who have great concerns about the national debt and the deficit, and they intend to balance that budget on the backs of working people, the elderly, the sick, the poor, the children. and, among other things, which is incomprehensible to me, at a time when approximately 16% of our people today are truly unemployed, way above the official levels, official numbers, because the official numbers do not include those people who have given up looking for work, those people who are working pardon-time -- who are working part-time when they want

to work full-time -- the republicans come up with a deficit-reduction package which will cost us some 700,000 jobs. i don't know how or why in the middle of a severe recession when unemployment is so high you would come up with a proposal that costs 700,000 jobs. madam president, you well know that we do an abysmal job in this country in terms of taking care of our children. we have the highest rate of childhood poverty in the industrialized world. we have a totally inadequate early childhood education program in this country. head start, to the degree that it is funded adequately, does a good job. but in the midst of the crisis in early childhood education and child care, the republican proposal would cut head start -- head start, one of the most

important programs in america, giving low-income kids a chance to maybe get into school in the first grade, kindergarten on par with the other kids. thement to cut that program -- they want to cut flam by 20% from fiscal year 2010 depriving over 200,000 little kids the opportunity not only to receive early childhood education but health care benefits, nutrition benefits from this important program. mr. president, i worked very hard to expand community health centers in america because maybe -- maybe -- it is a bad idea that 45,000 americans are going to die this year because they don't goat a doctor. pick up the papers. all over america tens and tens of thousands of people are going to be thrown off of medicaid. what do you do if would you don't have medical insurance and you are 40 or 50 years of age and you get sick.

what do you do? yet the republican proposal would cut community health centers millions of dollars deny patients quality health care. in the midst of a major health care crisis when millions of people are uninsured, 50 million people uninsured, people being thrown off of medicaid, you don't shut down community health centers and deny them access to health care. madam president, in vermont -- and i'm sure in new york state -- young people are finding it very, very difficult to afford college education. they're coming out of college deemly in debt, in some cases they can't go to college. we are falling behind other countries in terms of the percentage of our young people graduating from college. yet the republican proposal would reduce by 17% the average pell grant and 9.4 million low-income college stiewrchtses would lose some or -- students

would lose some or all of their pell grants. at this moment in american history where we're involved in an internationally global economy, we have to invest more in education, more in higher education, not less. madam president, in the state of vermont, the community services block grant program provides vital service to low-income people who are in need of emergency food, emergency housing, emergency services. they do a great job. the republican proposal would cut community services block grant by $405 million, which would harm 20 million low-income people, including millions of seniors. lastly -- not lastly, there is a long list of these cuts which makes no sense to me at all, you about i wanted to mention a cut of $1.3 billion in the social security administration. our republican friends say, we will, we're not cutting social

security. but they are proposing a $1.3 billion cut for the social security administration, the people that administer the program. what does that mean? right now there is a significant delay. if you're looking for a disability benefits, huge delay. people calling my office all of the time: we can't find somebody to process our claims. and they would propose a $1.3 billion cut, which would delay social security benefits to about r5 00,000 -- 500,000 americans. madam president, the issue is pretty clear. the top 1% in america earns 23% of all income, more than the bottom 50%. the wealthiest people in this country over the last 20 years have seen a reduction -- a reduction -- in the rates -- the tax rates that they pay. and today at 16%, the wealthiest people in this country are

paying the lowest tax rates that the rich have paid in many, many decade. so this is not a complicated issue. the issue is, do you move forward to l bag the budget on the backs of people who are in social security, on the backs of little children who need head start, on the backs of people -- seniors in the state of vermont who depend upon heating assistance? do you balance the budget on the backs of the weak, the vulnecialg the elderly, or the poor -- the vulnerable, the elderly or the poor, or do you say when we have an increasing unequal distribution, do you ask the wealthy to start paying their fair share of taxes? the american people are pretty clear on this. they think it is wrong to balance the budget on those people who are already hurting in a recession. let us ask the people on top to start paying their fair share so that we can see some shared sacrifice in the midst of this recession. madam president, with that, i

yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. durbin: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: what is the pending business before the senate? the presiding officer: the senate is in morning business. mr. durbin: i ask consent to speak as if in morning business for a few moments. promise without objection. mr. durbin: in a -- the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: in a few minutes the senate will vote on a continuing resolution which funds our federal government in this case for two weeks. it is hard to believe we've reached that point in washington where we are going to fund our united states government two weeks at a time.

critics may look at us and say certainly the men and women who serve in the house and senate ought to be able to gather together to sit down like adults, democrats and republicans, and really plot the spending and budget for our government for at least the remaining seven months of this year. it doesn't seem like an unreasonable request, but instead we appear to be lurching from one month to two weeks and i don't know what's next. what's at issue here is how much money will be spent in the remainder of this year and whether or not we will follow the house lead in a bill known as h.r. 1, the house budget bill, which made $100 billion in cuts for the remainder of this year. now the senate has already made some $41 billion in cuts in an effort to use these spending cuts to reduce the deficit, but the house wants to move that to a higher level. i just returned this past week from a visit to my state when we

had a week of recess and went from one end of the state to the other to measure the house budget cuts and its impact on my state of illinois. and what i found is that in community after community, many of the cuts that were made by the house were not done in a thoughtful manner. i was a member of the deficit commission. i acknowledge that we have to deal with this deficit in a timely and serious way. i was one of the 11 who voted for the commission report, and i stand by the commission report at least in its goal to bring all of our spending on the table and to look at it seriously so that we bring this deficit down and don't saddle our children and grandchildren with this obligation to pay off our debt. but we took a measured, thoughtful approach and engaged all levels of government spending to reach our goal. the house took 14% of the federal budget, the so-called domestic discretionary section

and made all the cuts there. all of them. and as a result, they went too far. let me give you an example of how they went too far. my last visit was the argonne national laboratory outside of chicago. i had representatives from the fermi lab, a national accelerated laboratory in the same region. the resulting cuts from the house budget will reduce the amount of money available for those two key national laboratories by 20%. it sounds painful but not crippling, and yet it is because it is a cut that has to take place in seven months. in the argonne national laboratory, they will have to lay off one-third of their scientists and support staff and cut back their research by 40% to 50% for the remainder of this year. well, so what. what difference would it make? here's the difference rhode island now that argonne national -- right now that argonne national laboratory is

doing critical research and work in areas of innovation. where is the fastest computer in the world today? good old u.s. of a.; right? no. the fastest computer in the world today is in china. we are doing research to make sure that we develop the next-fastest computer. it isn't just bragging rights either. it's developing the technology that helps us develop our economy and develop our businesses and create jobs. part of this laboratory, the advanced photon source brings in pharmaceutical companies from all over the united states that test drugs that cure disease. they do it right there, argonne national laboratory. i asked the person from eli lilly what happens if they close down for the next six months. he said i don't know where we'll go. we may have to go overseas. where, i said. europe, he said or perhaps india or china. time and again there is a recurring theme here. whaoe back off of an -- when we back off an investment in

america, our competitors have an advantage and opportunity. that's why the house budget was shortsighted. to cut back in research and innovation. the day before i had gone to the northwestern university cancer care center, met with medical doctors and researchers who said the cuts in the house budget would force them to lay off medical researchers for the remainder of this year. is there anyone among us who has not had a moment in life when someone sick in your family needs help and you look for the best doctor, the best hospital and ask that question we all would ask: doctor, is there anything going on? is there a drug that we can turn to? is there some experimental opportunity here? the clinical trials that are part of the national institutes of health will be cut back by 20% during the remainder of this year. for the oncologist at southern illinois university school of medicine, he said i have hundreds of people suffering from cancer who are gravely ill,

and unfortunately, i can only put 80 of them in a clinical trial because of these budget cutbacks. senator, which ones should i turn away? that is why the decisions on cutting money should require more than just bragging rights of how much you cut. we should be thoughtful. we shouldn't cut education and training. that's tomorrow's workforce. the pell grants that are denied today stop children, young people, from low-income families from going to school, getting an education and being prepared for the workforce. the cutbacks in innovation, in research that we've sao*erpb here -- we've seen here with this house budget go too far. the idea that we cannot invest in basic infrastructure for america so our economy moves forward is so shortsighted. so today we are likely, by a strong bipartisan vote, to extend the budget of the united states government for two weeks.

in the meantime we have got to sit down and be honest, honest about reducing the deficit in a thoughtful way that doesn't cripple our economy, that doesn't kill basic research, that doesn't stop job training and education we need for the workforce of the 21st century. because i'll tell you this, if we don't think about it carefully, our competitors around the world, particularly the number-two economy in the world today -- china -- will have an opportunity for a toehold and an opportunity to move forward at the expense of american businesses and american workers. in this recession, with 15 million americans out of work, we cannot afford to make the wrong decision on our budget. we have to sit down and make the right decision. carefully cutting waste and inefficiency -- and there's plenty of it -- but not cutting the essential services of our government that will build our economy and give us a chance to succeed in the future. mark zandi has said h.r. 1, the

house budget, will literally kill 700,000 jobs in america, with 15 million americans out of work, is that the best congress can do? i don't think so. let's be thoughtful about what we're going to do. let's make sure that we get this economy moving forward in creating good-paying jobs for americans so we can walk into a store some day, pick up a product, flip it over and smile as we read made in the u.s.a. wouldn't that be a great thing to prepare for by spending the money, investing our resources today for the workforce and businesses of tomorrow. madam president, i yield the floor. before yielding, madam president, i have 12 unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate with the approval of the majority and minority leaders. and i ask consent these requests be agreed to and printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: madam president, i would ask unanimous consent to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection, the senator from new mexico. morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to the consideration of h.j. res. 44, which the clerk will report. the clerk: h.j. res. 44, making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2011 and for other purposes. mr. udall: madam president, i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will read the joint resolution for the third time. the clerk: h.j. res. 44, making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 201 and for other purposes. -- for fiscal year 2011 and for other purposes. the presiding officer: question is on pafnlgt joint resolution. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: anyone wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, on this vote the yeas are 91, the nays are nine. the joint resolution is passed. mr. leahy: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: move to reconsider. lay it on the table. the presiding officer: without objection. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of the s. 23, which the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 6, s. 23, a bill to amend title 35,

united states code to provide for patent reform. mr. leahy: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: madam president, i would be speaking on this, but i understood the senator from texas had a -- i guess not. so let me speak on it. yesterday we were finally able to make progress when the senate proceeded to a vote on the managers' amendment. the leahy-grassley-kyl amendment to the american invents act. it's a very important amendment. contributions from many senators from both sides of the aisle. i think it's a little bit frustrating to the public to watch. they saw us several hours of quorum calls and then have an amendment to pass 97-2. and i would hope that we might enduring the nation's business,

we might move with a little bit more speed, but i do thank those senators who support it. and having passed the leahy-grassley-kyl amendment, i believe it ensures our moving forward to -- madam president, i tried to get the senator from texas' attention before, but she was busy. were you -- mrs. hutchison: madam president -- the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mrs. hutchison: i was going to ask the senator if i could have about five minutes in morning business. the presiding officer: could the chamber suspend their conversations. mrs. hutchison: for the annual reading of the letter from william barrett travis from the alamo because this is texas independence day. mr. leahy: that's why i was trying to get the senator's attention earlier. without showing a disruption of my speech, i would yield for up

to five minutes and ask consent to yield up to five minutes to the senator from texas and then do -- have the floor be returned to he me. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. hutchison: thank you. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mrs. hutchison: i appreciate the chairman allowing me to do this. it is something that i have done every year since senator phil gramm retired. he read the letter from william barrett, texas. so we have a tradition every texas independence day of a texas senator reading the very moving speech from william barrett travis. today is the 175th anniversary of our independence from mexico. this past sunday, i had the honor of participating in the

175th anniversary of the texas declaration independence signing. it was a celebration that brought together almost all of the 59 signers descendants. thousands came to celebrate this pivotal event in texas' legacy of freedom and patriotism. my great, great grandfather was willing to sign the document that declared texas free from mexico. i am humbled to occupy the senate seat from texas that was first held by thomas jefferson husk, another signer of the texas declaration of independence. the 59 brave men did not just come in and sign a paper. they took great risks. they put their lives, their treasures and the lives of their families on the line to do this. and 175 years later sometimes you don't think of how hard it

was for them to declare this separation from mexico and know that there was going to be a war fought over it. because the mexican army was in san antonio at alamo getting ready to take the alamo from william barrett travis and the roughly 180 men who were there who were are trying to defend that fortress. the accounts of the revolution have been some of our most dramatic stories of patriotism in both texas and america. the sacrifice of william barrett travis, davey crockett, jim bowie and the others who died bravely defending the alamo against santa ana and the thousands of trained mexican troops. they were outnumbered by more than 10-1. for 13 days of glory, the alamo defenders bought critical time

for general same houston knowing that they would probably never leave the mission alive. the late senator john tower started reading the tradition of the account. and senator graham and now i have -- gramm and now i have continued that tradition. from within the walls of the alamo under siege from the mexican trained soldiers. fellow citizens and com compatr, i'm besieged by the mexicans from santa ana. i have had a continual bombardment and have not lost a man. the enemy has demanded surrender otherwise the gerison is to be put to the sword if the for the is taken. i have answered the demand with a cannon shot and our flag waves

proudly over the wall. i shall never surrender or retreat. then i call and you in the name of patriotism and everything dear in the name of american character to come to aid with all dispatch. the enemy is receiving reinforcement and will no doubt increase to 3,000 or 4,000 in four or five days. if this call is neglected, i'm determined to sustain myself as long as possible and die like a soldier who never forgets what is due his honor and that of his country. victory or death. william barrett travis, lieutenant colonel, commander. steadfast to the end, and toind the core, that is the essence of texas, madam president. and -- had colonel travis and his men not laid down their lives in the battle of the sal mow, the battle two months later

would never have been possible. texas freedom might not have been won. it is important that every generation of texan pause to remember the patriots of the texas revolution. each soldier who gave his life at alamo, the 59 men who met at washington on the brasses putting their lives on the line by signing the declaration of independence for texas became the heroes of the cause and the bravery of the women who gave up an easier life in the east to join the struggle to make texas the marvelous place that it is today. madam president, my great-great grandmother was one of those brave women. she took her four children in what was called the runaway scrape, trying to flee eastward from just where they lived to try to escape the advancing mexican army and the indian

raids that were happening all over east texas. my great-great grandmother lost all four of her living children during that sad and hard time for texas. but that wasn't the last chapter in the revolution. she came back, met my great-great grandfather who was signing the texas declaration of independence and had nine more children. so the women also were heroes and her heroens of this time. it is -- madam president, i would ask unanimous consent that my speech to the celebration this weekend be put as a part of the record following my speech today. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. hutchison: thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. mr. leahy: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: the

leahy-grassley-kyl amendment should be able to create jobs without spending a single dollar of taxpayer money. in fact, according to the congressional budget office enactment of the bill will save millions of dollars. these aren't bumper slogan ideas of saving money, these are actually doing the hard work necessary to save money. and i thank those senators who have stayed focused on our legislative effort who join in tabling nongermane amendments that had nothing to do with the american invents act. extraneous issues have nothing to do with reforming our out of date patent system so american innovators who can win our place in the future, we're at a time when china and europe and parts

of asia are moving ahead of us, we need the tools to keep up. we shouldn't waste time with a lot of sloganeering amendments that would stop the bill, would have nothing to do with the bill, might make some people feel good, but we'll be out of focus on make america good and making sure we can compete with the rest of the world. we shouldn't have amendments used to slow this bill's consideration package. and passage. if america's going to win the global economic competition, we need the improvements in the patent system this bill can bring. i continue to believe, as i said all week, we can finish the bill, we actually could finish -- could have finished it yesterday, because then all of the time wasted in quorum call, but i believe we can finish it today. show the american people the senate can function in a bipartisan manner. now, we haven't been as

efficient as i would have liked. and as the taxpayers would like us to be. but delay, forced into extended quorum calls rather than being allowed to consider relevant amendments of the bill, but we are on the brink of disposing the final amendments an passing this important legislation. we should be able to adopt the bennet amendment by voice vote or roll call, i would hope in the next few minutes and the kirk-pryor amendment regarding the creation of an ombudsman for patents relating to small businesses. i hope that we can adopt the menendez amendment on expediting patent for important areas of growth like energy and the environment as well. i'm prepared to agree to very short time agreements for additional debate, if needed, if a roll call is called for, i'll be happy to have those.

remaining issue for the senate to decide will be posed by an amendment that senator feinstein has filed to turn back the advancement toward a first vendor file system and i hope to dispose with that in the next half-hour or hour. i want to take a moment to talk about an important component of the american inventsz act. to first invent a file system. now now, this is strongly supported by the administration, by the managers of this package. the administration's statement of administration policy notes that the reform to a first inventor to file system simplifies the process of acquiring rights and describes as an essential provision to reduce legal costs, improve fairness and support u.s. innovators seeking to market their products and services in a global marketplace.

i agree. i also believe it should help small and independent inventors. this reform has broad support from a diverse set of interests across the patent community, from life science and high-tech companies to universities and independent inventors. and despite the very recent efforts -- and they were very recent. we have been working on this bill for years, but despite the very recent efforts of a vocal minority, there can be no doubt that there is wide-ranging support for a move to a first inventor to file patent system. a transition to first inventor to file is necessary to fulfill the promises of higher quality patents and increased certainty of the goals of the america invents act. this improvement is backed by broad-based groups such as the national association of manufacturers, the american

intellectual property law association, the intellectual property owners association, the american bar association, the association for competitive technology, the business software alliance and the coalition for 21st century patent reform, among others. all of them agree that transitions our outdated patent system to a first inventor to file system is a crucial component to modernizing our patent system. and i commend the assistant republican leader for his remarks yesterday strongly in favor of the first inventor to file provisions. it actually allows us to put america at the pinnacle of innovation by ensuring efficiency and certainty in the patent system.

transition necessary to better equip the patent and trademark office to work through its current backlog. you may wonder whether it's a crisis, that backlog that is 700,000 -- more than 700,000 unexamined patent applications. transition to first inventor to file system will benefit the patent community in several ways. it will simplify the patent application system, it will provide increased certainty to businesses that they can commercialize a patent that has been granted. first inventor to file a system will also reduce costs to patent applicants at the patent office. a first inventor to file system will increase the global competitiveness of american companies and american

inventors. but also the way we drafted this , this first inventor to file provision was done with careful attention to the needs of small inventors and universities, and for those reasons, among others, this transition is supported by the overwhelming majority of the patent community, american industry as well as the administration. experts of the patent and trademark office. now, we have -- i ask consent my full statement be placed in the record as though read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: we're ready to go forward on the bennet and

kirk-pryor amendments. i'm prepared to call them up for a vote in the next few minutes if we could get somebody on the floor.

mr. leahy: i understand there is a modification at the desk on the bennet amendment number 117. the presiding officer: without objection, the amendment is so modified. mr. leahy: i ask unanimous consent the senate resume consideration of the bennet amendment number 117 as modified , with the changes at the desk, and the kirk amendment number 123 en bloc. further, the amendments be agreed to en bloc, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no

intervening action or debate. mr. grassley: reserving the right to object, and i won't object, i want to say for -- as manager for my side of the aisle that we support this. we think that both of these amendments are -- are good amendments and that we ought to move forward, and i appreciate very much the majority working with us to accomplish this goal. i yield. mr. leahy: thank you. the presiding officer: is there an objection? without objection, so ordered. there may be others who are otherwise tied up lord knows where, but i wish they would take the time to drop by if they have amendments to go because senator grassley and i spent hours on the floor just waiting for people to bring up amendments yesterday. went through a number of quorum

calls. we're talking about it's going to be tremendous boost to business and inventors, those who are watching, wondering probably why we spent years giving this fire so much time that is being wasted here. i just want everybody to know the two of us are ready to vote. yesterday, we took hours of delay to vote on the leahy-grassley et al. amendment. it got -- passed 97-2. so i would urge senators who have amendments come here -- as the gospels say, many are called but few are chosen. it may be the same thing on some of the amendments, but ultimately, we will conclude with that before my voice is totally gone, unless the senator from iowa has something to say, i would put in a quorum.

mr. grassley: i'd like to speak. mr. leahy: i yield. mr. grassley: supporting what the chairman has just said, outside the fact that there might be one or two controversial nongermane amendments to this legislation, we have to look at the underlying product. the underlying product is very bipartisan. most economic interests within our country are supporting this patent reform legislation. everybody agrees that it's something that probably should have been passed in a congress ago, and i would join my democratic manager and the chairman of the committee in urging republicans on my side of the aisle that have either germane amendments or nongermane amendments to come to the floor and offer them so that the underlying piece of legislation can be passed and sent on to the house of representatives. i yield the floor and -- oh, i'm sorry. mr. leahy: madam president, i

also wish to associate myself with the distinguished senior senator from iowa. he has worked very hard on this. he has worked very hard to help us get to the floor. and with the enormous amount of time that has been spent by both sides of the aisle on this bill, the amount of time that has been spent working out problems, i wish we could complete it. i understand there are a couple of senators who may have amendments who are -- i'm not sure where they are, but i'm sure they will show up at some point. in the meantime, i will suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: